A few weeks ago, JupiterKagan ignited quite a bit of a blog storm about a study it conducted focusing on the use of blogging technology by corporations. Now the firm has raised the ire of a different group of bloggers over a new service it is offering.
Eager to tap into the growing interest in social media, the firm announced recently that is starting a "social marketing" service that will "provide marketers and site owners with recommendations on how to profit from the use of consumer generated content, blogs, podcasts, and other emerging media tools."
Sounds like a great idea. The problem is that the term social marketing is already taken. It's a decades-old practice that, until recently, has had little to do with blogs, podcasts, Video sharing Websites and other "Web 2.0" communications vehicles.
In a guest post published on this blog a few weeks ago, Nedra Kline Weinreich explained why.
Weinreich thinks that JupiterKagan should use a different term to define its practice to eliminate confusion. I agree.
Click here to read about what Weinreich is asking JupiterKagan to do. Carol Kirshner weighs in here.
[Update: JupiterKagan responds. Today, David Schatsky said: "If we find over time that the term loses its relevance in our industry we'll revisit it. We have renamed coverage areas in the past. But for now, and with no disrepect to those who have worked at the other social marketing for years, whose efforts I applaud, I think the name for our coverage area is appropriate in our context and will stick with it."]
Eager to tap into the growing interest in social media, the firm announced recently that is starting a "social marketing" service that will "provide marketers and site owners with recommendations on how to profit from the use of consumer generated content, blogs, podcasts, and other emerging media tools."
Sounds like a great idea. The problem is that the term social marketing is already taken. It's a decades-old practice that, until recently, has had little to do with blogs, podcasts, Video sharing Websites and other "Web 2.0" communications vehicles.
In a guest post published on this blog a few weeks ago, Nedra Kline Weinreich explained why.
Weinreich thinks that JupiterKagan should use a different term to define its practice to eliminate confusion. I agree.
Click here to read about what Weinreich is asking JupiterKagan to do. Carol Kirshner weighs in here.
[Update: JupiterKagan responds. Today, David Schatsky said: "If we find over time that the term loses its relevance in our industry we'll revisit it. We have renamed coverage areas in the past. But for now, and with no disrepect to those who have worked at the other social marketing for years, whose efforts I applaud, I think the name for our coverage area is appropriate in our context and will stick with it."]