What do you think of when you hear “strategic partnership”? Do you envision Coke and a movie theater franchise? Or a mattress manufacturer and a chiropractor? Or even a spedometer design firm and the local traffic enforcement brigade?
Whatever the alliance, it’s easy to see how some complementary arrangements develop. The same holds true in social media marketing, but the lines are a bit blurred.
Does it make sense for ad agencies to partner with social media trainers? Perhaps. Especially if the agency is still developing its menu of services.
How about a restaurant and a social media marketing agency? Maybe if the agency has some traditional background as well.
And what about similarly skilled pro’s in this social media space? Would you want to form a collaborative with folks who are blessed with the same skills? Isn’t that the same as putting 12 dentists in the same medical building or Quizno’s, Subway and D’Angelo’s side by side in a strip mall?
Maybe not.
In this evolving space, people bring a lot to the table that’s beneath the surface. My friend Mike Langford could teach businesses how to use social media tools as well as my friend Gradon Tripp. They both know the tools and both have the same exposure. But Mike brings a financial services and investing utility belt to the table while Gradon puts design acumen on the table.
Who’s better to teach Fidelity? Maybe Mike.
Who’s better to teach IKEA? Maybe Gradon.
Then what about the fish in this bowl who don’t have a background? Those gurus who are only versed in the tools? Are they worth hiring?
It’s an interesting question. Unlike employers who were on a “hire any liberal arts graduate” kick a few years ago because they were looking for balance instead of tunnel-vision, the market has swayed the other way. The more quills in your quiver, the better poised you are to deliver value to any client.
If four of us know the tools equally well, but only one of us has experience in multiple other fields, who would you pick to do your work or conduct your training?
Isn’t it in a company’s best interest to take a harder look at the entire package they’re purchasing than to jump at the shiny new object?
Hey, I like the $1000/hour gigs as much as the next guy, but I’d be dishonest if I told you I knew the history of Fred Olmsted and his contributions to local and national open spaces. And I’d be doing everyone in this social media specialty a disservice if I still went forward and bungled a job that would have benefited from that knowledge.
Maybe it’s time for every guru to look around and ask what else they bring to the table before they jump at the chance to talk to anyone who will pay them to explain ‘the twitter’.
And maybe it is time for us to start collaborating and forming the partnerships that allow us to offer more robust services. The rising tide is bringing all boats higher, but that could change pretty quick if we don’t share some of the wealth.
Because if you go it alone and scare off enough companies with your incompetence or narrow skillset you make it hard on the rest of us.
I’m not worried about me, I’ve got a finance guy, some political people, a printer, designer, CFO and some CMOs and agency people in my camp. But wouldn’t it be great if everyone were happy?
What do you think? Should we just let the market decide by chewing up and spitting out the idiot gurus? Or is it time for the partnerships to begin?
I welcome your comments.
Keep reading!
interesting concept. but I see some devils lurking in the details. one of the coolest things about the social media community is a willingness to share knowledge. thus a gradon can call a mike for some quick advice in one of mike’s areas of expertise – and vice versa. however, this informal collaboration dies a quick death when the delicate balance of guid pro quo gets out of whack. nobody wants to do someone’s job for them if they’re not getting paid for it.
I believe what you propose in your article is similar to the general contractor model used in the construction business. one person takes responsibility for managing subcontractors – usually specialists whose work the gc cannot handle on his or her own. the client benefits from a single point of contact. the onus falls on the general contractor to know enough about the functional elements required for the project to develop an rfp that will let him pay his subcontractors and still leave some profit on the table.
one solution is for the lead consultant can go in with a team to develop the rfp together. the risk here is spooking the client. instead of one point of contact, there are now x faces, even if the engagement is being handled through the lead consultant.
I agree 100% with jeff’s main thesis. there are certainly clients out there who require more than expertise with the social media toolset. in fact, I would argue that just as social media is not a panacea for all marketing ills, it is essential that all those looking to sell themselves as social media consultants have more to offer than _just_ social media. in addition, anyone considering a project requiring knowledge beyond his/her own needs experience in the agency pricing model.
If I’m a financial services company and have my choice of two candidates to train my staff in a workshop on how to use something that can relate to finance but is not a financial tool in itself, I’d opt for the non-financial person to do it. In your scenario, Fidelity should hire Gradon and IKEA should hire Mike.
The reasoning is no different than why my father, an attorney, once told me that many law schools are more apt to accept an incoming freshman who had a bachelor’s degree in art history than one who studied pre-law. Why? Because the art history student would be more well-rounded and possess a greater acumen for the study of law and all it entailed than the pre-law student who would be predisposed for certain areas.
Focus more on strategy and less on partnerships. Each can include the other but it’s a fallacy to assume there is a bridge.