△ MENU/TOP △

Holtz Communications + Technology

Shel Holtz
Communicating at the Intersection of Business and Technology
SearchClose Icon

Social media specialists charging for Google+ webinars? I’m fine with that

There are people like you and me. We eat, sleep and breathe new media. We want to be among the first to get invites to the latest offerings (Quora, Empire Avenue, Google+) because if we’re not there early, we’ll miss something important, we’ll be left behind. We read what our peers and mentors write about these new channels, soaking up all we can get, curating the best for future reference.

When we see someone with the chutzpah to charge for insights into one of these new channels, we bristle. “How dare they?” we ask. “The channel is too new for anyone to proclaim themselves an expert. And besides, if someone wanted to learn about this channel, there are tons of free resources, all those blog posts and articles and reviews that new-media specialists have produced and generously given away.”

But we forget too easily that, in addition to you and me, there’s a much larger group of people who have neither the time nor the inclination to make exploration of every new, potentially important channel a focus of long-term study. There are, in my line of work, communicators who spend 10 hours a day at the office. They sit in mandatory yet interminable meetings. They take work home. They produce the outputs for which they are held accountable. And, more than likely, they’re doing it with a smaller staff and budget than they used to have.

A Google+ comes along and generates a lot of buzz. No, time had not yet told whether it will be factor in a year the way Facebook or Twitter were. Yes, it’s still in “field test,” is being tweaked routinely by Google, and only contains its preliminary set of features. No, nobody knows for sure just how it will fit into the social media landscape once it matures, or even what segment of the online population will use it.

But that nose-to-the-grindstone communicator has a boss who wants to know how Google+ might affect the company’s plans. They have budgets to set for 2012 and need to know if an investment will be required. They’re not looking to make Google+ a field of study. They just want to know what they need to know.

So Chris Brogan (for example) spends a ton of time in Google+, then offers an online session for $49 during which he’ll share what he’s learned. He never labeled himself a Google+ expert. He never claimed to unveil the secrets of Google+ or tell you how to use it to sell product. All he ever said was that he’d share what he’d learned.

When I was a general assignment newspaper reporter, I was not an expert in any of the topics I covered. However, I spent the required time with the subject, and then shared in easy-to-understand language what I learned. People paid 50 cents for the newspaper that contained reporting by me and the rest of the staff.

For some of us, charging for a Google+ webinar seems outrageous (and a number of critics have said so in blog posts and other channels). For that communications manager putting in 65 hours a week on the job (and trying to live a personal life in the momemts between), it’s a bargain. Two hours to learn the most important aspects of Google+, all in one place? Where does he sign up?

I’m not singling out Brogan. Bulldog Reporter is planning a teleconference on Google+. So is Ragan Communications. (Ragan has asked me to conduct the webinar, which will take place in late October.) PR News is charging $329 for its webinar, while Practical Social Media (of which I’ve never heard) is charging about one-tenth of that.

The list goes on. Among the webinars you’ll find in a search, many are free. So why pay? A number of possible reasons come to mind. First, there’s the old saw that you get what you pay for. Second, you have to consider the source. A free webinar from someone you’ve never heard of vs. a low-cost webinar from a trusted source that has always provided top-rate information in the past may tip the scales to whipping out that credit card. There are people who subscribe to resources like PR News, Ragan and Bulldog specifically bcause these organizations have earned their trust with great, useful content in the past.

It’s simple. If the best, easiest way for someone to get the information they need is to fork over a few bucks and spend an hour or two in a webinar or a workshop, that’s great. As long as the information provided is accurate and useful, and participants feel like they got their money’s worth, all the critics should save their ire for those who do claim to be experts or charge exorbidant amounts to deliver unsupportable information.

Comments
  • 1.Good points, and timely. Any relevant G+ insights I can find, while also doing my job and planning for next year and trying to get a little R&R, are important. Power to anyone how can help me decide what's best about G+, advertising on Facebook, measuring results, emerging media and just about anything else in the strategic marketing communications toolbox.

    trevor campbell | August 2011 | Canada

  • 2.If they aren't "an expert", why should we pay them?

    If we pay them now, will we have to pay them again, when Google+ actually has some real marketing value and business pages?

    I just think this is premature because not only is it in Beta, but it's very early Beta. As for the argument of free vs. paid, I'd bet that because it's so early, I can get as much out of the free ones, or the free video tutorials that are already on line, than anything that Chris Brogan, Bulldog, Regan, etc. can give me. Because there just isn't much there.

    The idea of paying seems to connote some sort of secret knowledge, which I don't think anyone has at this point. It's a rather simple platform with not much to learn. yet.

    To me, charging for what is there actually makes me view these organizations in less of a positive light. Goodness knows we've been steered wrong by Brogan in the past. Just because you CAN charge and people WILL pay for it, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Just because some companies have the resources to pay for this doesn't mean you should charge them that.

    In a few months? Maybe. But not now. Anything you teach will be ancient history very fast.

    Ken Mueller | August 2011 | Lancaster, PA

  • 3.Ken, I think you missed both the points I tried to make. First, you don't have to be an expert to share what you've learned. That's what journalists do (and charge for). People will pay to benefit from what you've learned so they don't have to spend the same amount of time on the process. And while it is early -- I couldn't agree more -- that doesn't mean managers and directors don't have to answer to their bosses who want answers, nor does it mean they don't have to plan for a budget that won't be active for another 4-1/2 months. 2012 budgets are being set today.

    Shel Holtz | August 2011

  • 4.Great post Shel, and I am behind what Chris and you are doing. What someone thinks is trivial information could be a godsend to someone else. With the democratization of information, further spurred by the development of the social web, everybody is exposed to and consuming information very differently. For those that don't have time to spend on social media, paying a small amount of money to get ramped up in an hour webinar is a no-brainer. If you can charge money and get customers, you are providing value that is being accepted by the marketplace. Otherwise you won't get any customers. I don't see why people have to complain about that. It's a capitalist society. If you don't want to attend, don't. If you are mad about it, host your own webinar. But don't be angry with someone who can monetize his or her knowledge and experience in a creative way.

    Neal Schaffer | August 2011 | Irvine, CA

  • 5.No, I understand your points completely. I'm just disagreeing with them. No, you don't have to be an expert to share what you have learned. But these people are not journalists. People aren't paying them to "report" on Google +. As a former journalist and a current educator, I know the difference. You said it yourself, people pay and follow these organizations because these organizations have earned their trust with great, useful content in the past. They may not "claim" to be experts, but that's the underlying message, and it is why people are paying them. They aren't paying for reporting. They can get that from Mashable and Techcrunch for free.

    And your second point re: budgets doesn't hold water. All we are doing then is upholding a faulty status quo that wastes money because doggonitall, decisions need to be made today. Seems to me smart managers and directors would tell their bosses "Hey, it's too early. We will see what info we can get, but let's not throw our money away on information that is a)abundant for free and b)pretty rudimentary.

    I think it is wrong for companies to pay for this, thinking they will get something meaty, and wrong for others to offer this kind of information when there is nothing to offer.

    I can learn how to tie my shoes from a free YouTube video, or I can pay a Shoe Tying Guru $395 to show me. Or...I can mess around see if I can figure it out myself.

    Ken Mueller | August 2011 | Lancaster, PA

  • 6.Shel -You and Chris are both trusted friends of mine and i have huge respect for you both and for many of the other people who are also charging for Google+ information.

    However, Google+ is still in limited beta, and changing daily. I agree with Ken that anything "taught" now will be ancient history in a few weeks.

    Yes, I understand that there is value to our time, and I also sell information. But only when I am sure I am really adding value to what's already available, free. I've yet to see that happen in this case.

    I stand by my post "Down Sparky! Self-proclaimed Google+ experts already multiplying like rabbits" http://www.whatsnextblog.com/2011/07/down-sparky-self-proclaimed-google-experts-already-multiplying-like-rabbits/


    B.L. Ochman | August 2011 | New York City

  • 7.Well, just like the folks against such moves -- and I am, and see it as unethical -- you are entitled to your opinion. It's interesting that this is the same justification for folks like ambulance chasers - er, lawyers - etc. I couldn't live with myself using an excuse like, "well, I have a right to earn a living." We call those hucksters where I am from.

    Geoff Livingston | August 2011 | DC

  • 8.Ah this debate conjurs up memories of a past era when we used to receive similar vitriol when we started introducing online/computer-mediated information, interactive communications, Internet, Intranet, web, etc. How many times were many in our audiences openly hostile at our suggestions that these tools were going to reshape internal/external communications, public relations, marketing, etc.

    Vividly recall when a majority of audiences stormed out of IABC sessions featuring Jeff Hallett and John Barlow proclaiming that they were simply trying to sell snake oil, were fooling people with bogus claims and that there was no way online and information technology was going to change the business communications profession.

    Of course, all the naysayers were dead wrong.

    Craig Jolley | August 2011 | Ohio

  • 9.While I know those who have dug in their heels are unlikely to undig them, I'll still respond to the key themes I've seen here.

    1. People aren't paying to report on Google+
    Says who? What Chris Brogan offered was a report on his deep dive over a long (relatively) period of time. Sounds like reporting to me, even if it's not journalistic. My reference to journalism was meant to be analogous, by the way, which is different from a direct comparison. What people want (and I emphasize that nobody's twisting anybody's arm) is for someone to tell them, concisely and comprehensively, what they know about this new service. Some people will probably offer valueless content, others probably have useful insights. I'd evaluate them on a case-by-case basis as opposed to condemning anybody with an offer. Ultimately, though, what people are paying for is what the session description promises. Period. If the session delivers, they got their money's worth. If it didn't, they have every right to protest.

    2. There's an abundance of information -- That's the problem. The abundance of information takes far too much time for the average person to sift through. I have the time because I stay on top of this stuff for a living. A manager of corporate communications at a 5,000-employee international company with a staff of two? Not so much. Curation is gaining traction because it's a solution to the problem that search used to address. A search of "Google+" on Google reveals about 18 million items. Let's be reasonable. Someone who just wants to know but isn't immersed in social media isn't going to be inclined to spend the kind of time required to find, evaluate, consume and assimilate the sources that are going to help them.

    3. Context -- What the best people out there can offer is context. Based on everything else they know, they can put an important new channel into the proper context. that's a valuable service.

    4. It's too soon and everything's changing -- Facebook is still changing routinely. So is Twitter. It's the nature of online services. As for Google+, the changes have been iterative; the fundamentals that were there the day it launched are still there and still work the same. But who's to say how much time has to go by before it's acceptable to offer a paid session? Who makes that decision? Somebody here said "a couple months." The session Ragan asked me to do will be at the end of October. Is that long enough? Today, Retuers declared Google+ the fastest-growing website in history. It's getting a ton of mainstream media coverage. The bosses of communicators everywhere are demanding answers and expecting their communicators to know, despite the fact that they're putting in 60-hour weeks just keeping up with the day-to-day work of communicating on behalf of the organization.

    If you want to know whether there's genuine value being added by these sessions, there's only one way to find out. Declaring the presenters hucksters is easy. Querying people who participated in the sessions about the value they got? Not so much. But it's the only criteria that matters. Sadly, I assume some people will dismiss participants as idiots for paying for the content in the first place.

    But then, I'm routinely bemused by the number of people in this space who make sweeping statements about the corporate world, when in fact they have never held a job in a corporation (unless it was a consulting firm or PR/marketing agency). A taste of the real world would probably do those folks a world of good.

    Shel Holtz | August 2011

  • 10.Hey Shel! I think your assessment is very fair and I have zero problem with people paying for really good content that is gleaned from working with a tool. I also get that PR and marketing pros are being asked by their bosses to figure it out right now...and that they're already working with full plates so they need something that will make it easy on them.

    My only issue with people taking advantage of teaching G+ knowledge right now is there is NO business application for it. Sure, I can drive people to my blog (and that works pretty well) through my personal account. And they're testing a few things with Ford that will be interesting to see.

    For those pros working with already full plates, there is plenty of information that shows you how to use the tool...and it's all free. Which is what I think we should be working with right now because you can only use it personally. It's not hard to figure out nor is there a barrier to information.

    Maybe, by October, they'll have invited businesses and your webinar will be perfectly timed.

    But, come on about the sweeping generalizations by people who haven't worked in the corporate world. I worked at FH, which is about as corporate as you can get. And I've been running a small business for six years that employs people and creates jobs. Just because that business consults Fortune 500 does NOT mean I've not had a taste of the real world. But then, that's what a sweeping generalization is...

    Gini Dietrich | August 2011 | Chicago

Comment Form

« Back