Gary Vaynerchuk: “99.5 Percent Of Social Media Experts Are Clowns” (TCTV)
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
"Social media experts are mostly clowns! Except me. You can trust me."
Nothing else, he has 850k followers on Twitter. Mostly organic. I think it is safe to say, 99.5% of "Social Media Experts" do not have 500k+ followers.
It's true that having over 500k followers puts you in the top 700 Twitter users.
It's equally true that having over 500k followers does not automatically make someone a "social media expert" (Donald Trump, Lindsay Lohan, & Nicole Richie are in that list - I don't think I'd hire them for social media strategy).
Is it also true that you can't be a social media expert with <500k followers? I don't know the answer to that one, probably not.
It's definitely true that Gary V's follower count alone does not confer expert status, nor deny it from anyone else.
It depends on the niche and market size. I know someone who runs a social media consultancy in the rural area I live who does well out of training people on this stuff and she only has about 800 followers. She's an expert to them, although she's obviously not Gary Vaynerchuk or whatever.
It's also not fair to compare him to celebrities like Trump or Lohan. They were already famous when they joined Twitter. Gary started at the bottom. I have no idea what he's done for clients with social media, but in terms of his own personal brand, he has crushed it (pun intended).
I can tell you that as I've reached out twice from the UK. I was trying to buy 150 copies of TYE!
I'm a big fan, but his star lost some of its sparkle when I didn't get a response.
You made good points in the interview - my comment was made more in a spirit of good-natured ribbing, although I have to admit that the tone did not convey that properly.
I'm actually quite familiar with the work you've done, and have a lot of respect for you.
It's just too tempting to tweak anyone who speaks in hyperbole.
I had a teacher who said you can't call yourself an economist if you don't have a PhD. PhD's may work for some fields, but not for programming, for example.
The PhD was originally about theology, law and medicine. It was co-opted by scientists less than two centuries ago.
tl;dr social media isn't just a tactic to dabble in, because it opens the floodgates for end user communication. It's potentially a revolutionary way to establish context with users, but you have to be ready to engage fully or it can do more harm than good.
You didn't just seriously use the phrase "a revolutionary way to establish context with users", unironically. Right?
Just because people abuse a phrase doesn't mean it is not relevant.
If you two really believe that this stuff is revolutionary, I am embarrassed by how low the bar is for my generation.
There's no reason to be embarrassed btw.
Then I looked at your other comments, and realized that I had just been trolled so hard that it had more in common with a religious experience than ordinary, mortal satire. My vision went gray. I saw angels beckoning me to a bright white place. There was harp music, reasonably priced German beer, etc etc.
You are really amazingly good at this. If someone isn't already paying you to dick with people on the internet, they should be.
Firstly, to get this out of the way, your attitude doesn't really belong on HN and these petty arguments don't contribute to the discussion.
Let's look at how I believe it is revolutionary for the Chinese restaurant.
* They now have an easier, more convenient and better way to contact and be in constant contact with their customers.
* They have pretty good data on their customers. Their ages, their genders, their education status and more.
* Easier transition to online business. If they decided to provide an online service they already have an attentive customer base to work from.
For what it is worth, I do think most "social media experts" are full of waffle.
I've referred two business friends to Gary's latest book because it has easily understood recipes of how a business such a restaurant can make social media work for them. They're actual case studies, no theory and the majority of the examples aren't even Vayner Media clients.
A good consultant needs to be a great marketer first and social media expert second.
p(e|c) = p(c|e)*p(e)/p(c)
= .995*p(e)/p(c)
~ .3/.75
= .4Because ... well after all Social Media is easy isn't it? It's just using Facebook and Twitter and nearly everybody can do it. I'm a hacker (a nontechnical hacker who knows what lisp is and how to get a database to scale) i thought marketing is stupid, I want to work on cool stuff.
But something happened in the last 2 years, I analyzed how the behaviour of users changed. I helped building brands on social media. I saw the difficulties of people that had active and succesful twitter accounts in developing a succesful strategy for a a company.
I now see Social Media Consulting as a central part of our business and we have a moat, it's knowledge. Managing a Facebook Account with 1.000.000 likes is not easy and it has nothing to do with using Facebook as a personal tool. The term social media ist still stupid but I no longer have a problem calling myself a social media expert. Expertise is a relative term even a local Social Media expert with 800 followers might be perfect for his clients. Using social platforms for strategic communication purposes is not easy.
I also think value is relative. 90%+ of social media experts can probably make a local mechanic have a better online presence.
Not that this is a complete solution, but I would expect a company getting into social media to have some goals it would like to accomplish in doing so, and it can evaluate a candidate based on past history of accomplishing similar goals. Or maybe having such goals counts as knowing something?
Unfortunately, I believe that the effective level is a lot lower than 5%, so Gary may be off somewhat in his clown assessment.