I think twitter is a great way to communicate with your audience. With twitter, retailers can post contests as well as deals. As you've already said, Twitter has worked well in sales for several companies. Twitter can be very useful to retailers if it is used in the right way.

This is a frank reassessment of our social media mantras, Arik -- one that I'm hearing more and more, but still don't hear enough.

Yes, social media (and let's face it...we're talking about Twitter and Facebook 90% of the time) CAN be about sales. As it should.

There are only two ways for companies to increase profits: reduce costs or increase income.

So much of the commentary about social media is about avoiding costs by funneling customer service through social media, or by minimizing costly damage control by "engaging" customers before they grab their pitchforks.

Even when the revenue side is discussed, it's in the fuzzy context of "creating positive brand sentiment" or "mobilizing brand enthusiasts," neither of which can be scanned at the register in the checkout lane.

"Engaging" and "listening" are the feel-good pipe dreams of the early adopter crowd. We get so wrapped up in our "revolution" that we lose perspective. Those who declared that business would be different invented these arenas to escape commercialism, but commerce is beginning to follow, as it was always destined to. And when it arrives in full force, the proven effective tactics of marketing will arrive, too.

Direct sales will occur on Twitter. In many cases, it will succeed. And in some cases, it will irritate those who prefer a kumbaya, all-engagement-no-selling, commerce-free ecosystem. And when it does, they'll leave and invent something else.

The rest of us will be here conducting business.

I agree Arik. To me, Twitter is about conversation, but it is also about adding value, which means different things to different people. Social media is still evolving. The way companies are using it is still evolving. As this goes on, I continue learning and growing.

Twitter can be what you make it with your "declared intent".. too many companies do not even know where to go with that statement, and should spend time working the 2 ears, 1 mouth approach until they can come up with one....

Great points Arik. I agree that it's not -just- an engagement tool. It really depends on the client, their business and what their goal is, and using that information to determine how they behave and interact with the public.

I really do see the importance and benefits of two way communication no matter what the business/goal is, though. I think we all do. I wrote a post awhile ago about not necessarily listening to those who preached engagement and nothing more, because I think each company/person/organization/whatever is unique and because of that, they need to determine what would work best for their unique needs. It never hurts to try something new... well, sometimes it does hurt, but I think it's generally good. :)

Exactly what I was saying Arik. For example I man the @vistaprint account where there is never a hard sell, but we also offer @vistaprintdeals which offers a deal a day.

Arik,
Great thoughts you brought up on your post. I think the social media strategy must align with the organization's goals and that those will differ depending on the type of organization and the stated purpose. The beauty of Twitter is that as a tool, it's broad enough to handle different purposes - in answer to your question.

As to Target, I don't think they clearly communicated their purpose, and for me, it caused confusion and then disappointment at the outset, as I thought they would engage ala Southwest Airlines. I have a lot of respect (and loyalty!) for the Target brand and was disappointed that they entered the social media sphere with a marketing focus that appears to be more push than engagement.

Arik,

I think that Twitter has always been both a sales tool and an engagement tool. I don't really see anything wrong with it.

Here is the thing about Twitter. If you don't like someone's tweets, you just unfollow them. It's as simple as that.

I am interested in what Target is selling. I don't even care if they aren't engaging me. Therefore I will continue following them.

In the end, it's all about getting your money's worth from being on Twitter.

Jeff: That's an interesting point. So, by that logic, you're saying perhaps Target should have a "TargetSales" or "TargetDeals" account in which they only tweet sales. Then, reserve a separate, more "corporate" account? Kinda what Dell does, really (see Rebecca's comment below).

Justin: I used DellOutlet and the CDC as examples because they both focus on one-way conversations. And, they both work for different reasons. I think many organizations are being more thoughtful about what they do socially and how they align their efforts with their business needs. I think that's more the key than the ROI conversation, but they're pretty similar, actually. And, I don't think of you as a purist, Justin. I think of you as a social media strategist.

Rebecca: I think you're echoing Jeff's comments above. And they're all around customer expectations. And yes, I know all about the other Dell accounts. I think that's what makes Dell so smart. They're very thoughtful and strategic about how they use Twitter. And it all depends on their business goals.

@arikhanson

This is a great conversation provoker and everyone here has made great points. I think it's important to add that in additional to @delloutlet, dell has a slew of other accounts enthusiasts can follow and some are more engagement based. Full list: http://www.dell.com/twitter. While they are making money with one, they are also building community and their brand with others like @digital_nomads.

For some using Twitter as a news stream just pushing information out makes sense - newspapers, etc. Most of this can happen through RSS integration anyway so it's virtually effortless and gives the reader the option of receiving news how they want. I for one thought @amazondeals did a great job on CyberMonday with Lightning Deals which allowed me to purchase Call of Duty 4 for my hubby's stocking at just $29. Score!

So, to answer your question - no, Twitter is not just an engagement tool. It's a platform that you can utilize in many different ways and smart marketers will find ways to focus on what makes the most sense for their company or client. The key - ensure people understand when they follow you what they're signing up for so that they aren't disappointed in just receiving special offers - they already expect it.

Great thoughts, Arik. I think the answer to this question has changed -- Jason Falls asked a similar question in his post last week titled "Social media purists won't last."

http://www.socialmediaexplorer.com/2009/11/23/why-social-media-purists-wont-last/

Companies have to make money when they use social media. And one could argue they do via conversation, engagement and support for the community. But that's usually a long-term ROI that is nearly impossible to measure. For instance, I go out of my way to fly Southwest Airlines even if it costs a bit more because I think they do business the right way and I like the people I've met there. That's a fact...but how does Southwest know and measure that? The time it would take to track would be astronomical.

Therefore, what companies like Dell and Target are doing is creating measurable ROI in the short-term. It works well for Dell -- and sounds like for Target from your POV -- because they also join the conversation. They earn enough goodwill to push a few discounts and deals. And I know I'll PO some purists with this idea -- but conversation is a type of selling in a social media world.

I think the CDC is a different case all together. They're a health org providing valuable (potentially life improving or saving info). Neither Target, Dell, nor any other company provide that. So CDC is almost an anomaly.

Agree? Do you think we're starting to see an overall transition, with corporations especially, toward having to show that initial bottom-line value when engaging in social media? Doesn't seem like engagement alone is sustaining, does it? And that's coming from someone who would still call himself a social media purist :).

Justin@JGoldsborough

Really great point/question Arik. I think Twitter is an avenue to communicate with your audience. Your needs and your audience needs are going to be different in every case.

If customers don't really want to engage with Target, but want instant info on the latest deal that will send them jumping in their cars to their local store, so be it.

The key is to figure out what your audience (whether is be customers, partners or other) needs and wants from you. Your Twitter interaction (and overall SM strategy) should build from there.

Arik - Great post. Looking at the numbers, it would be hard to argue with a company like Dell, but I will in a sense. Twitter by nature is a communication tool, which as we know is always infiltrated by sales (see email). However, unlike previous mediums, companies can succeed in using the tool on a number of levels like CRM, PR, Sales and community building.

The one thing that they need to do is to be upfront and honest with their intentions. For instance the Dell outlet works because they don't try to interact like a CRM agent, but rather a quick typing salesman. The page is noted to be a deals site. The same holds true with Comcastcares, they don't try to hard sell, but will hook you up with a sales person if you are looking for a deal.

Mixing the two muddies the water and would be similar to Macy's writing up a press release to plug a big sale.

I agree that the tool can be used to buoy quick sales, but doing so, you'll need to leverage a new Twitter account that is similar but different to the main company account.

I agree! It should be all about what works. I don't think it is fair to expect major corporations like Target and others to successfully engage with its entire audience via Twitter. There's nothing wrong with mixing it up as long as it works.

Consumers are able to select the information they want and don't want better on Twitter than on any other medium, making it easier for companies to meet the demands of those consumers. It's not like sending out mass e-mails about sales and promotions to random lists of people, half of who want nothing to do with you. If the people want sales, then why not give them sales?

This reminds me of a conversation I had with LAF a while back about her post on what discipline should lead SM. I think we determined then that there is no one perfect person and that it always depends on what the purpose is. (I think I even mentioned that Twitter could have multiple uses) Glad to know I'm not the only one thinking it!

@ColinJP