As marketers, many of us strive to “be everywhere” on the Internet. It seems like a reasonable goal given the capabilities of tools like TweetDeck, Ping.fm and others that allow us to continuously share information across multiple social media platforms at once.
Or maybe, you’re spending hours shooting video, blogging and podcasting because you almost feel obligated … only to find out your market is really getting trustworthy information from one of your competitors on some other industry-specific, niche social media site.
You can’t be everywhere, nor should you. Many entrepreneurs are excited about technology and they overextend themselves because they want to be part of the latest trend. The key is to only be where your customers, prospects and those who influence them engage.
Personally, I do tend to be everywhere because I’m in the business of social media and online marketing. It’s my duty to have an in-depth understanding of an excessive number of platforms. It’s part of the value I bring to clients.
For most business owners and marketing managers, however, it may make more sense to focus on one or two networks.
I think the reason most entrepreneurs, and larger companies for that matter, fall into the trap of “be everywhere” is that they have yet to clearly define their niche target market. It’s almost easier to believe that “everyone is a potential customer” than focus on a specific segment.
Unfortunately, the process of marketing to everyone is actually more like marketing to no one. It’s very difficult to sell your product or service without specifically talking to a potential buyer’s wants and needs.
I recommend you get laser focussed on your niche and find the 1 or 2 of the most trusted social media platform for that audience. Then communicate directly to those people using words and information that let’s them know you’re speaking to them.
What do you think? Is being everywhere a reasonable strategy or does it make more sense to hand-pick online platforms for more effective, targeted communication?