Reach and Owned Platforms
Reach, reach, reach.
Reach more people, with less time.
Reach the right people, in the right places.
Reach everyone somehow.
The reach argument never goes away. History probably had this argument when Gutenberg invented the printing press and when radio and TV became mediums in which to sell to consumers. With the move to digital, reach is even more hotly contested than ever before.
Marketers, communications experts, companies and brands are looking to be able to reach more people as they get connected to the web. Social Media is no different. Community managers will tell you how often their brands want to just be able to reach everyone, so that everyone buys and becomes a consumer of that brand.
Owned Platform
Yet, with social we’re governed by always trying to find that reach on someone else’s real estate, never our own. While we have a brand’s page/profile on these platforms, they can be deemed as owned, as the content belongs to the brand, but they are never truly owned. The brand is governed by a set of rules and regulations put in place by that platform, not one that is defined by the brand or user. We’re just tenants on the property.
So why then are we not strong believers in having ‘Owned’ platforms. Ones created by brands / people and governed by rules and regulations set out by us, not someone sitting in a country we’ve never been to.
I am a big believer in being the owner of my content and their by having a content hub and gaining a community from it. I do though think that social platforms and other websites play a role in enabling the content produced.
Sharing content across various platforms increases reach. Using multiple platforms will get your message across to people. Cross-pollination of content ensures that you then drive these people back to a platform owned by you.
Algorithms on various platforms will always change, Google even messes with us sometimes, but being able to use multiple platforms to drive the message helps you to find the right reach.
Let me know what you think about owning a platform instead of renting a property in the comments below.
Agreed. I like how to unpack that people are so busy on real estate they don’t own that we forget about possible gold mines that we own – our own real estate. Makes me realise that I’m also not putting enough effort to look after my ‘hotel’ though I want guests to visit. Great article. Thanks Zahira.
Thanks Naz.
I am trying my hardest to put sometime back into this blog and realised I have loads of thoughts like the above to share. So time to share them and get the conversation flowing again.
I like your thinking, lady. And I’m also guilty of not taking care of my property… should get to it pronto. Happy writing! Look forward to reading more from u.
Thanks Zakiya!
I think we all get so caught up that we don’t stick to our guns and write more. I wish I was like some of my friends who diligently write every week.
Here’s hoping I get back into it.
Thanks for a solid article. I prefer owned platforms for 2 uses: firstly, internal content and communication; and secondly, website content. Platforms like Facebook, etc are essential – and cannot be replaced by owned platforms – because that’s where the masses are, and you want them to interact with your brand where *they* are. Social Media platforms are not content platforms for the most part (although storing photos, etc is possible). The major thrust behind these networks is the conversation and relationship elements. And it’s very cumbersome to achieve this on an owned platform. So for me it’s not an either-or situation – both have their place.
Agreed, which then brings us back to strategy. A great strategy will make the world of a difference to you, your content and what you’re trying to achieve. As people social has been our way of life, now it’s just translated onto digital, but strategy teaches us, what works and where it works. Brands and people can’t be on every platform all of the time.
But you’re right, everything has a place.