I was inspired to continue the conversation that Chris Brogan started on his blog a couple of days ago. Chris’ post begins:

“Pepsi doesn’t want to talk with a few hundred people at a time, do they? It’s just that all these businesses have built huge platforms, huge sales funnels, huge marketplaces, and I think what social software is setting us up for are cafe-shaped conversations.”

Which is funny, because apparently Pepsi does want to talk to a few hundred people, including Chris Brogan. Why? Because Pepsi knows that cafe conversations are what is driving the social web. And they know that the conversations that Chris Brogan have are with larger groups of people, and that they tend to get repeated in other cafe’s around the social web.

I think it’s clear that many big brands recognize the need to participate in the social web, but are they ready to do so? Do they understand how, and more importantly why it’s important? Some are starting to, and many clearly do not. Most large brands, and the agencies that represent them, are still thinking in what I like to call a “campaign mentality.” Prior to the social web and the democratization of everything, pretty much all marketing strategy was campaign based. Let’s think about how campaigns work: they are typically top-down, one-directional, one-to-many crusades designed by the originating party to convince an “audience” of something. Essentially, this mentality is the antithesis of how the social web works. For marketers to be successful on the social web, whether they are a big brand or a small one, they need to start thinking about contributions and let go of the campaign mentality.

I liked Robert Scoble’s comment on Chris’ post:

Comment by Robert Scoble on November 29, 2008 @ 1:33 am

Everytime I go to Paris I see CocaCola advertisements on umbrellas over those tables. When I went to Mexico, I saw the same thing. When I went to China, I saw the same thing.

Maybe business is ALL about those cafe-sized conversations but we’ve just been missing it all along?

And another follow-up comment from Jenn:

I like the umbrella metaphor. But think about that umbrella. Is it marking it’s place loudly? It perhaps is a loud visual, but in the interaction of being a part of the cafe conversation, it is but part of the tapestry. Non obtrusive and even useful; it’s an umbrella…keeps the sun out and light rain even. (the useful part is what i’m interested in.) so if the big companies can jump in …dedicate a portion of their strategy to SM, represent themselves in human fashion (not autobot style) and be part of the tapestry–and provide themselves as useful, then be my guest. share my cafe-shaped experience with me. but if we end up with an annoying big company cookie cutter SM presence that’s just plain intrusive, then we should all just be find to let this be a playground for grassroots and smaller world changing businesses.

The social web is fragmented.
One of the things that make the social web so beautiful is that it’s the first time in the history of media where no one is in control. Anyone can produce and publish content, anyone can sell products, anyone can voice their opinion and have the same chance of being heard as anyone else. This also means that there’s infinitely more variety, more choice as far as what we consume, how we consume it, and whom we consume it with. And through all of this choice, we see communities forming, communities formed around affinities, around geography, around common interests, around brands and around pretty much everything you can think of. The formation of communities is no longer limited by time and space, and content and information have become democratized. This all results in a wonderful world of infinite possibilities and massive flow of information. It also means that “audiences” have become fragmented. And not only that, but they’re really not “audiences” anymore at all.

Audiences are passive, communities are participatory.
The other bit that the big guys seem to be having trouble grasping, is that the idea of an “audience” doesn’t really translate to the social web either. Audience implies a passive group of people who are receiving a message. Communities are not passive. The technology behind the social web has allowed everyone to participate in the conversation. And an individual user can, and usually does, have just as much if not more influence than a brand does.

People are flocking to the social web (and away from mass media)
There are studies published that confirm that just about every single form of mass media is losing audience to the internet.

eMarketer reports that Newspaper readership has declined by 40% since the early ’90s, while more than one third of US adult internet users go online for their news.

According to the Universal Mccann study on social media, just about all forms of social media participation are on the rise, with blog readership and video viewing leading the way. And it’s estimated that 100m US adults participate in the social web, that’s just under half of the US adult population.

According to this Harris Interactive poll, 4 out of 5 US adults are online.

And according to this study by the IDC, people spend twice as much time online as they do watching TV.

So what does this mean for big brands?
It may be true that big brands aren’t prepared for the social web, but at least in my view, it’s clear that they had better get on it! I don’t think the internet will completely replace traditional media any time in the near future, in fact, I think it will be more of a progressive merging over time. But brands large and small are going to need to start thinking on their feet and becoming more engaged.

Think contributions, not campaigns
The social web is about community. Communities thrive when people contribute to them. A contribution can take many forms, from entertainment to eduction to information to forming connections to supporting groups or organizations. People, and brands, who contribute in a relevant way to the conversation are those who are the most likely to be talked about, revered and evangelized.

Spend more time listening, and less time broadcasting
As audiences become more fragmented, they become more difficult to locate. And as content and voices become democratized, people have more choice regarding where their attention is spent. The social web represents about the best pool of market data out there. There’s an infinite amount of quantitative, and more importantly, qualitative data that can be accessed by listening to the conversations that are taking place.

Start thinking granularly
I’d like to encourage every big brand out there to take a percentage of the budget they have allocated for media buys, and direct it towards working with people and agencies who are capable of thinking and acting granualrly. Yes, it’s more leg work, and yes, it requires more time and thought to reach multiple small audiences vs. one large one. But the potential payoff is huge. You now have the opportunity to engage with communities, be relevant within those communities, be embraced, and be evangelized. So much more powerful than one-directional broadcast messaging.