Marketing Pilgrim Published: “Let’s Play: How Much Does This Social Media Job Pay?!” plus 3 more

Let’s Play: How Much Does This Social Media Job Pay?!
It’s The Social Media Time and Resources, Stupid!
DirecTV Close to Rolling Out Targeted TV Commercials
Free the Internet! Time for the Net Neutrality Vote

Let’s Play: How Much Does This Social Media Job Pay?!

Posted: 21 Dec 2010 06:35 AM PST

Here is a question that I always have and want some input from our readers on. This morning I was alerted by Paul Gillin about a social media manager's job with USAToday that is listed on CareerBuilder. Pretty nice gig, right?

Well, considering you would need to live in the Washington, DC area (job is listed in McLean, VA) and you need to do the following (see description below), what is this job worth? What should it pay?

Since USAToday doesn't post anything about salary let's play the hottest new social media game "HOW MUCH DOES THIS SOCIAL MEDIA JOB PAY?!" It's fun and I hear it's all the rage (which is an out and out lie but whatever).

Here's how you play. You read the job description below then in the comments you tell us how much you think the job pays. You can clamor on about what you think it SHOULD pay as well but we are looking for just your best guess at how many pennies are in the Social Media Job Jar at USAToday.

Here's the job description:

The USA TODAY Social Media Manager will be responsible for setting social media strategy as part of developing new and existing products. Additionally, the position will be responsible for keeping on top of changes in the social media space, understanding their implications and guiding social media integration for the purpose of user engagement and advertiser fulfillment. Position will manage a Social Media Analyst position and work closely with research assistant, SEO and UI analysts to guide the development of product optimization across all platforms.Responsibilities include:

· Drive social media strategy for USA TODAY and best practices for product development and optimization. Oversee social media implementation and monitor/track performance of social media aspect throughout product lifecycle. Work with Social Media staff and across departments to coordinate and maximize efficiency of efforts.

· Social Media R&D: Stay on top of latest social media platforms, tools, and services, enabling an environment for experimentation. Guide application of such for product iteration as relevant and appropriate for the brand.

· Work closely with social media counterpart within Sales Solutions in order to provide new revenue-generating product solutions to advertiser needs

· Maintain and continue to grow the voice for USA TODAY on social media platforms that increases exposure to and engagement with the USA TODAY brand amongst new audiences. Actively participate in communication with site visitors and audiences outside of USA TODAY about new developments in social media, product development or other relevant areas. Desired skills include:

· Omniture, ComScore, Hitwise experience
· Social media monitoring
· Strong project management background
· Strong writing and presentation skills
· Contract and business development experienceUSA TODAY recognizes and appreciates the benefits of diversity in the workplace. EOE.

So what's your guess? Please play "WHAT DOES THIS SOCIAL MEDIA JOB PAY?" today because we are pretty bored here at Marketing Pilgrim.

Thanks!

UPDATE 1: With our first two guesses setting the range from $45k to $150k per year there is a lot of room here!

It’s The Social Media Time and Resources, Stupid!

Posted: 21 Dec 2010 05:36 AM PST

Remember not so very long ago (probably just yesterday) when someone looking to really get involved in social media for business was told "It's free so just go for it!" ? This usually came from a social media "expert / guru / ninja / maven / superstar / hero / stud / wizard /expert" (oops, already used that last one so I must be out of pathetic self-naming options).

This 'expert' actually didn't realize that by promoting the medium as easy and free that no one would pay them to help them (hey, if there are any experts etc. etc. in finance who want to teach social media people what it means to be in business there is "gold in them thar hills" for sure). This phenomenon has created our current glut of social media 'talent' looking for a check which means they will say anything to get someone to sign up with them (look to the search marketing industry to see how well that has worked out).

But I digress. What the business world is finding out that despite the 'low cost' there is actually a very high cost to effectively be in the 'social media for business' game. Those who do this game for real know this already but for the poor Director of Marketing at XYZ Company the reality of what it takes is becoming very harsh very fast.

A survey conducted by R2Integrated (Internet marketing / social media service provider alert!) and reported by eMarketer shows that people trying to get into the social media game are getting a crash course in 'there is no such thing as a social media free lunch'.

Looking at those results I wonder if there is not enough time and / or resources to do the other things listed like overcome skepticism of ROI, decide what platform, get executive buy-in, getting started and then learning the tools. Forget how much time it takes after you accomplish these things!

Once the social media marketing wannbe has cleared the hurdles stated above a curious thing happens. They realize that they still don't' have enough time and resources to do the social media marketing game effectively.

So what does this mean for the industry as a whole and the poor marketing executive for the upcoming year? I think it means that the social media industry needs to do a much better job of conveying the realities of the practice rather than promoting the fantasy of it. The social media "industry" is looking like a mirror image of its search marketing cousin that is rife with snakeoil salesmen and scam artists that it has lost credibility in the place it needs it most: the client side.

Stop with the hyperbole and the delusions that are more pitch than practical. Stop with the moving on to the next best thing that no one outside of the industry has heard about or understands and concentrate on the basics. Heck, these basics are still being hammered out so how in the world can the industry keep moving forward without collapsing the foundation of sand it has created?

As for the bewildered marketer? I would recommend a very serious assessment / audit process to start your 2011. Take the time to see exactly where your current strategies are working (so keep them) and not working (reassign the time and resources from dead spend to better areas). You may find that by trimming the excess marketing fat you can free up existing time and resources that were being wasted on the wrong activities. There, problem solved .

Of course, nothing is that easy. However, if we all spend 2011 plowing forward without truly owning what has or has not been done to stabilize the art of social media we can call 2011 "The Year the Social Media Industry Shot Itself in the Foot by Promising Too Much Too Soon."

Your take?

DirecTV Close to Rolling Out Targeted TV Commercials

Posted: 20 Dec 2010 03:08 PM PST

I don’t have a pet and I have no interest in male enhancement products, yet during an average week, I’ll see plenty of commercials for kitty litter, dog food and ExtenZe. DirecTV says that’s going to change and it may happen as soon as the summer of 2011.

According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, DirectTV has a $10 – $20 million dollar commitment from Starcom MediaVest, a company that buys ad time on behalf of heavyhitters.

Under the new program, the ad buyer would list the characteristics of their target household and DirectTV’s system would search the data pools to find a match. A variety of commercial options would then be loaded into the box and the box itself would decide on the most appropriate commercial for each occasion.

DirecTV says they’ll be gathering data using third-party data providers and one has to wonder why they don’t collect their own data. They also say that they won’t be using viewing habits as a data point, just the usual statistical categories of age, gender, geography, and I would assume, household income and possibly education.

It’s in a customer’s best interest to choose their own commercials and DirectTV says they’ll have the option of opting out. Still, with all of the issues surrounding online targeted ads and privacy issues in general, it’s easy to see where this idea might run aground.

With YouTube working on skippable and “choose your own” ad options, it seems like only a matter of time before we see the end of the traditional TV ad breaks. Maybe, once we get this targeted ad thing worked out, we can work on allowing a viewer to run all the commercials at the start of a program so we can watch the rest of the hour without interruption.

Would you object to targeted ads if it meant giving personal data to your TV signal provider?

Free the Internet! Time for the Net Neutrality Vote

Posted: 20 Dec 2010 12:44 PM PST

On Tuesday, December 21, the FCC will vote on a proposal that will allow internet providers to better manage bandwidth by charging more to those users who use more and less to those who don’t. Sounds simple, doesn’t it? Apparently, it’s not.

I spent an hour this morning reading over a variety of articles on the subject from the factual pieces from Reuters to the techie take at Crunch Gear to the twists and turns of The Washington Post. My favorite piece was written by Al Franken for The Huffington Post. Yes, SNL’s Al Franken who is now a Senator from Minnesota.

Franken explains the concept of net neutrality as leveling the playing field. Where small business has the same access to the internet as a large corporation. “A blogger should have the same ability to find an audience as a media conglomerate.” Which sounds extremely fair but what if my neighbor likes to download a movie every hour of the day while I only use my internet to access email and Facebook a couple of times a day. Is it fair that we’re both paying the same amount per month for access?

People against the upcoming vote, say that allowing internet providers to regulate cost based on usage is giving them too much control. Suppose we take this scenario over to the TV. My neighbor and I both pay the same amount for the same service. If he chooses not to watch what he’s paid for, that’s not my problem. Under this new ruling (if it applied to TV), the cable company could choose to charge per show watched. If I have to pay, I may think twice about watching the premiere of David Hasselhoff’s new series and that’s going to make studios even more leery about investing in new and different shows (Sushi Wars!). No more money for the creative process, innovation goes out the window and now we’re living in a country where the government is inadvertently controlling what we watch on TV.

Just to be clear, tomorrow’s vote doesn’t involve television. It only involves your cable company if they’re also an internet provider and it has ramifications for cell phone wireless providers, too. I only use the TV metaphor because I like TV and I understand everything better when Law & Order is in the mix. If, in turn, all I have done is confuse you, then welcome to my morning.

People all over the internet are claiming that tomorrow’s FCC vote is a slap in the face to free speech, that it will put a stranglehold on the advancement of the internet and will lead to a system where only the privileged will have access. Kinda dramatic.

The big question here is whether you see the internet as a right or a privileged. Is the internet akin to electricity and phone service, or is it more like cable TV? What everyone does agree on is that the current language isn’t clear enough so even if the FCC goes forward with the new regulations there are plenty of loop holes to be legally challenged and explored.

Do you have an opinion about net neutrality? We’d love to hear it.