I don't read the Marketing Roadmaps blog often, but thank you to Susan Getgood for the inspiration (and I promise I'll become a regular now). Susan has a post on her blog today entitled "The Discipline of Social Media Marketing," from which I borrowed the title for this post.

So, where does social media belong? Here's something I pulled from another recent post of mine:

"Folks, this social media thing isn't just about new channels, it's about new communications that are driven by consumers. I know many will say that's hyperbole, but I strongly believe that consumer-driven branding is here to stay (it's too fun now to stop). Unfortunately, too many marketers forget how far we've come in the past five years. They're slipping back into that "we're in control model" and THAT is what worries me. It's why I believe we're talking too much about the next "big viral video" and not enough about all the other little things that start and sustain conversations in the wild world of the social web"

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. The conversation itself could (should) include pieces that each of these "disciplines" traditionally adds (a press release that leads to a blog post, a viral video or an email). But, back to the question: who should "own" it?

Susan suggests that we need to move social media toward some discipline (into a discipline), but I'm not sure that will happen (even if there are merits to it). I think interactive agencies will make their play, traditional ad agencies will make theirs, PR agencies theirs and so on. So how does a brand know which agency to chose? For starters, look at the complete picture, not just the pretty colors. Is the strategy sound or is it just built around flashy creative? Will the campaign lead to real conversations or is it just cool? Is the agency using you (they've got a hammer and you seem like a good enough nail) or is your problem uniquely suited to their expertise? Finally, is the agency committed to you and your goals (are they a true extension that will deliver client service that wows you)?

Today my agency delivers campaigns that include video, audio, social media (blog relations, social networking, etc.), media buys, WOM and other elements that I'd collectively call conversational marketing. Are we right for every brand? Probably not. But I'd like to think this has less to do with our agency status (although we've taken to leaning more on the "Communications" in Greenough Communications to show we're not a traditional PR shop). Instead our success has more to do with our experience, our backgrounds, our partnerships (for the killer technology I personally can't execute myself) and our commitment to client service. In other words, we don't own social media (or the broader category of conversational marketing) because of any business birth right, but we CAN own it because we know how to start conversations better than anyone else.

So, even though I've spent a majority of my career as a PR guy, I can't say PR owns social media/conversation marketing just because of our pedigree, etc. Nope, everyone has to earn their stripes in this new world based on how they think through problems, how tenacious they are about staying ahead of the curve, how smart they are about partnering and how committed they are to client service. It's wild out there in marketing today and now, more than ever, it's not about where you work, but rather about how talented you are your colleagues are. And may the best conversationalists win!