The aim of my work is to convey the idea of social media marketing services to a cultural business. However, this company wonders why, for one reason or another, participation in Web 2.0 should begin at all. It should be noted that not only the advantages of the social network should be considered, but also primarily the difficulties for which cultural enterprise can be found. Not only must the technical possibilities be illuminated, but above all the needs of an institution must be addressed. For this reason, two different examples are to be shown, which differ completely in their content and in the nature of their orientation, as well as in their goals.
The subject of research is therefore the social media marketing services in the marketing mix of a cultural enterprise and the associated difficulties that arise in letting such a strategy into a theater or a museum.
The research strategy includes literature in the field of social media marketing services, referring here to the work “Social media marketing services” Tamar Weinberg. As well as literature from classical marketing (Kottler, Keller, Bliemel) and cultural marketing (Werner Heinrichs, Armin Klein, Petra Schneidewind).
In this work, three different areas meet, which must now be brought together from different sources. In addition to the classic literature, reference is made to renowned blogs that have a great reputation in the social media marketing services scene. These can be seen in my blogroll. In addition, interviews were conducted with outstanding people, such as Frank Tentler and Christoph Müller-Girod, who developed the best practice model of the Philharmonie 2.0, as well as Clemens Lerche – the social media marketing services specialist of transmediale.10. An important starting point was the stARTconference, which met in 2009 to debate this topic. The flagship model was also the Philharmonie 2.0.
Now it is time to discuss the identified theses, which I would like to throw into the room now. The question is still: Why do many cultural businesses shy away from Web 2.0?
- Web 2.0 is seen as an adjunct in the marketing mix and not as a substitute or supplement.
- Many institutions do not see the potential in a long-term strategy, but only in the application of short projects. But again the effort is too big for them.
- There are additional expenses for trained personnel.
- For museums, the use of Web 2.0 is easier due to their content stability (says the theater).
- For theater, the use of Web 2.0 is easier due to greater dynamics in daily life (says Film Museum Berlin).
- Web 2.0 is more sustainable and needs development time, which causes high costs. It does not help directly and thus uninteresting.
- The management staff in the institutions can not decide at the moment because the knowledge about this marketing and communication form is missing.
- Institutions do not use Web 2.0 because they do not know if they violate media rights.
- Although fewer e-mails need to be telephoned, the technical contact persons are difficult to reach over the telephone.
- The team culture in the company is reduced by the use of Web 2.0.
- Web 2.0 entices to a lone warrior.
- For example, virtualization makes the place and the object less important in the museum.
- The institutions recognize the need for Web 2.0, but hardly provide the resources.
- There is fear of loss of control in the network, as well as the difficulty of assessing success.