Do consultant/agency social footprints matter to clients?

Fri, Jan 11, 2013

Other

Interesting discussion with a friend the other day who’s been a long-time agency pro, but is now on the client side. The topic? Do consultants need a significant social footprint to get hired and do great work on behalf of clients?

Footprint

In other words, do you need 500+ connections on LinkedIn, 4,000 followers on Twitter and 500 followers on Instagram to be an effective social counselor?

Forget about the numbers for a moment. We all get hung up on the numbers. Answer this: Does the social footprint matter to clients when making vendor hiring decisions? If you’re on the client side, do you even look at it when researching your social firms/consultants?

It’s an interesting topic of discussion. One that’s been bandied about for a number of years. But, since the industry has evolved the last few years and SO many people have entered the “social” industry, here’s where I stand on this topic:

Footprint matters

Like it or not, social footprints should matter to clients. Not so much the numbers. I don’t think there’s a big difference between someone with 500 Twitter followers and someone with 5,000. But, the big picture? Yes. What does their LinkedIn profile look like? How complete is it? Who else are they connected to? How do they show up in a simple Google search? How do they even use Twitter? Are they using other niche networks? Are they a blogger? What does their thinking look like there? The footprint shouldn’t be the end-all-be-all, but it should be a factor in your decision to work with the agency/consultant. Why? Because the footprint is a signal. A signal that tells you this consultant knows what they’re doing–and that they’re going to apply that knowledge and those ideas to your business. How else can you figure that out? The agency can show you case studies. But, how do you know the specific team you’ll be working with worked on that other client? You don’t. All you have is your due diligence. So, don’t forget to do it. (I realize this is a pretty self-serving opinion from the guy who has a pretty large social footprint–I have no defense here)

All or nothing

My friend had an interesting take on the agency social footprint perspective–and I think I agree with it. Her opinion: Agencies should either be “all in” in terms of a social footprint or not do anything at all. Her reasoning was this: Either go all in and have a solid footprint. This means probably assigning a team (for agencies) to keeping up your profiles on a daily basis. This means resources–and money (even if you’re a solo). A means to a new business pipeline. Or, it means doing nothing at all–which means you’re too busy doing all the great client work to get to your agency or consultant social profiles. Anything in the middle looks sloppy and shoddy. Your blog hasn’t been updated for three months. You haven’t posted to your Facebook page in two weeks. And you haven’t responded to that question on Twitter in a week. How does that look to a client? Not good. Not good at all. All or nothing.

Hire for passion

Ever think about who works for professional sports teams in social, marketing and PR? Mostly kids. 20-somethings with minimal experience, but a crapload of passion and interest in profressional sports. They don’t get paid much, but most people I’ve known who have done it, absolutely loved it. Why? Because they LOVED football, or basketball or baseball or soccer. And I’m guessing that passion showed through to their employer–and in their work. Think about our world now. Who would you hire? The consultant/agency who says they’re passionate about social media, who knows it inside and out, but doesn’t really show up online that well. Or, would you hire the team that also claimed they had a passion for social AND showed up in a big way on LinkedIn, on Twitter and on Instagram. And, who had a blog that was pretty darn good, too. Think about it–who would you hire? You can claim you have passion up and down the river, but until I see some proof, why should I believe you? It’s about social proof points folks. You either have them, or you don’t. And 9 out of 10 times, I’m going with the folks that have them.

That’s my two cents. What do you think? I know you have thoughts–this is a pretty heated topic. Still.

Note: Photo courtesy of artfullblogger via FlickR Creative Commons.

Thanks for installing the Bottom of every post plugin by Corey Salzano. Contact me if you need custom WordPress plugins or website design.

Opt In Image
Get Talking Points Delivered Straight to Your E-mail Inbox!

Get Talking Points--my weekly e-newsletter--delivered straight to your e-mail inbox each Wednesday by signing up above. I'll provide you with insightful posts, useful how-to articles and other information designed to help YOU do your job better.

, , , , , ,
Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Indicate Media 5 pts

We couldn't agree more Anik and it is surprising that the debate exists. What are your thoughts on other traits companies should look for when seeking a passionate and effective social team?

triercompany 6 pts

 triercompany - Noted your remark about 20-somethings working in PR for sports.. We have a major client - @phizzle - and we're not 20-something. It's about the passion - regardless of the age....

C_Pappas 216 pts

I have never looked at the online footprint of a vendor I hired. But If I did...I would look at those things you mentioned here. Some have tons of followers and +1's and likes or whatever but not a lot of substance behind it. If you are hiring someone to educate you and manage social, then they should be drinking their own kool-aid.

jeffsauer 7 pts

I have a different take. The footprint matters for one thing: establishing the relationship in the first place. For example, someone with 5000 connections is more likely to be considered for the relationship than someone with a smaller amount. So I view the connections less as a deciding factor in who to choose, but rather an important factor in deciding who to consider in the first place. 

 

This is how I have seen it play out on my end at least (agency side). The more real life or virtual connections I make, the more often my agency is considered for new business. I don't think that social numbers really influence the end decision as much... at least from my experience.

 

arikhanson 71 pts moderator

 jeffsauer Like I said Jeff in the post, ignore the numbers. It's more about social "proof points." They're really just indicators. Not the final deciding point, but definitely a big factor (in my view). What you're talking about is a little different. That's the new biz side--using social as a way to make new connections that eventually lead to business ("the more real life or virtual connections I make, the more often my agency is considered for new business"). I'm talking about once you're in the game and being considered--do social footprints make a difference to clients? I think what you're saying is "no." (and I guess I would respectfully disagree--although it seems to be on a case-by-case basis; see Kasey's note below)

jeffsauer 7 pts

 arikhanson  Thanks for clarifying. I don't really have any experience with the client side decision making process, so I don't really have a qualified opinion either way.  Anyway, thanks as always for your thought provoking posts. 

arikhanson 71 pts moderator

 jeffsauer Yeah, but I think you're "What if" opinion would certainly qualify...

kmskala 54 pts

Coming from the brand side, I'll say no. An agency or consultant's social footprint means absolutely nothing to me. There's a consultant out there that has over 50,000 followers on Twitter. This consultant also has nearly 60,000 tweets. To me, that say this person spends too much time on Twitter and not enough time producing work.

 

LinkedIn - I think this has absolutely no bearing on the quality or understanding of one's business.

 

Facebook - Does anyone really follow agencies or consultants on Facebook? I know I don't.

 

You know who I'm going to hire/work with? Consultants I've formed a relationship with or ones that trusted colleagues recommend. From an agency perspective, I care more about the people within the agency and the client references.

 

Client references & body of work > social footprint.

arikhanson 71 pts moderator

 kmskala Client references. Yes, obviously those are key. Like I said, the footprint isn't the end-all-be-all. But you don't see the value, huh? See, for me, I do. If I were in your shoes I'd want people who were plugged in when it comes to the social work. Let me give you an example. If part of our work with said agency is influencer outreach, I would want the people working on that outreach to either: 1) be bloggers themselves, and/or 2) be active online. Why? Because those people are MUCH more plugged in to the blogger/influencer scene than those who aren't. And I think that makes a big difference. In fact, I've seen it make a difference. But, I guess I have no proof if it DOESN'T make a difference. Another example--LinkedIn. I don't think you nee 500+ connections to be an effective digital consultant. But, if you have 110 connections, you know what that tells me? You're not heavily networked. And you know what that tells me? You don't have the network to rely on in the case you don't have all the answers (which is frequently the case on the agency/consultant side, whether people want to admit that or not). I can't tell you how many times my network has come to my aid in helping with a question/issue I had. Just a couple examples that highlight my thinking around this topic.

Thanks for the comment, as always!