Insight is king, even in social media
Posted in Digital, Research, Social Media on 16. Aug, 2010
[Originally written for and published on The Headstream Blog]
Here’s a question: is there any other channel where a sound working knowledge of the tools involved can compensate for a poor understanding of the audience?
I’m not entirely sure what it takes to be labeled a social media ‘guru’, ‘expert’, or ‘ninja’ these days; but I’m willing to bet that the ability to develop an informed understanding of a brand’s audience doesn’t feature on the checklist (There isn’t a checklist, is there? I’m not ruling it out, but it would definitely be written by a guru!).
This imbalance is a problem, on a number of fronts.
Ninjas aside, it is increasingly concerning to hear that in some commercial environments it seems that as long as someone can display that they ‘get’ social media, then that is considered a good enough foundation to be developing social media strategies for brands – and worse, to take a view on what kind of content is going to be compelling to its audience.
As such I can sense a touch of arrogance creeping into our industry, and a self propelled crystal ball-ish feel surrounding what social media people do. The result: Strategies and campaigns are less consumer centric than in other channels. The answer: Insight, insight, insight. Every strategy and campaign should be grounded in as much relevant consumer research as one can get their hands on.
An example of a campaign that seemingly underestimated the importance of insight is Motrin’s ‘Mom Babywearing’ campaign. In case you missed it, a Web video ad for the painkiller (Motrin), a Johnson & Johnson owned brand, was pushed out via YouTube targeted at mothers and talking about the physical pain involved with carrying an infant in a sling. Watch it here.
The clear intention was to speak empathetically to moms, strengthening the bond between the target audience and the brand by demonstrating that the folks at Motrin understand the challenges of being a mother. Unfortunately, however, they only managed alienate much of their audience and had to deal with some very offended moms, who felt like they had been blatantly insulted for “wearing their babies”. A flood of angry blog posts and tweets followed. While I’m sure no offence was intended, they definitely hit the wrong nerve of their target audience with this one. Undoubtedly, this is a mistake that could have been avoided by paying a bit more attention to the consumer during the planning stage.
Attempting to communicate and engage with any audience without an informed understanding of their habits, preferences, desires, and above all – what is important to them, and what isn’t – is a waste of time, money, and good ideas.
A simple message, but a vitally important one. Insight is king, even in social media.

It’s interesting that you see people as thinking “getting” social media as being sufficient to develop strategy led campaigns. I actually see it slightly differently, “getting” social media is the bare minimum for developing strategy led campaigns.
Obviously insight is required to ground a strategy in relevance, but can being active in social media not be seen as research? As a way of getting insight? A base level of insight than anyone attempting to develop strategies using social media NEEDS to have? I for one am happy that people are slowly beginning to recognise this because for a long time people have been undertaking social media led campaigns without “getting” it.
Sure more is needed. Specific details about the audience, their motivations and behaviour are essential, but as you put it “Every strategy and campaign should be grounded in as much relevant consumer research as one can get their hands on” – “getting” social media is a fundamental part of that research.
Thanks for your comment, Mike. I agree with you.
I wasn’t suggesting that insight should or can replace the benefit of being active in social media. I’m saying that strategy led campaigns need both. That’s all. “Getting” social media doesn’t always mean one “gets” the audience.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear on this.
Thanks, Rich