Let’s Avoid A Social Hierarchy

It was always social first.

It used to be called word of mouth. Then it was called talkability. Then virality. Now it's called social.

It's all the same thing, so the above distinctions are largely academic. The strongest brands have always been those that are front of mind. Talked about. Socially relevant. There, on the tip of the tongue, when you need to recall them.

However, there's a piece of terminology which has become increasingly prevalent, and which implies there should be a hierarchy to the formerly egalitarian principle that social relevance and currency are the goal of all marketing, whatever the channel.

The term is 'social first'. If this was meant agnostically, then it would be a truism (see my first sentence). But it isn't meant agnostically. It is meant territorially.

When a brief asks for a campaign that's 'social first', it doesn't mean 'let's first and foremost get talked about'. It means that one media channel should be preferred above all others. That social platforms should be prioritised if your brand is going to be talked about.

Sometimes this is right. Just as a point of sale first brief, or a rewards first brief, or a sponsorship first brief is sometimes right.

But I worry when it starts to become an orthodoxy. When it starts to be a received wisdom that success depends on being social media first.

Because success is seldom social media first. When you think of famous, socially relevant brands, very few of them are social first in the narrow sense described above.

This is because social media success so often hinges on first making an impact within the wider social and cultural context. The 'Made to Share' campaign for Cadbury was a huge social hit, but it was a packaging first brief, with the goal of social amplification rather than using social first.

One of the biggest branded landmarks in the country, The O2, is a permanent part of the cultural conversation. But it was a partnership first brief. Not a social first brief.

Part of the reasoning behind the social first mantra, is the idea that modern brands are built through social media rather than traditional media.

Again, I dispute this logic. They are built from a blend. And if anything, their mental availability is driven by traditional media first.

Take Fenty. It's often cited as a social first brand. But Rihanna had done quite well dominating traditional media channels before she launched her brand. Without this fame to harness, would Fenty be Fenty? You could ask the same question about Skims.

Of course there are exceptions, Glossier being one. Prime another (although I see it around less than I used to).

However, in the vast majority of cases, success depends on the agnostic choreography of all media channels available, whether owned, earned, social/shared or paid for. Social, like AI, is just another servant to the bigger cause of brand building.

At VCCP Social Club (our specialist social capability), we believe 'social is the sun'. It is the new word of mouth, helping your brand radiate and illuminate your message. At the same time, it's only part of the cosmos, not the whole thing.

That's because we believe no single channel should automatically take precedence.

In our view, the only thing that automatically comes first is your Brand World. This is the sum total of every impression your brand makes across every touchpoint. It is the compound advantage of truly coherent branding. The difference between fragmentation and cut through, between the dilution or concentration of resource.

In the constant battle to find the right media mix, we should avoid leaping to conclusions about what comes first, second or third.

The greatest brands are a complex and evolving mass of media impressions. Glimpsed online, on a shelf, at an event, on a phone screen, or in an app (and sometimes, still, on a poster or a TV).

Managing this mix only gets harder as the list grows longer. But the first rule is to avoid ruling which comes first.