Download (PDF, 5.41MB)

The great thing about social media is that for the first time in marketing history, we are able to start monitoring and measuring the ripple effect of word-of-mouth.

Let’s face it, word-of-mouth is not a new phenomenon in marketing; far from it. In fact, I’d go so far to say that word-of-mouth preceded the cognitive art of marketing.

But despite many marketers recognising the incredible impact that word-of-mouth can have (take Charlie Kanan, president and marketing director of The Haagen-Dazs Shoppes Co. Inc who back in 1985 proclaimed: “We have never advertised on television, never developed an ad campaign. The brand was basically built on word of mouth.“), why is it that there is a resistance towards engaging in social, which, from a marketing perspective, is essentially word-of-mouth in its visible form?

Perhaps the answer lies in the question: perhaps it’s the visibility that fuels apprehension; similar to that of speaking in front of a large captive audience for the first time, only exaggerated by the fact that the audience is potentially in the millions, the speaker is one without media training, and there are no lawyers pre-moderating the communication. Perhaps the apprehension is associated with the perception of losing control of the brand.

But is this apprehension well founded, or could it be that Roosevelt was right in his first inaugural address:the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

Before reviewing the good, bad and ugly examples in social media, it’s important to firstly understand its layers.

The Foundation layer: Relationship Building

Attempting to butt in to an existing conversation with a completely irrelevant dialogue is simply not the way to go in the real world and the same applies in the digital world.

Like joining a new group of people for the first time, the foundation of social media starts with listening, in order to understand the context of the conversation and the personalities within it, before joining in with a dialogue that will be welcomed and valued by that particular interest group.

Once welcomed and valued, many opportunities arise from a business perspective; the type of opportunity being determined by the context of conversation within the interest group. For example, where your product features are being discussed at length, the opportunity lies in dialogue to enhance product research and development; where faults and issues are being discussed, the opportunity is in dialogue to improve customer service, and; where proposition and pricing details are being questioned, the opportunity lies in marketing; and so on.

No matter what the context, however, the opportunity of driving advocacy is ever-present. The more the consumer is engaged in a relevant and appropriate way, and the more they are involved in driving the direction of the business (and seeing the outcome of their involvement), the more they shift towards becoming brand advocates.

This is clearly great for business as it fuels the word-of-mouth referrals. However, the reach that this layer generates is relatively limited.

To generate reach, greater attention must be earned by introducing something that sparks interest or surprise in a way that people feel compelled to tell others.

The Amplification Layer: Social Object Creation

These sparks of interest and surprise are commonly referred to as ‘social objects’. A social object is the centrepiece of every conversation, whether that be a joke, a new gadget, a unique story, a baby photo, a work project and so on.

In marketing, the art is in creating social objects that enhance and amplifies brand reputation whilst simultaneously aligning with brand attitude.

Again, social objects are not a new marketing concept, however digital provides an opportunity to create far more immersive experiences through consumer interaction, and the ability for companies to seed the ideas within specific interest groups where adoption and response is most likely to spawn.

Once spawned, many of the most successful social objects are picked up and mutated by consumers who add their own spin on the idea thus extending propagation by adding fresh interest.

It is this mutation that often causes many brands to resist trial of social media; however, from what we’ve seen to date, the risk is far outweighed by the opportunity…

Social object success stories

Marc Ecko is a street-wear brand that, by its own admission, sets out to break boundaries and as a result is often quick to trial emerging forms of marketing and media.

In mid 2006 it did just that, and created arguably one of the most impressive social objects to date: a fake but incredibly realistic two minute home video that followed a bunch of hooded graffiti artists on a successful mission to tag the words “Still Free” on the US president’s private 747 jet plane, Air Force One.

The result? Within one week it hit 3,500+ websites, had over 100 major broadcast news appearances, and was featured in more than 17,000 global news outlets. By the second week, it recorded 23 million unique visits to its website, www.stillfree.com. And importantly, the reach was accompanied by a reinforcement of its ‘breaking boundaries’ brand attitude in the creative idea and execution.

The cost of media buy? $0. Yes, an audience reach of over 23 million for $0.
A perfect example of the power of ‘earned’ media: coverage earned through the newsworthiness of the content itself, as opposed to being paid for.

This campaign was one of the first to showcase the potential power of social media in raising brand awareness on a global scale without paid media investment.

And it’s not just large companies who are able to realise this opportunity. Take BlendTec, a previously little known manufacturerof high performance blending products that created a social object around the blender itself.

With reportedly just a US$50 marketing budget (though this is questionable given assumed video production, studio and editing costs), BlendTec’s marketing director, George Wright came up with the idea of extreme testing, after having been taken aback by founder & CEO, Tom Dickson’s extraordinary testing methods, including running 2×4 blocks of wood through the blender.

The campaign, which brings these maverick testing processes to life for others to witness, sees Dickson throwing everyday objects into the blender and asking ‘Will it blend?’.

Launched simply through a video upload and an email sent to BlendTec employees [asking them to pass it on if they liked it], ‘Will it blend?’ received over six million visitors and 10,000 comments within just five days of launching, according to BlendTec’sGeorge Wright.

Today, the company’s YouTube channel has received more than 142 million upload views (the iPad test secured more than 9.4 million views alone) and BlendTec is now a widely known name.

It goes to show that company size is not important in achieving social media success, but creativity, uniqueness and brand alignment is; as is authenticity, consumer collaboration and a positive attitude as part of the foundation for relationship building in social.

So what happens when these criteria aren’t delivered on?

Brand alignment #fail

Kraft Foods’ ‘Name me’ campaign aimed to leverage the power of the online community through a competition to name its new Vegemite product.

The new name was announced during the broadcast of the 2009 AFL Grand Final as ‘iSnack 2.0’ which resulted in a flood of backlash across the internet, and the debate extending out to traditional media. Four days later the company launched a poll to rename it.

Despite doubt over whether the ‘iSnack 2.0’ name set out to be simply a publicity stunt, it highlights the fact that an attempt to stretch the brand too far will result in non-acceptance from consumers –ie, had this been a Nudie product, consumers would have accepted it (possibly even revered it) as a cheeky poke at Apple; but for a heritage brand this just didn’t make sense, which is no doubt one of the reasons that many became suspicious of it being a publicity stunt.

Creativity / Uniqueness #fail

Cisco’s attempt at playing homage to the Old Spice social campaign with a copy-cat version, fell flat on its nose with just 2,750 views across 18 videos in the first 24 hours (compared to more than 40 million views that Old Spice videos attracted).

The videos, featuring ‘Ted from accounting’, failed to deliver anything unique, and the parody wasn’t helped by the casting of ‘Ted’ who lacked personality (which if intentional, should have been taken to the extreme).

Positive attitude #fail

When Greenpeace activists friended Nestle on Facebook in an effort to get the company to sort its palm oil sourcing out (some of whom changed their Facebook profile picture to a mock-up reading “Nestle Killer” instead of “Nestle Kit Kat”), Nestle took an unexpectedly hostile response and publicly threatened and insulted a number of ‘fans’ on its Facebook wall.

The result turned Nestle itself into a social object but unfortunately with amplification of a negative kind. Nestle has since apologised and hopefully learned the importance of developing and rolling out social media and crisis management guidelines to its front-line social media employees.

However, despite a few companies publicly failing at their attempts in social, it’s important to remember that it’s the sum of many experiences that creates a lasting impact to brand advocacy, and therefore a few failures in amongst many successes are unlikely to have a lasting impact.

And it’s for this reason that I’d back Roosevelt’s theory: the only thing we have to fear is fear itself …yet what we have to gain from trying, is far greater than the impact of not.

It has been a great week for the people who own and run online daily-deals business, thanks to Google and Amazon raising their profile via investment and acquisition offers.

Google offered an astounding $US6 billion for the United States-based Groupon, which – as John Chachas, the founder and managing partner of Methuselah Capital Advisors, put it – equalled the gross domestic product of a small country.

Perhaps more astounding, the owners of Groupon rejected the offer. Clearly they have a lot of faith in their product and their business, a two-year-old business in the fickle dot-com world.

Presumably the owners of Groupon have a solid strategy and plan, as Google is unlikely to back away from the daily-deals business. If Google sets up its own website, Groupon – a company with a market capitalisation of $US105 million – will be up against a business with a market capitalisation of $US163 billion and one of the strongest brand names in the world.

Google is not the only company interested in the daily-deals market. Lost in the shadows of its unsuccessful (at this stage) bid for Groupon was Amazon’s $US175 million investment in LivingSocial.com, which is Groupon’s closest competitor.

Why the sudden interest in daily-deals websites and what do these sites offer?

To quickly summarise, these websites typically offer 50 to 70 per cent discounts on the retail prices of specialist consumer goods and services, such as health, beauty and lifestyle products and entertainment services.

To generate a sense of urgency and exclusivity, these offers are available for just 24 hours and only activated when a certain number of people request to purchase the offer (hence the “group coupon” play on words).

The formula is one that clearly appeals to consumers. According to Reuters, Groupon’s global network has more than 33 million subscribers across 35 countries.

While Groupon is not present in Australia, more than a dozen copycat companies have appeared here over the past year, including Jump On It, Cudo, Spreets, Scoopon, OurDeal and Zoupon.

This flurry of daily-deals sites has resulted in the appearance of aggregator sites such as allthedeals.com and buyii.com, which make it easier for consumers to quickly review all the offers available.

Beyond consumer appeal, there is also a significant opportunity for small local businesses in the daily-deals market.

The opportunity lies not so much in the revenue these sites generate for the businesses on the site but in the marketing exposure the sites provide, together with the ongoing revenue potential associated with repeat purchases from new customers, assuming the services provided are up to scratch.

From a cost perspective, the model is low-effort and low-risk as the commercial model is typically commission based. Groupon’s commission is reportedly 50 per cent of the sale price, plus credit card charges where applicable.

From Google’s perspective, the potential of adding timely offers to local businesses in its Place Search product not only provides an improved online user experience and a greater reason for local businesses to extend their Place Search relationship, it would also enhance the company’s product offering on mobile, through the associated localised relevancy, usefulness and thus desirability to consumers.

The extended reach resulting from the mobile extension and the visibility and positioning in Google search would mean a far more compelling proposition to local businesses than any independent company can provide, which begs the question: was Groupon’s rejection of Google’s $US6 billion takeover offer wise, or will it be the start of their demise?

And then I get the first question – ARGH!  Colin later informed me (with tongue in cheek) that he purposely encouraged me to take the seat next to Helen as he knew the person next to her would get asked first.  Lol!  Thanks Colin – I’ll add that to my list of lessons learned (alongside the ‘never wear silk tops – they’re too flimsy for the microphone!).

Here it is…

As published in The Australian Financial Review, 3 Nov 2010

As published in The Australian Financial Review, 7 Oct 2010

Jennie Bewes is director of social media and new business at digital marketing agency Amnesia Razorfish.

As published in The Australian Financial Review, 25 Aug 2010

I’m a digital strategist dealing with an old-school client who is still madly inlove with TVCs. I know TV plays a part but I am growing increasingly frustratedat his stubborn attitude toward new technology and refusal to buy any freshideas. What are the most constructive ways to tell people they should let go andembrace the future?

Gotta love the ‘Old-Skool’ client. No really, you do.

You need to show him that you’re listening to him.  Hear his rationale as to why he feels TVCs are the only way, and establish what his fears are in moving (some of) his budget towards digital.

Perhaps he still sees digital as niche, in which case you can show him stats and reports by his favourite analysts. Or perhaps he’s not convinced he’ll get as much return on investment as he would with TV, in which case you can educate him on Social Influence Marketing supported with case studies of companies similar to his. Maybe he’s the type of person that responds better to stick than carrot, in which case take him through what his competition are doing, how much they’re investing and where that’ll leave his business in the months or years to come. Whatever his rationale or concern, as a strategist you’ll appreciate that this isn’t about an either/or, it’s about an ‘and’ – TV isn’t about to die: change, yes, but die, no. Help him understand his target consumers’ typical media consumption habits; showing him where, when and for how long, each form of media (digital and traditional) is consumed at each stage of the consumer lifecycle. And who knows, you may discover he is right… if his target market are the recluses hiding out in the 12% of Australian adults who’ve never accessed the internet. Ahem.

Jennie Bewes, director of new business and social media, Amnesia Razorfish

Published in B&T Magazine, 6 August 2010

Published in The Australian Financial Review, 22 Jul 2010

The launch last week of Google’s “time-sensitive” search engine, Caffeine, is more meaningful to your business than you might think. Its ability to deliver – and promote – real-time content within minutes of it having been written, means that the ability to control your brand image has just become harder, and resisting social media more risky than ever.

With Caffeine, Google has essentially created an international soap box which amplifies and promotes public opinion regarding products and services that consumers are searching for, at a time when they are likely to be most influenced by opinion, that is, when they are comparing brands before making a final purchase decision. No one should under-estimate the power of public opinion: according to a survey by research company Nielsen, last year, recommendations by personal acquaintances and opinions posted by consumers online are the most trusted forms of advertising.

Companies need to consider the impact of public opinion when calculating the return on investment from digital advertising and promotions.

In order to assess this – aside from knowing what consumers are currently saying about your brand online – it is essential to have a plans in place to improve consumer experience/perception, and to manage any future PR crisis immediately and effectively. Google Caffeine means that these plans have changed from a “nice-to-have” to “must-have” for effective online marketing.

With Google’s continuous drive to make search more personally relevant, that “must-have” will soon become “critical”, as social search capabilities are enhanced.

By its own admission, Google sees tremendous potential for social information to improve search, and is “just beginning to scratch the surface”.

Social search, which is already available in beta to registered Google users, filters and prioritizes results by those most closely connected to the user, which means that the impact of the recommendation and/or opinion is further heightened. Nielsen reports a whopping 90 per cent of people trusting online recommendations from people they know.

Let’s look at a potential scenario to show how this could play out.

John is looking for a mobile phone and can’t decide between iPhone or Blackberry. He enters “iPhone vs Blackberry” into Google and gets a page of results that shows both iPhone and Blackberry sponsored ads, followed by Twitter and blog comments from his close circle of friends, bullet-pointed by their avatar for ease of identification.

His eye is immediately drawn towards the avatar of Steven, a trusted friend with a similar taste in technology.

He sees that Steven is complaining about Blackberry, stating how he wishes he had opted for the iPhone instead.

John scans the other Google results to find that Steven is not alone in his view; with three or four other trusted friends holding a similar view.

Now, despite seeing a killer offer from Blackberry advertised at the top of the Google results, John’s mind is made up. iPhone it is.

Now all he has to do is Google some mobile network providers.

While John could have asked individuals about their thoughts on his dilemma, it was much quicker, easier and less intrusive to get multiple opinions from his trusted network, through Google, and more trusted than both the manufacturer websites, which he deems to be biased and complicated to compare, and a generic reviews website, where he does not know the people giving their opinion.

(While the manufacturers’ websites may have less influence in the brand consideration phase, it certainly doesn’t make the websites redundant – it simply addresses a different lifecycle stage which, in John’s case, is to compare models to find the right fit for his needs, to complete the purchase and to later refer to for support.)

Given this new world of consumer-to-consumer advertising, how do we ensure that brands are being represented in the best possible light? By placing genuine focus on customer experience, feedback and engagement, to improve consumer opinion.

The more you allow your consumers to guide (implicitly and explicitly) the evolution of your products and services, the greater sense of ownership and respect they’ll have for your brand. This respect will come through in their communication with their peers, and be picked up in social search to influence like-minded consumers considering your products, which will ultimately increase digital marketing effectiveness and positively impact sales.

• The Official Google Blog (http://googleblog.blogspot.com) January 27, 2010.

As published in The Australian Financial Review | 17 June 2010