This blog is brought to you by Jennie Smythe, Founder & CEO of Girlilla Marketing.

The early-to mid-2010s hit us with explosive growth and opportunity in the digital space. Big, bulky, expensive websites began to take a simplified, less expensive, more nimble strategy. Email marketing, while still important, became less of a way to communicate and more of a way to highlight merchandise and other monetizable content. Mobile was making a mainstream debut, and at that time everything we did needed to be done twice to suit it (“responsive” wasn’t really a thing yet). Social media shifted to user-generated content, which gave way to a totally new host of challenges (and new-fangled platforms) to be sorted out in terms of rights and monetization. It also gave way to an entirely new world of possibility where the real stars of the platforms were the people using our content, not our clients or their content.

The technology was mutating so quickly that we found ourselves in new territory, communicating with more lawyers and business managers than before. There were more hoops to jump through, more hands in the pie, more opinions to wrangle, and much bigger consequences than we were used to. Everyone was able to survey along. As the “friend,” “like,” and “follow” buttons appeared, our work became quantifiable (kinda) and simultaneously became manipulatable (because, well … marketing).

We worked hard on certifications that helped us navigate the waters for our brand and talent clientele. Those certifications frequently could not be applied to musical artists, as the copyright and publishing systems did not move to the needs of the times (sound familiar, 1999/Napster?). Digital marketers found themselves working tirelessly now in areas that were traditionally handled by narrower expertise: content creation, copywriting, sales, publicity, customer service, crisis management, rights management, advertising, and trying to communicate all the correlating analytics, which quite frankly were becoming more sophisticated, but at the top of the decade were still in their infancy.

Sadly, we were still competing with the mentality of whether or not social media or digital marketing was important. Sometimes people were angry we even existed. We were dismissed as a second thought (or worse). We were often placed in a position of defense and justifying ourselves, rather than embraced and given the assets, tools, budget, and talent we needed to be successful.

By default, we had a lot of entry-level people who could speak to the acronyms and buzzwords that our leaders either didn’t want to admit they didn’t understand or didn’t want to be bothered to understand. Those entry level people were awarded fancy titles, and while they may have understood digital logistics, they sometimes lacked the human skills and/or a holistic view of an entire career trajectory—or simply life experience—and therefore did not forge the collaborative partnerships in which we succeed. Instead, lines were divided between what was “digital” and what was “real life.”

We developed, more than anything early in the decade, a strong spine and a willingness to hold our tongues even though we knew we were right. We knew we were building and protecting digital economies … some of which were the only areas that sustained musicians when the unthinkable COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 came our way.

I get a kick out of people who grumble about the genuineness of marketing mediums. Every few years, there’s a new force to contend with that speaks to a younger generation and for some reason, people act shocked by this. Their first reaction is always to dismiss it. It’s eerily similar to (and I am sure lightyears before this, but I only know my own experience) the argument about the validity of cassettes when CD’s came around, and the argument when streaming came along to challenge CDs. The digital marketing teams of yesteryear learned a lot by the rise and fall of Myspace (and networks that you’ve already forgotten existed before that).

However, it seems like once again we all have generational amnesia, and we hang on dearly to the “thing” we know. We rely on “business development” with those platforms in lieu of rolling with the tide of audience engagement.

Marketing always has been—and is always going to be—selling a product.  There’s no such thing as an entertainment medium or platform that isn’t selling you something. Marketing now may not be a direct sell at times, but it’s a sell, even if it’s just building an audience to sell you something later or somewhere else, or a thought or an idea of how you should look, live, and be.

If you have to say “authentic” or “organic” in a pitch or in a proposal, you’re already inauthentic and inorganic. Authenticity is key with any compelling human or brand … and organic just means you are putting consistent and captivating messaging in the world. You can still be authentic and organic on campaigns that cost money. You can be inauthentic and inorganic with your iPhone in your bathroom mirror. The terms are overused and exasperating. If you are creatively selling me something, I won’t feel slighted. If you have stolen my data and betrayed my trust, you should be sued for robbery. Pretty simple.

Here are five things we must tackle or reinforce every single day:

1. Your footprint is permanent, but the platforms are not. As your Granny would say, “Don’t put your eggs in one basket, dear.”
2. The quantity or timing of posts to a platform or a profile is not a marketing strategy. Best practices and algorithmic benefits should be considered, but compelling and inspired content is the chief consideration.
3. All platforms—no matter their born intent—will overcomplicate, scale to meet mass need, or give in to corporate/investor pressure and will turn their back on the audience (and creators) who made them popular in the first place. Ironically, their demise usually begins when monetization rights start looking better. Like Inspector Gadget, all platforms combust because they lose touch with who their creators are and what is best for their users.
4. Your “plans” are not as important as your “effort” and neither are as important as “results.” Pay attention to analytics, but don’t let them rule your view. Results happen in many other ways other than what the platforms trick you into believing. The platforms report on what’s best for THEM and THEIR REVENUE.
5. Just like in real life, if you spend your days posting (talking at) and not interacting (listening to and conversing with), you’re an asshole. No one will really want to hang out with you. They may want to observe you like a fascinating zoo animal, but “having an audience” doesn’t always equate to an audience that can be galvanized. Again, the results are not always in the numbers.

We’ve seen a lot of trends come and go, but none vapid than the birth of the “influencer.” What a strange left turn we took … from raging against big box retail and traditional commercials, to paying for premium streaming to avoid commercials altogether, to then being willingly connected to glossy, peculiarly similar-looking talking heads saying things like, “Well, sis … this is AH-MAZING. Let me put you on to this thing you don’t need that has CHANGED.MY.LIFE.” Then, once these “influencers” had to start disclosing #Ad/#Sponsored, we were surprised that these perfectly curated creatures might not be posting about these products out of the kindness of their hearts. Influencers are the pyramid scheme of social media.

Disclosure was a nice first step for the platforms to pretend that they cared about their end users. However, aside from a few public Kardashian-type shaming, new stories and communicating in strongly-written policies that are eerily hard to locate on the platforms that it was required to disclose a paid transaction, getting ‘busted’ has not been something to really fear in terms of enforcement. The platforms are best at indemnifying themselves, so they have no real responsibility for anything that gets created or communicated on their platform. This hit fever pitch with politics in 2020, and more got more exposure thanks to great documentaries like The Social Dilemma.

Where we once blamed companies like Foursquare for endangering our safety, we are now tagging our own media with our locations and letting humans who aren’t developed enough to understand the consequence of a digital footprint have their own channels while barely monitoring them. I cannot tell you how many times a parent has said they don’t monitor their children’s accounts because they “don’t understand” the platform, and yet they agree to their children having a profile. The truth is, we’ve been asking the platforms for transparency and help to report and enforce infractions for years. However, there has to be some personal responsibility and common sense applied to our own usage and restraint (especially for our own children).

We learned as children that people can be “popular” for no apparent reason whatsoever, and this was reinforced in a new generation via reality television. I wish they’d call it the popularity contest that it is so we can all better understand the phraseology. We also learned that being popular is a volatile station, and oftentimes you can be exiled as quickly as you are crowned. Gaining popularity without merit—oftentimes even for the person who is achieving it—can feel isolating and depressive. Following that path intensely as a viewer, comparing ourselves to the curated version of someone’s life that is presented as perfect can leave us feeling empty. We are all feeding on vacant validation that consistently leaves us hungry and dissatisfied. It’s a vicious and codependent cycle. Influence is a powerful tool, and putting it in the right hands at the right time with the right content can be innovative. Conversely, the stakes are high when the influence is being yielded in the opposite direction.

For clarity, I do not put EXPERT or CREATOR in the same bucket as the general, homogenized “influencer” bucket. Creators and experts are a vital part of the digital environment. One that has been so utterly awesome and fascinating to be a part of. People who are truly gifted and have worked hard to become experts in a field (even if it was a hobby and they didn’t think of their creative path as a viable career) have found an outlet to express themselves, connect with others, collaborate, and yes … make money. How wonderful! Of course it takes dedication, resources, perseverance, and practice to achieve viewership and demand, but so does anything.

I think as consumers we are much more accepting of celebrity endorsements than we ever were before. It seems like yesterday to me when celebrities were filming big ticket commercials that didn’t air in their homeland due to being frowned upon. Now, not only do celebrities appear in commercials, they are proud owners of products they are hawking too. Again, if you sell me something creatively, I celebrate you (how many people watch the Superbowl ads—especially online—without watching the game?). If you are lazy and it feels fake, shame on you. In this day in age, it’s just ridiculous to not be imaginative or at least upfront about it.

It has been quite a marketing breakthrough to see brands be able to connect with creators and experts who they may have not had exposure to otherwise. Not only did social media change the game for customer service making brands accountable in a public forum, but it also allowed for brands to really see their products being used in fun and visionary ways. They didn’t have to think too hard to find inspired ideas anymore—the creators were already doing that. To be able to identify and amplify experts and creators who have influence … that is the ultimate goal. However, too many brands and their correlating agencies do what they normally do: try to take the shortcut and default to the lowest common denominator in getting their product into the hands of people who have amassed popularity. It can absolutely make for a perceived quicker win and a shiny bullet point on a powerpoint for people who don’t care about the healthy longevity of the medium. It also contributes to the backlash to the “influencer” and therefore jeopardizes the viability for a lot of creators out there. I for one would like to see the business grow as I feel small business and the entrepreneurial spirit is good for everyone.

Now, of course scams on fans (or followers) is an old business. But, the platforms have made it difficult to navigate these waters in the modern world and have added investigative and legal work to our ever growing list of job duties. It is up to us to prove who we aren’t, not up to the platforms to protect who we are.

If you have ever been hacked or impersonated or bullied online, you know the toll it can take on your time and your emotions. Imagine you are hacked, impersonated, or bullied upwards of one hundred times a day across the globe. Now imagine that you have thirty clients, each on at least five platforms, and on each of those mediums you are being hacked, impersonated, or bullied on a daily basis. That is reality.

The blue checkmarks of verification are highly coveted and often head-shakingly hard to come by. To date, the standards to which your account can be verified have been vague at best. As an agency, we do have access to portals and tools (and personal contacts at the platforms), but the consistency and transparency is not there for the everyday person to follow. What is also mind-blowing is there is no process to prove who you are when you sign up, minus an email and in some cases identification for verification (if you can even access that). So, people can create a profile saying they are anyone, and if that anyone happens to be someone famous, it’s the famous person who has to fight for their name. Huh? Hours upon hours are spent in our office playing whack-a-mole, searching for our client’s name and content and reporting violations to the platforms.

Again, we have better tools than ever, but the system is so very flawed. By simply saying “fan account” somewhere on the bio, many profiles are allowed to stay in operation using a name, likeness, and content that they do not own. There are private messages to contend with that you have to rely on fans to send to you, so that you can identify these false profiles and shut them down. Most of these accounts swindle people out of money … or worse, safety. By the time we get them, in many cases, damage has been done. Fans are becoming more savvy to the scams, but the scams are also becoming more savvy to the fans. So, the second we take one step forward, we take two steps back.

As I write this, we have experienced action that many can argue goes against free speech and looks a whole lot like censorship. What followed in the next elevated, emotional days—that the media absolutely loved—was vague codes of conduct and subjective outlines for who or what would be allowed. I am still unsure as to what these platforms have set forth as their “rules” and what the enforcement looks like.

While I was personally hoping to see more from big tech even before the 2020 political problems and press coverage, I do think it’s dangerous to set precedent on an individual basis. Clear guidelines and consistent enforcement are not too much to ask. Much like verification and imposters, the platforms should be held responsible and can be doing so much more. Public pressure to make improvements in our online communities to make them safer is a beautiful thing. But, what is happening on the days we aren’t looking? In the meantime, it’s pretty easy to unfollow someone and cut their power source. Again, there has to be some personal responsibility and common sense applied to our own usage and restraint.

If public profiles were treated as broadcasters and therefore were vetted before going live, and if they adhered to a set of standards similar to television, radio, etc., I believe we could not only cut down on imposters and scams, but we could drastically cut down on fake news and false advertisements. I believe that the cat is out of the bag on clickbait and trendjacking, though it breaks my heart to see respected news outlets doing this for traffic. However, if you make it past the headline and actually click the media, the outlet needs to be responsible for their work.

I believe most journalists at respectable news outlets guard their rights with all their power. I think a lot of people agree with me that censorship is wrong. However, we can certainly demand safety nets for public profiles and creators (broadcasters) to ensure they are responsible for what they post or share (broadcast). We should all agree that before you post or share, as a verified profile, you have the responsibility to agree that you are confirming what you are sharing is true and is verified.

The 2010’s saw so much social media growth and impact that looking back even now gives me heartburn. After Facebook’s IPO was the third biggest in U.S. history and the biggest ever for a tech company, many who didn’t pay attention to digital media or dismissed it, suddenly were very interested in our strategy. Grandparents finally started to understand what it was we did for a living. While we were busy with our previous digital duties, we were also trying to manage strategies on the other networks and messaging apps like Pinterest and LinkedIn. We saw advertising integration and new territories that we hadn’t had exposure or access to, like Asia. Every single year, more opportunities opened up, and more duties became our responsibility. I loved the pace of it.

Social listening became more than a buzzword. Certainly, words and rants were an established means of digital communication, but now the new generation of content was turning that up a notch. Not only did we have access to people telling us what they did or didn’t like, or if they had a great or a bad experience, but now we had more robust expressions to absorb: cover songs, creative collaborations, paintings, photographs, animated videos, and cameras turned inward during experiences so we could FEEL what people were saying.

While the amount of interaction on posts became an analytic touchpoint in our reporting, quantity did not always reflect the positive or negative. “Sentiment” became the new buzzword which was always a head scratcher to me. While it’s a nice line item on an executive report to say “98% positive reaction”, the reality is the metric was so imperfect that I loathed it. One of my favorite points to make was that no machine could ever really be an effective monitor. Take for instance the word “sick” or “fuck.” Both can be used in either a positive or negative context, and no robot can monitor that to the level that we need..

While we worked hard at evolving our content based on platform capability and client artistic expression, the business was making equal strides in more produced monetizable content and tools to ensure the user was still able to yield and deploy on-the-fly content. Nothing was off the table, and as we watched Snapchat go from the home of dick pics to the precursor of expiring content (which has been all the rage for the last couple of years), a strange thing happened … We got excited about the possibility of a platform that might not be able to be manipulated by marketing. (For the record, that hasn’t happened yet, but I am holding out hope for the future.)

Looking back at jobs I had when I was younger, when I cleaned up at the tanning salon—and later hotel rooms and offices from late-night record label parties—I had the luxury of living in a world that wasn’t constantly being documented. So, while a mess was something that needed to be physically attended to, it wasn’t something that I’d have to live through in any sort of permanent way. Other than being pissed off (and grossed out), I never gave it a second thought. Now, we have tangles that never go away. Some are self-inflicted and are a direct result of not listening to good advice, making a bad or reactionary decision, or worse yet, not being a good person. And Some messes are a direct result of being antagonized, baited or even hunted.

When there is a social media crisis, the very first thing you have to do is CALM THE FUCK DOWN. As a social media management company, we’ve seen extreme situations over the years, and here’s what I know: Nothing in those first hours. Initally, my job is to not react—not get turned up in the hype—but rather to gather the facts, trace the steps, and remain non-judgmental. In the digital ecosystem, attention spans are short, the truth can be debatable and hard to discern, and the media that spreads the quickest is usually the most sensational, not the most factual. In order to help someone through a rough situation, you must remain neutral for as long as possible. This is also the same approach we apply with our friends who (and it’s unfortunate that we even have to say this) are dealing with their children being bullied.

I try to keep some of my past bad decisions close to the surface in these situations because they give me empathy and perspective. Had any of the shenanigans I engaged in when I was in my twenties ended up on social media, what would have happened to me? Hasn’t everyone at some point been in a relationship with a gay drug dealer and occasionally woke up in Vegas dressed like a catholic schoolgirl with the residue of an 8ball in your backpack? No? OK.

I share this only because I believe that while that was terrible behavior, none of my “friends” took photos and left a footprint that would follow me forever, damaging professional opportunities and personal relationships. Nobody said, “I don’t know if this is true” and then posted it anyway. While tabloids are old news in the media world, the personal networks we’ve created under the guise of community are now not only capable—but celebratory—in leading the cancel culture. It’s the worst of humanity, and the algorithms love to magnify it.

Back in the day, when you were at the grocery store and you saw the tabloids on the shelf, you may have perused them while you were waiting to check out. However, you didn’t buy all the copies in the store and drive them to all of your friends’ houses, proclaim that what you read was true, and begin a campaign of outrage. You knew that while a story *may* have some truth to it, the source itself was widely known to be sensationalistic and therefore was taken with a grain of salt.

If you are a perfect person, God Bless! I’d like to shake your hand. But if you’re like the rest of us and happen to have a couple of flaws, or if you’ve made some mistakes that you grew from, can we agree to give people some space? Unless we take a step back and put ourselves in other people’s shoes and think before we share, comment or post, know that you (or someone you love) could take a turn next.

But aside from the Cancel Culture, the digital community has a very positive element.. This community is responsible for spreading the word on charities or movements that otherwise wouldn’t have had an outlet. Some of the social platforms have made it turnkey to raise funds or awareness for causes and organizations. I am extremely pleased that the barrier of entry to do good and spread the word has been lowered and put in the power of the people, so we can all be involved. I was particularly heart warmed that even with 2020’s volatile political environment, pandemic, and general dis-ease of the digital community, we found a way to give even when it felt like we didn’t have any more to give.

Specifically, I was proud to be a part of the music business community during the last half of 2020. The music community is like a sibling. That sibling can be hateful and nasty, can knock you down, steal your lunch money, put your head in the toilet, and cram you in a locker. But if that sibling catches someone messing with you, look out, because they’ve got something coming their way. We in the music business—even though we compete or have heated discussions about what is right— will put everything on the line to help our little sisters and brothers—even in the middle of a pandemic.

Be good…online and in real life.
Jennie