Lieb’s post is a fun diatribe against amateur social media types, but it sounds rather like she’s exorcising some personal demons in her own experience here:
…lots of marketers, many of them non-digital natives, are piling on board the bandwagon by appending suffixes such as “expert,” “guru,” “specialist,” “diva,” “maven” and what-have-you to the term “social media.” They’re made all the more convincing when they display the trappings of success: an agency, a client roster (though not necessarily social media engagements), and a pitch delivered over cocktails at a very private club in New York’s trendy Meatpacking District.
As everything becomes re-cast through the lens of social engagement, it is becoming harder to separate those with real expertise from the hangers-on. My personal list of “things to look for” includes the following:
- What are the person’s credentials in online engagement? Did she run social marketing for a real company you’ve heard about before now?
- Can she provide clear examples of how her leadership in the social space has helped companies achieve their goals? (Especially where such goals go beyond “number of eyeballs”.)
- Does she know and interact with major players in the space? Who has she worked with as partners?
- Does she have a real marketing background, or is she simply looking to monetize all the hours she spends online using sites like Twitter and Facebook? Does she have academic or professional credentials?
There are, doubtless, many other items you can add to the list above. The point is to not take everyone with a Twitter account at face-value when they say they understand social media.
via Here Come the Social Media Carpetbaggers – ClickZ.
