Social Media much more than just an SEO tool

Following up on my last post, I've been thinking about why brands are using social media and why it's the talking point around companies big and small as we come to the end of 2009. Without doubt, 2009 has been the year that social marketing and social media came of age and the primary reason for this is because it's where the audience is at.

Globally, Facebook now has over 300m members and in the UK alone, it's now attracting a quarter of the UK's online display advertising spend. Twitter is also growing- though it has a very long way to go to catch up with Facebook- and actually in the US this week, the first evidence came to light of its American audience plateauing. Facebook's phenomenal growth is coming from Asia and Europe and there are now local versions of Facebook for over 40 languages and growing!

All of this shows us why brands are clamouring to get involved and are trying to identify how they can capitalise on the social boom whether it's through the development of branded applications and fan pages, targeted advertising or through the creation of community tools to help connect and engage with their audiences. But another very big part of social media is the SEO value that all these activities can add. By creating fan pages, writing and distributing content- be it text, images or videos and encouraging user-generated activities, companies are creating link and search engine equity to help improve their search visibility and their rankings.

Google's algorithm rewards companies for regularly creating fresh and dynamic content and for creating links back into their website(s) and whilst this is yet another area to be ticked off to support SEO activity, this also means that some companies are only regarding social media as an SEO add-on. This is frustrating as although it definitely does support and aid SEO, it should be so much more than that.

Social media should be used to primarily listen and then where appropriate to engage or to connect with customers. It's a listening post and a platform for action. As long as ‘pub rules’ are considered as outlined in the post below then it can deliver immense value for companies whether it’s using it as an awareness building platform, a platform to connect, listen and react to customers, a platform to give customers access to content or products or a platform to bring to life a broader advertising or brand platform.

The Hottest Ticket in town

Unsurprising social media is the hot ticket for most brands at the moment and according to Tom Bedecarre, the chief executive of AKQA who addressed the Meda140 Conference in London this week, it's the number one request from clients approaching AKQA.

For me, this is a both and a positive and a negative. The overwhelming positive is that it's great that brands are not only investigating how to capitalise on social media but if they're talking to AKQA- they must be prepared to spend
a not insignificant amount on the activity and also that brand managers are now considering it as part of their campaign channel plans.

However the negatives- and we've already seen this are twofold. One, it means that social environments are going to become brand cluttered and brands will be appearing in areas that users are either not going to expect them or want them to be in
and two, there's a risk that irrelevant and irresponsible activity actually ends up putting off users engaging and having a conversation with brands.

Some research from Web Trends that was published this week supports this view. The study, Rules of Engagement found that whilst 85% of people under the age of 35 welcome brands on social sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, half said they would leave if the site became overly commercial.

So what should brands do if they want a piece of the action- as it were but at the same time don't want to put users off or damage their reputation.

First of all they need to listen. They need to spend time in these environments listening to what people are saying and assessing where they can be relevant and where they can prove useful. For example, Twitter can be a fantastic channel for customer insight, customer service and customer-led innovation. It can also be used as a sales channel but this is risky and should only be considered if customers being approached via Twitter are being offered something that they want and that they can't get anywhere else- otherwise
it will be construed as spam.

Once brands have listened and worked out where they can add value, they need to consider 'pub rules'.
You wouldn't go up to a group of friends in a pub- if you didnt' know them -and start talking to them about something completely different.
You'd work out what you have in common with them, you'd work out where you could add value to the conversation and then you'd consider going over to that group of friends- probably with a few free drinks!

Social media is still relatively new so brands shouldn't be afraid of experimenting - but they should only experiment where they are relevant and where they have something to give or information to share- that can't be gleaned elsewhere or else they risk not only putting customers off their brand but also risking or damaging their reputation.

 

 

Posted via web from Ben's posterous

Media 140 – A quick summary

Spent the day at Media140 London yesterday.

Here's my thoughts:

There’s still too many questions and not enough answers

Examples of brands ‘doing it’ well are isolated and in specific sectors

Most of the brands that gave real experience- ASOS/Virgin Trains have just done it - without a formal strategy or policy

We saw/heard about successful campaigns from Doritos and Comparethemarket- but these aren't social campaigns. Social is one channel amongst many for these

There needs to be education within large businesses as to both the role real time social media can play but also what impact it can have on business. This needs to be supported by a mesaurement matrix to prove the investment is worthwhile

Its effects transcend departments- not just marketing, pr or brand. Need to incorporate Customer Service and Operations

It’s more than just a marketing campaign

Overall- an interesting conference, some insightful speakers but a bit disappointed that we’re still stuck in the ‘searching for answers’ space...

Posted via email from Ben's posterous

Trying out Posterous

 

I’ve been on Blogger for the last 4 years but now trying out on Posterous.

I’m not abandoning Accidental Observer- my blogger blog but I’m keen to see if Posterous is easy to manage.

Will use it as a side-channel.

Anyone got any good Posterous tips?

 

 

 

Posted via email from Ben's posterous

Update- Was the Moir campaign orchestrated?

With the Moir row still rumbling on both on Twitter and in the traditional media, the debate is starting to shift towards analysing the rapid and seismic storm that erupted soon after the article first appeared on the Daily Mail Website. Jan Moir herself posed this very question in her public apology.

Of particular focus is the fact that the Twitter storm was very much fuelled by a number of celebrities including Stephen Fry, Derren Brown and Five Live's Richard Bacon.

I think it's naive to suggest the campaign was orchestrated and instead Fridays's campaign against the article was proof of the value of the real time web and how quickly information or a cause can spread through the social channels. The fact that serial Tweeting celebrities endorsed the campaign was proof of the moral outrage it caused and that having witnessed the storm that was being generated across Twitter and Facebook , they opted to lend their support and push it further knowing just how powerful their vast follower bases could be.

The Moir storm is the perfect case study of the impact social channels can have - and how quickly information can spread either for good or for bad.

Has Twitter come of age?

Last week has been hailed as the week Twitter came of age. Twitter was the driving force behind three very separate public scandals and in the case of two of them, Twitter and social media led to the issues leading the news agenda and causing genuine public outcry.

The first scandal was the Trafigura affair. Early last week, it was revealed via Twitter that leading law firm, Carter Ruck had won an injunction to stop the Guardian revealing that an MP had asked a question in parliament about an allegation of illegal fly tipping of chemical waste in the Ivory Coast by a cargo ship that was chartered by Trafigura, a multinatonal oil-trading company. The storm that followed was fuelled by outrage across Facebook and Twitter complementing the power of the print press and it led to Trafigura becoming a trending topic, Carter Ruck being flash-mobbed, the injunction being lifted and most significantly of all, confirmation from Gordon Brown that he would request an investigation into the use of Stop injunctions- such as the one used by Carter Ruck.

Just as Trafigura subsided, Twitter blew up again - this time it was the story of a local London story where a TFL employee at Holborn station was filmed telling another elderly passenger that he would 'sling him under the train'.
TFL was bombarded by angry Tweeters, once again it became a trending topic and the employee was subsequently suspended-within hours of the virtual lynch mob clamouring for his sacking.

However perhaps the biggest outcry was saved for Friday when the Daily Mail columnist, Jan Moir became public enemy number one within just a few hours with her column on the death of Boyzone star Stephen Gately, which many felt was out of order, insensitive and had homophobic undertones. The Twittersphere went crazy when the article appeared online and seemingly, Moir herself was forced to set up her own Twitter account to defend the article and then issue a very public apology- which was subsequently followed up by the national media. Just today-it was reported that the Press Complaints Commission had received over 21,000 about Moir's article- the highest number in the PCC's history.

So was last week the start of a new phenomenon; is there really nowhere to hide now once an organisation or individual makes a grave error or commits something even worse?

Twitter has certainly achieved critical mass; it's everywhere even on the current bastions of popular culture, X-Factor and Strictly and it's certainly established itself as the best channel for not only eyewitness accounts but also the rapid spread of information to both niche and mass audiences.

There will definitely be more Trafigura, TFL and Moir outrages and Twitter will no doubt fuel some more than others as it and the broader take up of social media is not subsiding and is not going to go away.

What last week shows us is that there is a new channel for instant outrage and that there's also a channel, which can now set the news agenda in just a few hours.

Purists will want Twitter to stay the way that it is - as the ultimate citizen tool- the trick will be to achieve a balance as whilst Twitter is certainly a new and powerful channel for e-democracy, it's also a very valuable communications and awareness tool - if the cause is right and whilst the two should not be combined, they can both have long term values and be forces for good.

A Marriage made in Heaven

Social media is just another channel of digital marketing.

Yes - it's different in that to a degree it's about brands giving up control to consumers and yes it's virulent and yes it's more difficult to measure than most other digital activity but in principle it's still another channel.

So when it was announced this week that a study by GroupM Search and comScore that was launched to explore the correlation between brand exposure through social media and paid search had found a link and had found that social media activity can influence a brand's search activity, I wasn't that surprised.

After-all, surely the more 'noise' that a brand makes or causes online then the better the results. Search is the barometer of online activity; it's the yellow pages of the Internet and for many is the de-facto way of navigating the Web so you'd expect there to be some impact.

The study; 'The Influenced:Social Media, Search and the Interplay of Consideration and Consumption' explored activity across a number of different sectors including automotive, FMCG and telecoms.

Key highlights were:

- Consumers exposed to a brand's influenced social media and paid search are nearly 3 times more likely to search for that brand's products
- There was a 50% CTR increase in paid search when consumers were exposed to both influenced social media and paid search

Whilst the Study's findings are in my view not that revolutionary- it does signal the maturation of social media as a marketing channel and also shows that it should now be considered a key part of the online marketing mix.

The downside of this Study is that this is only going to exaggerate the hype that already exists around social media and it will also no doubt increase the chance of marketing gaffes from brands keen to get in on the act. Despite the acknowledgement that social media is just another channel, the rules of social should still apply for brands;

1. Only get involved if you have a right as a brand to engage or communicate
2. Only get involved if you have content or something for your audience that they can't get elsewhere
3. Don't engage on a whim, do it full time or not at all
4. If you do seek to engage, be aware that it can have an impact beyond the specific marketing intiative as it can transcend the entire company.

Brands go public

Online reputation is a thorny issue and a worrying amount of household names still don't have a proactive strategy to manage their online reputation. Well the bad news is that the issue has just got a lot thornier!

Seth Godin, who is the self-proclaimed author of the 'most popular marketing blog on the Web' is launching a new service through Squidoo- his online recommendation engine, which will aggregate buzz around specific companies on their own brand page and companies will be given the option to have their say by 'buying' the page for $400.

If brands have had a headache with Wikipedia and unauthorised updates and entries then Brands in Public as the service will be known could be ten times worse- especially if they don't opt to 'buy' their page.

Brands in Public will aggregate all mentions and content about household names from a variety of social channels including Twitter, YouTube and message boards as well as general news articles.

The aggregator won't discriminate between good and bad mentions so brands will be obliged to take control. Godin's argument or justification for the service on his blog, is that these conversations are already going on, on the Web and he's giving brands the opportunity to 'have their say'.

He does have a point, buzz around specific brands is emanating around the Web and negative mentions can have a material impact on your company with it not just impacting search rankings but also perception and word of mouth and this service is a very interesting development in the still fast-emerging online reputation sector but the clear issue in my mind is that whilst brands 'can have their say'- in return for a monthly fee, they will only be given a small amount of space on the overall page and will not be able to actually own the page and use it as a platform to proactively manage what people are saying about them or the experiences they've encountered.

And from a customer point of view- I'm struggling to see how the customer benefits from this service. Yes- it's good to see what other consumer's think about a product that you're buying/thinking of buying but isn't there a danger that some of the more usueful comment/thoughts/ideas will be lost by the overall Web noise?

Brands in Public is definitely going to get marketers talking but I think rather than it revolutionise online reputation- it will actually prove a distraction and not an enabler- as it should be.

Facebook- Where Next?

So for anyone who hasn't seen the news- Facebook now has 300m users worldwide and even more significantly is now 'cash-flow positive'. It's not making a profit yet but it is now making money rather than losing it, which is a significant milestone and is also a shot across the bows of those who have questioned how Facebook could ever make money!

The ironic fact however is that Facebook isn't actually making money through any revolutionary business models or revenue streams. As detailed in my previous post, 'More than just Hype'- it's now a very serious advertising platform not just for big brands but also for the individual with the creation of a very simple and accessible self-serve advertising tool that enables advertisers to reach an incredibly targeted audience based on site users profiles. The remainder of its revenue is coming from the sale of virtual products and services, which are starting to grow in popularity through the multitude of Facebook apps and the incredibly addictive social gaming services like Playfish.

So- where does Facebook go next? Well it's launched a slimmed down version which some have accused of aping Twitter enabling users to quickly update their status, send messages to friends and add and tag photos and in the last few days it's introduced the popular @ tag which Twitter has made the obligatory tool for users to reference both individuals and companies that they're in conversation with.
Facebook is currently ahead of Twitter in the race to make a profit but it is very aware that Twitter could leave it looking outdated and clunky if it doesnt' improve its real-time services. So expect more real-time applications, live search and content aggregators as well as a move towards a Facebook e-wallet where users can buy certain products and services and essentially use Facebook as a lifestyle aggregator.

Facebook is certainly making giant strides in the right direction and this week's announcements are major step forwards but it hasn't won the battle yet and it only needs to look at what has happened to MySpace which has become a community dominated by wannabe bands, spam and pornstars to see just what can happen if they take their eye off the ball!

There's money in Meerkats

Love it or hate it, Comparethemarket.com's advertising campaign, which has introduced the eponymous Meerkat to the nation's screens has been a phenomenal success for the insurance comparison website. According to an article in today's Times, market share for Comparethemarket has increased by nearly 80% in terms of sector Internet visits between January and August whilst its rivals have seen marketshare decrease.

The campaign, which was created by VCCP and which was apparently an idea spawned by two creatives in a pub may be incredibly annoying but it has succeeded in taking a very, very dull and functional product and making it interesting.

Comparethemeerkat is proof that advertising does not need to be product focussed but that it can also create a platform or a central idea which builds an inherent link to the brand or the product. However more significantly as far as digital marketing is concerned, it's the latest example of the growing maturation of digital. Comparethemeerkat came to life on TV but it lives online just as much as it lives on our TV screens. It has its own website, Aleksandr who 'stars' in the campaign has his own Twitter feed and its Facebook fan page has over half a million 'fans'- not bad at all for an insurance comparison website! The Meerkat does not live in a digital silo- digital is instead another channel for the campaign- a channel that has added a completely new dimension and one which is now reaping the rewards.

And it's not just Comparethemarket who has caught the Meerkat bug. Google Meerkat and you can see just how much impact it has had on its competitors. Moneysupermarket.com and Confused.com are all running paid search ads with a parody on the Meerkat.

An interesting angle to an incredibly annoying and yet incredibly successful campaign that has gone way beyond traditional advertising.