Your Organization's Social Media Strategy Sucks - Part 2

We talked to some social managers and got their takes. The solutions are simple if you actually want to have social media serve your goals as an organization.

A note from Len: This is the second part of a 2 part series. If you haven’t read the first, I recommend that you give this piece context. You can find that here.

I took a few hours to chat with several social media managers I know through my work in outdoor and environmental spaces. The conversations were off the record, as several folks expressed fear about jeopardizing their jobs or being reprimanded for candidly expressing their opinions on this topic (which speaks to perhaps a larger organizational culture internally). The backgrounds of these folks ranged from small environmental non-profits to very large ones with multi-million dollar budgets. We also had a few folks from the industry side of the outdoor world. Many of these folks came forward to talk from organizations severely underperforming on social platforms (low reach, low engagement), given the financial resources and meaningful work these organizations do. On balance, the sample of conversations is skewed to organizations that fit this profile. This skew doesn’t concern me as I’m interested in understanding what’s going wrong internally at these organizations. It’s easy to tell from the outside if social media is effective and going well.

The interview protocol is based upon a well-established mental models approach, which largely aims to understand how people think about a topic using open-ended questions. I’ve used this approach many times before in work that I’ve published about people’s views on energy development and also the views of experts. During the interviews, I took notes, and at the end, I shared the highlights and key points with the social managers to ensure that they reflected their views. For the purposes of a substack post, this approach is sufficient; however, if this were to be published in a journal article, I’d opt for a more rigorous approach.

In the interview protocol, I used questions in these broad areas:

• Can you tell me who you are and what your role is at your organization?

• Can you tell me how you use social media in your life?

• Can you tell me what your organization is and how they use social media?

• Can you describe the strategy that informs how you use social media?

• Who in your organization is responsible for driving social media strategy?

• What role does a social media manager play in this decision-making?

• Can you describe the type of engagement that you get from your post?

• Do you believe that this the correct strategy?

What are the characteristics of an organization performing poorly on social media?

1. Top-down control of social media content and strategy by leadership (or those higher up in an organization) who do not actively participate in social media.

2. The strategy for social media is partly motivated by fear or, in the words of one manager, “White knuckling” their way through the process.

3. One-way publishing of content that resembles press release-type material and little effort to organize a community online.

4. “White professional culture” (e.g., LinkedIn culture) is being forced into other social media platforms despite this not reflecting the culture of the particular platform.

5. There is opposition from leadership or policy leads within the organization to " dumbing down” content, specifically breaking complex policy or environmental issues into simpler language to make them understandable to a broader audience.

6. Social media managers in these organizations feel like they cannot do their jobs effectively because 1) there is too much top-down control that limits their ability to do their jobs, and 2) Social media is an actively toxic job function, and this reality is not actively recognized by leadership or the organization as a whole.

7. The most surprising part of our conversations was finding the unanimity in the responses across these organizations from individuals who did not know each other.

Social media strategy within organizations is frequently driven and controlled by leadership, many of whom do not actively consume the content being created through their online channels. This lack of direct engagement with social media and internet culture leads to a limited understanding of these platforms, often resulting in trepidation about their use. A common theme social media managers express is the high degree of control top leadership exerts on messaging. This control stems from a concern about the potential negative repercussions of getting something "wrong" when the content reaches a broader audience. The definition of getting messaging "wrong" is the difficulty in accurately translating complex policy or environmental topics into simpler, more approachable language (usually a lower grade reading level). One manager illustrated this concern: "The belief is if we get a word or two wrong in this translation [of a complex policy topic], it could jeopardize a relationship with a lawmaker, other environmental groups, or that of a donor." The consequences of incorrect social media messaging are perceived as significant, potentially harming relationships and the organization's reputation. However, none of these social managers could point to a specific internal or external instance that validated this fear.

This disconnect between leadership's cautious approach and the dynamic nature of social media often leads to overly curated messaging. Such content resembles press releases more than engaging social media posts. This misalignment results in lower levels of engagement, as the content fails to align with the algorithmic recommendations that favor more authentic and interactive posts. This misalignment, in part, can be explained by the mental heuristic of “the imagined audience,” in which people construct an idea of their audience given the lack of knowledge about who is actually reading their content online (see Litt, 2012; Litt & Hargittai 2016) . This construct is influenced by social norms, social context (including material affordances and community norms of a particular app or site), and the visibly active people on the site. Despite these influences, individuals can be wildly inaccurate in assessing who engages with their content, creating serious issues when content spreads beyond its intended audience (Boyd, 2014; Marwick & Boyd, 2011). One such example to highlight this disconnect is when I asked one of the social managers who leadership in their organization saw social media trying to speak with their posts. They said it was congressional staffers or interns, who in their imagined reality, would then show the social post to their boss. One social media manager shared their views that capture this dynamic:

I am so tired of this. Has no one in the environmental industry actually been online in the last 5 years? Am I the only human being that cares for the planet that also understands that the media landscape has changed? That the balance of power in the media is no longer vested in established media companies? What is the point of sharing these posts? Cause it sure isn’t to engage with your community or your followers. I see organizations that are MASSIVE environmental orgs with HUGE budgets, sharing these shitty graphics to their thousands of followers and getting maybe 25 likes. Why? What do they believe they are accomplishing?

Meanwhile, I watch as these organizations throw SO MUCH time and money into getting earned media about the subjects they care about. Newsflash: most people don’t read print news media anymore, and if they do, they’re just reading the headline because most of the online news sources are behind a paywall.  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t necessarily think this decline in support for traditional news media is a good thing for our society at large, but we can’t keep beating a dead horse.

Many leaders and executives in organizations come from highly educated backgrounds, often with advanced degrees and a deep immersion in professional and academic environments (Yes, I am part of that intelligencia as well). This background can create a form of elitism, where there is an implicit assumption that their way of thinking and communicating is superior (Bordieu, 1984). Consequently, there is often a reluctance to simplify messaging, as it is perceived as "dumbing down" complex topics. This elitist perspective can alienate broader audiences who may not have the same level of expertise or familiarity with complex policy issues. The insistence on maintaining a high level of sophistication in messaging can result in inaccessible or unrelatable content to the average social media user. As a result, the intended message may not resonate with or be understood by the wider audience, diminishing its impact and effectiveness. In looking for a reference to illustrate this point, I ran across this snippet from a journal article titled “Performing a Vanilla Self: Respectability Politics, Social Class, and the Digital World.”

They [privileged people] kind of dictate what’s good to say because we’re trying to appeal to them. Because they’re the ones who have the jobs, and they’re the ones who have the money to give us jobs, so we don’t want to say anything that would ... make us seem lesser in their eyes. I mean in a lot of ways we don’t really care, but we have to pretend that we do. And that’s kind of what I think Facebook is, it’s the performance of, “No look, I’m viable for this, I’m viable for that. I’m vanilla enough so everyone enjoys me.”

Pitcan, M., Marwick, A. E., & Boyd, D. (2018). Performing a vanilla self: Respectability politics, social class, and the digital world. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 23(3), 163-179.

Social media managers in these organizations often feel hamstrung in their roles due to excessive top-down control that restricts their ability to perform their jobs effectively. This micromanagement from leadership limits their creative freedom and responsiveness, essential components for successful social media engagement. Moreover, the inherently toxic nature of social media work, characterized by constant exposure to negative feedback, harassment, and high-stress levels, is frequently overlooked by leadership (Roberts, S.T., 2019). This lack of recognition and support exacerbates the challenges social media managers face, who must navigate both the demands of their audience and the stringent controls imposed by their superiors. Consequently, the disconnect between leadership's rigid control and the harsh realities of social media management undermines the overall effectiveness and well-being of those tasked with managing the organization's online presence.

In conclusion, the control exerted by leadership over social media strategy, coupled with their limited understanding of social media culture and an unwillingness to cede control to social media managers, results in an overly cautious approach that results in poor social media content performance. Additionally, the challenges posed by the imagined audience further complicate the effectiveness of social media communication. To improve social media effectiveness, organizations need to bridge the gap between leadership's concerns and the realities of successful social media practices, considering the often unpredictable nature of online audiences.

The path to better social media for your organization has already been paved

At this point, there’s no real good reason why environmental and outdoor-focused organizations should have poor performance on social media. We have enough resources, and the solutions to these challenges are straightforward; however, they do require a cultural shift and a power shift internally to your organization. Here is a list of seven points to incorporate into how you change how your organization uses social media:

1. Publishing to social media is only 10% of the work; the other 90% is organizing your audience.

2. If your published material looks like a press release, you are dead on arrival.

3. Your strategy should be driven from the bottom up. Leadership needs to empower those who know the internet best.

4. Make your content simpler and easier for a broader audience to understand. Recognize where elitism poisons your messaging.

5. Aim to create content that moves people into your audience instead of preaching to the choir.

6. Don’t be afraid of “messing up”; the consequences are far smaller than you realize, and the turn and burn of internet content means it will be forgotten quickly

7. Younger audiences (aka your future donors and customers) want authenticity and real human voices. Your social media managers are much closer in age and culture than leadership, and they can do it best.

Hopefully, if you’ve reached this point, I’ve converted you to the church of good social media for social change. However, if you’re feeling like you need real-world examples of this in action, I got you. There are already organizations (and government agencies) that are doing an incredible job of building a broad audience while effectively communicating messages that further their goals.

Yellow Dot Studios

IMBA

Washington Department of Natural Resources

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

References:

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press.

Litt, E., & Hargittai, E. (2016). The imagined audience on social network sites. Social Media+ Society, 2(1), 2056305116633482.

Roberts, S. T. (2019). Behind the screen. Yale University Press.

Boyd, D. (2014). It's complicated: The social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press.

Litt, E. (2012). Knock, knock. Who's there? The imagined audience. Journal of broadcasting & electronic media, 56(3), 330-345.

Marwick, A. E., & Boyd, D. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New media & society, 13(1), 114-133.