Categories

Authors

Pages

Recent posts

Recent comments

Archives

Which Social Platform Works Better For Marketers?

Wednesday, 17 February 2010 @ 16:51, by Wes Funk

The answer is it depends.  Are you focused on customer communication, brand exposure or increasing traffic to your site?  From Facebook to YouTube to Digg and beyond the list of social media sites continues to grow at an extraordinary pace, making the task of choosing the right route to expand social media marketing increasingly complex. Which social media outlet will net the most bang for the buck?

Check out this graphic created by CMO.com and 97th Floor for an analysis of which social media tools are your best bet, it may clear up some of the social media overload you may be experiencing.

I’d love to get your feedback about what social media site best accomplishes your objectives. Post your comments below.

Click here for a downloadable pdf version of the chart:

http://www.omniture.com/go/26899

cmo-social-landscape-r52-500x862

  • on  
  • Bookmark at  

respond to post

responses

  1. AJ Wilcox2010/2/17 @ 8:11 pm

    Great work, Wes! Very informative. I just have two corrections for you. For Delicious, you said that it’s good for SEO. Unfortunately, Delicious employs the use of rel=”nofollow” on all their links, thus making it effectively worthless for link value on SEO. Youtube is the same way. Other than that, the chart is golden.
  2. Eduardo2010/2/18 @ 8:30 am

    Nice Infographic. Thank you
  3. Wes Funk2010/2/18 @ 8:34 pm

    Don’t be too quick to underestimate the value of social sites that use rel=”no follow”. Many bloggers use Delicious to find good content to then write about and link to thus helping out your seo, similar to Digg.

    Youtube is a similar example, as one might expect YouTube matches to be immediately indexed in Google, especially after Google acquired them, but I’ve come to the conclusion that Youtube earns it rankings without any special Google-indexing love.
  4. Bill Seaver2010/2/22 @ 2:38 pm

    This is an interesting chart. I don’t agree with all of it but there’s some helpful information here. My primary caution to any interested in social media marketing is that they don’t start with the technology, rather you need to start with the people you’re trying to reach. Then move to determining your objectives and strategy, and then the technology that fits. This chart may tempt someone to dive into a tool/technology that doesn’t work for them but has a lot of green boxes.
  5. Milwaukee SEO2010/3/14 @ 12:29 am

    Thanks for sharing the graphic Wes! This definitely is a very easy piece to share with clients who are not always dialed in on what they are truly going after. That being traffic, brand awareness etc.
  6. Imran2010/3/17 @ 3:27 pm

    Nice work! Facebook’s advertising potential is hugh. Design a good app and it is a win win situation. CPC is even cheaper than Google’s PPC if targeted carefully. If you need to choose then bank on FB and youtube only.
    Rest is not worth the hassle!
  7. FAQ Software Agent2010/5/20 @ 11:46 pm

    Pretty cool infographic right there! It does depend on what your long term goal is for your brand, you can always perform and send it all to all social sites, but that would take a great deal of time and resources.
  8. konteyner2010/8/8 @ 6:09 am

    The personalized search can be switched off, as informed by this article. I’ve been wondering why google results are still different on different computers even when both computers have had their web history deleted, so thanks for that, it’s v useful! Google will continue to evolve for sure, so any disadvantage the present state of affairs has for some people will keep changing anatway no doubt.
  9. lilash reviews2011/5/14 @ 11:15 am

    Many internet marketers use social media sites to promote their company and their products. I believe social media sites play a great role as of today in internet marketing. It can drive traffic to your site, convince future customers and gain more friends to sell the products. It can increase productivity.