There have been some good discussions on the Social Media Club Seattle LinkedIn Group recently.
My response to a “who owns social media” question was a bit longish and self-contained, so I thought I’d share it here:
Social Media should be treated as just another marketing channel. Each channel has it’s rules, it’s purpose, it’s strengths and weaknesses. Social Media is good at shaping opinion, so it seems like it should be part of PR.
But doing so is a mistake because it restricts messaging and it can lose its authenticitity. What about the voice of the other constituencies in the organization? What about promotions? PR can’t and shouldn’t try to manage the voice of every facet of an organization.
Should Marketing own it? Social Media channels are contact points that impact an organization’s (or individual’s) brand, after all. I say “no” for the same reasons. An organization isn’t simply made up of the peeps in Marketing and PR.
Social Media needs to owned, directed and managed by an integrated team of people that represent the organization as a whole. If you’d like to see an organization that “gets it,” take a look at the Verity Credit Union Blog, and check out the list of writers on the right.
Oh, they are pretty good at it — the Verity blog was the first credit union blog ever.
So, who do you think owns social media?