There continues to be dialog about social media versus traditional media and how social replaces traditional…at least that’s from people who make their living with social media. Traditional media advocates are silent in fear of being labeled “old school.”

We think it’s the wrong argument. We think that social media has much more in common with traditional media than the new gurus would have you believe.

The key difference is the fact that two way communication can be much more powerful for good or bad. A bad magazine ad wastes money. A bad discourse between a brand and it’s social following can destroy the brand.

We’ve all seen companies who rush to Facebook or Twitter effort does nothing more than pimp product or company information. It’s amazing to us how the appreciation for the audience’s interests is ignored for self interest. More, they intrude on a space reserved for “friends.” Not for long though, the ignore button is easier than a DVRing past commercials. These efforts usually have few fans and most of the fans they have will be already connected with the organization sponsoring the effort.

The discussion between social media and traditional media should really be about how to integrate the two and magnify the effectiveness of each. At what stage of affinity does social media really kick into the equation? Does it happen at the awareness phase? Or, closer to the “I’ve bought and I love/hate it phase?” Which media is better at which point of affinity?

If you have a product that has caught fire and your customers can’t wait to tell others about it, social media can create awareness and demand. If you have a product that is a hard to love necessity of life, not so much.

If you’re struggling with the argument of social media versus traditional, take a moment and create a scale that goes from totally unaware to loyal customer. Ask yourself which media strategy makes sense at what point of the continuum? How do you move a prospect from totally unaware to in love of your product? Then make it all work together by connecting the dots between all the options you have on the table.

If you do that rather than rushing into ineffectiveness, you’ll have a cohesive plan that makes the most of your marketing dollar.

Organizations that stopped marketing during the recession may find they need a defibrillator to restart their sales. Hopefully, those companies that didn’t stop marketing will have gained market share on those that did. And market share is really difficult to regain.

Episodic marketing is to sales declines as cigarettes, french fries and the sofa are to heart attacks. Yeah those french fries tasted great followed by a Marlboro on the sofa. And that never ending nap. Oh baby. Then BAM! Chest pains, an ambulance and by-pass surgery.

So yeah, those companies that quit marketing saved some money and that felt really good I’m sure. But those other companies that were diligent and disciplined with their marketing, they are going to come out of this recession healthy, wealthy and smiling ear to ear.

This morning I read an article in Advertising Age about how the U.S. Military found an advertising agency in Kabul to convince the Afghan people that there’s a better future for them if they build it. The article said it was hard to find an agency in Afghanistan and that they had to fly in an armored helicopter with bullet proof vests on to review the RFP response.

We spend good portions of our day here at ZLRIGNITION finding ways to get problem gamblers help, convincing teens not to smoke, fighting childhood obesity and a number of other social marketing efforts. But never have we tackled anything as monumental as convincing parents to raise a doctor rather than suicide bomber.

Changing attitudes and behavior is what social marketing is all about. And powerful lines are what we strive for. There is a line in this ad that I think is particularly powerful:

“If you build him a garden
He will plant roses.
If you build him a battlefield
he will die a casualty.
If you do nothing.
So will he.

Those of us who are social marketers should tip our hats to this Afghan ad agency and the general who was smart enough to realize that you have to win the hearts of the Afghan people.

Yesterday I was in a golf shop looking at putters. I’ve bought my share of putters and I can’t say that any of them made me a better putter. It’s a club they call the flat stick, because really that’s all it is. It’s a flat surface on the end of a metal rod with a handle used to roll the ball in, by or past the hole.

The golf shop I visited had probably a hundred different putters priced between $100 and $450. Given that I’d have to improve to stink at putting I tested a number of them. Perhaps I could buy a game. Putters come in all designs. There’s one that looks like it’s demon spawn complete with fangs and horns.

The secret about branding a putter is that you believe one will make you a better putter than the other. If Phil Michelson won the masters with an Odyssey White Hot XG Blade Putter, maybe I can sink a couple more a round if I too use the Odyssey White Hot XG Blade Putter. So U put my money down, buy the putter and go to the golf course. If hit the first couple of putts I think what a great putter you’ve purchased. If I miss, it’s my fault.

The fact of the matter is that the brand of putter makes me believe it’s good. The pro who wins with it makes me believe that some of that will rub off on me. The more pros that use it the more confidence I have that it’s a putter that will cut strokes off my game. I’m totally hooked and ignore the fact the Michelson probably practices putting two hours a day and has for the last twenty-five years. I even want desperately to believe it.

I only stop believing in the putter when I realize that it didn’t work, but Tiger Woods wins the next big tournament with a Nike. The Nike is $100 more than the Odyssey. I should have spent more the first time.

That’s what great branding does.