It's no secret: I'm infatuated with social media. I blended into the Facebook game relatively early because of my online copywriting and consumer relations work. By the time I started tweeting in early 2009, it seemed like I was behind the times, though I wasn't -- in April 2009,
eMarketer reported through Mashable that a mere 7.4% of adult Internet users were using
Twitter, and only monthly at that. Imagine how few were doing the everyday tweet thing.
Just like back in the venture-driven, careening 90's, infertility patients arrived at this new wave's forefront before the pros. Just as we saw back in the day when chatrooms and bulletin boards were filled with querying mama-wannabe's wondering where the caring professionals were lurking, the docs are taking their time. But this time, instead of a queue of tech-timid newbie consumers wondering about the real value of this thing called the Internet, what we have are gadget-savvy emboldened consumers expecting 24/7 action. This is no time for docs to arrive fashionably late -- but that's exactly what most of them are doing.
Even some of the Biggest Dogs are merely meandering toward the banquet.
Being both a long-time dog owner and Internet professional, I have some ideas on why larger spokes in an industry wheel are slower than smaller ones at moving toward their audience.
First, there are the obvious correlations between size, weight, and movement. Plain as day, right? Of course, a consumer may be led to believe the contrary, that the bigger a network of clinics is, the faster, the better, the more successful... After all, those multi-million dollar centers
spend a good chunk on steering what consumers think. It's true that you get what you pay for, even in the "free" world of Twitter and Facebook, as
detailed by Forrester's Augie Ray last September. But we're talking overhead percentages here -- even with piles of ecstatically happy patients, if you're a small practice, your budget for getting the word out is still practically nil. With traditional marketing, you're lucky if Ms. Happy Patient's cousins hear about your fantastic repro med practice. On the other hand, if you're looming on top of the feeding pile, you can make all the noise you want, of any variety. It's the only sound that most consumers will hear.
Then there are notions about power displays among competitors of different sizes. Big dogs might stand back and watch while the little guys deftly move in for the kill, especially when the prize is an unknown (like social media return-on-investment). If you're big enough, you know that you can wait to see how the new eats are digested, then you can scarf up the smaller competitors with their initial 'wins' (loyal consumers).
So my take is that individual practices have moved quickly into social media, most often using available office staff, while the nationally-networked practices have watched and waited for a couple of years. Now that they see the real results, we'll all see the fertility industry giants bringing their money and action to the consultant table.
That's just how business goes. It really is 'dog eat dog', even in medicine, no matter what we'd like to believe about individuals who go into the helping professions. By now, most of us 'get' that fact, whether by acceptance or resignation. My bet is that 2010 will make social media tools *appear* to be nothing more than yet another box of pliers and wrenches for re-working what health care consumers think.
For now, though, soc med also provides a decent sleuthing pipeline. Individuals can't help but chatter about their pursuits, even (especially?) when things are in a planning or building phase. An example from just the other day -- things anyone can know without knowing the people involved: Lindsay Lebresco, Foursquare user and Account Director for social media agency
Converseon, was meeting at IntegraMed Fertility's national headquarters in Purchase, NY today.
Kip Finch was there, too, and thought it was a great meeting. My guess is that online infertility communities like Fertility Authority and Fertility Ties will soon see some repro med muscle with which to contend. Or maybe a cozy union is just down the road?
But remember the mid-2000's, after the Internet imploded and tongues clicked about how it was all dog-and-pony show anyway? Out of that mess, when most 'net biz crumbled, those who resurrected did so only because they found a newly educated audience, one that not only reveled in the amount of health information they could access online but who also started looking to separate the wheat from the chaff. Health consumers cared about *who* was giving them information. Behind that 'who' was always a 'why'...
The very thing that makes social media so valuable is the thing that big corporations simply cannot get behind: The Person.
It's not that they don't want to, bless their hearts. They just can't. Ever. By definition.
Welcome to The Personal Brand Era,
proposed by Ed Schipul last October. What I really love about the idea as described by Ed is how social media tools seem to have a real, tangible (even while virtual) impact based not on competition, but collaboration, a biz model that's gotten a lot of hot air in the recent past with little real-life play. Of course, as those who know me well can attest, I also dig nearly any idea that charges forward against that status quo.
I'm mesmerized by the melding of individual lives by way of these communication blips cast out to whomever wants to scoop them up. When you combine the relative anonymity of tweeting with the more socially confined Facebook status rendering, it's fascinating to compare responses from the differing circles that ripple out from one individual.
My friends (even those who are "only Facebook amigos") kindly watch as I display my circus-like personal life all over the Internet by way of hastily shot photos and commentary. Some have cringed out loud, though, because they know I combine work colleagues with loved ones in my social media roux. As a long-time telecommuting contractor, that means I have a lot of folks who (a) don't really know me, and (b) are sometimes employing me or who may be considering such a relationship, all jamming along with the daily exploits of my home-schooled son, other family members, and loved ones.
It means that the people who hire me have the opportunity to really know me, really well, via Facebook.
Tweet followers, on another hand, are privy to less revelation about me and mine, and we all know how far titillation can go toward beckoning someone closer.
I daresay, as Ed and others are alluding to, that soon enough one of the shiniest facets of the social media gem will wind up being personal accountability. The individuals who make up an organization or business -- and their 'character' as revealed in their brand -- will matter more. Sort of a Karma Transducer.
The bigger a company, the scarier that kind of talk will be. Reproductive medicine specialists -- the individuals -- tend to become more conservative in their approach to both medicine and business as they become more ensconced in bulkier settings. The bigger the bottom line, the higher the fear factor. It's only human.
