Getgood argues:
"The functional lines between our marketing disciplines of PR, direct marketing
and advertising are blurring. Social media marketing requires a blending of
marketing and PR/communications skills. BTW, this line is blurring
everywhere but it is more readily and immediately apparent in the social media
world than offline. But it is offline too. Remember that online social networks
are reflections of the interests and affiliations we have "in real life."
Computer networks simply speed up the effect. "
Why does it matter if social media falls under public relations, marketing or advertising? Trying to classify where a coming-of-age shift in communication should be utilized is irresponsible. Social media should be available to anyone who wants to learn this great tool.
Bauman's reaction to Getgood states:
"Social media doesn't belong to anyone with a particular "skill set" or "channel
expertise." Instead, it belongs to people who understand consumers and how
to engage in them in conversations. The conversationalist could be a PR
person, an interactive agency rep or a direct marketing expert."
I agree with Bauman's analysis that social media should not belong to a specific field.
Why try to monopolize social media when it should be diversified among all these fields? Limiting this knowledge will only be a detriment to a company. Since experts are too busy discussing who should "own" social media, it may be time to teach ourselves.
