I agree with his statement that SM should start with an experiment, many of them really. Developing strategies that require viral cascades is a recipe for failure.
social media is engagement in my view. many small engagements are like small fires. It is unclear which one will catch. Which message will resonate with our audience. However, if it does, then investing further energy, getting the fire to shift and turn into something larger is possible.
He is right that most agencies can not do this. Nor do clients see much value in small multiple experiments across mediums (sites, technologies, platforms). Some see this as a risk. few see it as an opportunity. The difficulty is shifting resources and being able to kill off projects that have little current value. Most projects in large agencies are priced and resources allocated (most outsourced)long before the project beings; which means agility is lost while risk is managed.
This is actually the benefit of a startup. Being able to track real time metrics, actually creating value and engaging in that creation with their users/buyers/clients shifting resources as needed.
I think the Ted talk about the Why, How, What circles explains very clearly why some campaigns are successful and why most fail. If you are starting at What, you will fail most of the time. If you start from the Why of your product, community, the philosophy and thoughts and beliefs behind it, there is a chance that it will be far more appealing.
That some believe Social Marketing does work and does not work only clarifies that our strategies are poor. Not all TV commercials are culture shaping, nor do all magazine ads shape society, but to assume that they have no impact is a large mistake.
Social marketing works. Just not the way you think.