(click the image for an easier-to-read version. Note that this a ‘living’ chart that I have been soliciting feedback/input on – if you have any suggestions/additions/changes, just post a comment below or at the SlideShare page!)

I’ve already noted how social media is not the same as Word of Mouth. And as the social landscape broadens, it’s simply causing more confusion as the term “social” gets slapped on just about anything to make it sound cool and relevant.

Above is a chart I’ve been working on that tries to illustrate the “social” landscape in terms of tactics and goals. You should be able to take any social touchpoint/tactic/business model (brand community, Twitter profile, blogger outreach, CGM sweepstakes) and plot them on this chart.

Essentially, this chart segments the social landscape into four quadrants… as a function of:

• CRM (social CRM or sCRM)
• Marketing (social MARKETING)
• PR (social PR)
• Media (social MEDIA)

The horizontal axis represents “owned” social channels (that you own/control) versus “leased” ones (i.e., paying a company for access to their network of consumers willing to try and/or talk about your product). The “partially owned” area represents social platforms such as Twitter and Facebook where yes, you can establish a brand presence but you don’t own any underlying data and are at the whim of the service provider in terms of metrics or even having your account suspended. The vertical axis represents the depth of engagement from very 1-to-1/personal to impersonal/3rd-person – i.e., “engagement” vs. “reach”:

In conclusion, there is nothing wrong with leveraging the social web to facilitate high-impact, quick hit consumer promotions, but at the end of the day was your goal to “reach” 1,000,000 consumers with a message about your product, or simply “acquire” a 10,000 email addresses into your company’s email database? As the social landscape broadens, marketers need to ensure that their success metrics are in line with the tactics they are leveraging. And that unfortunately can’t happen until you have properly educated the folks holding the pursestrings.

This lack of integrated strategy is largely a result of two factors:

• the experimentation encouraged in Steve Rubel’s Digital Embassy strategy
• the relative ease involved with launching a presence

On the surface an integrated approach seems ideal but ultimately it must be driven by the key objective.  An Embassy strategy works well if you’re building up natural search results or brand awareness but not so well if you’re objective is customer acquisition and deeper relationships with customers.  Without integration, there’s no clear path for the consumer to take the casual relationship to a deeper one.

As I started writing I realized there was a good amount to cover, so instead of tackling this topic all in one go, I figured I’d break it into three manageable chunks.  Next up will be working through the various integration opportunities and reviewing the potential road blocks.

Social capital can be best defined as an “investment in social relations with expected returns in marketplace.” It deals with the value of an individual’s social network/connections.

For example, let’s say you have a great new product that you’d love to have Oprah talk about on her show (who wouldn’t!). It’s safe to say that Oprah’s social capital is much more valuable than yours or mine – she has a worldwide audience of millions and is one of the wealthiest people in the US with connections to a who’s who of celebrities, business leaders and politicians – so it would be extremely difficult to gain access to her connections/spheres of influence.

Social currency is a term used to describe the value of exchange of information. In a nutshell, social currency acts as an “icebreaker” and is ammunition for conversation. It can come in many forms such as a funny joke, a stock tip, a funny viral video, or juicy gossip, i.e., “I know something you don’t know” – it makes someone look good in a social context and buys respect and admiration. Oprah would happily mention your great new product on her show if she felt the social currency it provided would be of value to her audience and make her look “in the know.” “Water cooler” TV shows work because those who watch them are “in the know” while others feel left out.

Remember the first time someone sent you a link to Subservient Chicken? You probably felt special, like you were privy to something no one else knew about. You quickly emailed the link out to your friends, family and co-workers. Then the mainstream media picked up on it, and soon your inbox was flooded with “check this out” emails! The value of the social currency dropped significantly since it had become old news.

So, how does this all relate to word of mouth and your company, product or service? When developing a word of mouth strategy you need to factor in the social capital of those you are trying to engage/reach (are you trying to reach hip, cool Gen Y-ers, or simply trying to reach people looking for free stuff to try out?) as well as the value of the social currency you can offer them (is your brand/product/service itself remarkable?), or can you provide some level of inside access/content/information which would be of value to your most passionate, outspoken customers and/or potential ones?