case study

Awareness, Inc. has released a new white paper entitled “Social Media Goes Multiplatform” containing research done by Paul Gillin Communications.

The press release on MarketWire describes the research as an “online survey and in-depth interviews with marketers,” focusing on their multiplatform social media strategies. Included are several interesting sections, including: social media adoption rates by year, favored platforms (blogs vs. YouTube, etc.), ROI and metrics, and social media spending plans. The report includes interviews with marketers from a diverse mix of companies, including Coca-Cola, Ford Motor Company (who, as we’ve written, has a vast social media strategy), Cisco Systems, and Dell. Metrics that each company used to judge progress are included, as well as what each business learned from their multiplatform approach. The research plans to continue through the first half of 2010, offering us more insights into social media’s heavy use in the marketing world.

The SSN Take: Skim through the white paper and glean some insights about how companies are using multiplatform social media strategies.

Samuel Hartman, April 7, 2010

Note: Post not sponsored.

Unity Marketing has released a new report on how the affluent (avg. income $239,000) use the internet and social media, particularly when it comes to shopping.

Street Insider’s article, “80% of Affluent Consumers Use Social Media,” discloses the main point the in the title: if you’re looking to market to the wealthy, the Internet is the place to be. A subsection of the group, “heavy users,” shop online more than four hours per week, and their actions are detailed in the report. Other questions addressed include: which social networks do they use the most? What websites do they frequent for luxury shopping? How do they interact with these sites to glean information about products and brands? The 59-page report, while not cheap at $459, could contain valuable information if you’re looking to market to this demographic. The detailed analysis of the heavy users promises to describe in-depth the specific online buying habits of affluents.

The SSN Take: If selling luxury products, this report may be worth reading.

Samuel Hartman, March 23, 2010

Note: Post not sponsored.

Back in January, to commemorate Data Privacy Day, Microsoft released a study of professionals worldwide with some interesting conclusions regarding online reputation.

“Online Reputation Can Cost Someone A Job” gives the biggest factoid: 70% of HR professionals turned down a potential employee based on data discovered about them online. And while many consumers are concerned about their online rep, less than half consider it when posting online. Fewer than 15% believe it would negatively impact their job hunt. Microsoft’s Privacy Strategist cautions that an online reputation is not something to be scared of, but “proactively managed.” Many of the HR professionals surveyed indicated that good information about a candidate online can help their chances. Clearly, companies are doing a little Googling when a new name comes under their nose, so it’s up to you to make sure those results are clean.

The SSN Take: Check out Microsoft’s Data Privacy Day website - as they say, “your reputation is ON the LINE.”

Samuel Hartman, March 22, 2010

Note: Post not sponsored.

At a time many companies are looking at creating a social media policy or maybe beefing up the one they have to address new issues and opportunities, the Chartered Institute of Public Relations has released a social media update to their 2007 guidelines.

The update is for their members and the larger public relations audience. This comprehensive set of guidelines was created to not just help members and users to avoid problems while in social media, but to set straight the details surrounding social media and take advantage of the opportunities that await them in this vast, albeit still new, world.

See the PDF here. So how does the 2009 version of guidelines differ from the 2007? If the size of the index is any indication, they know more so they must have more advice to impart. The first newbie in the list is “social media measurement.” Recognizing the importance of providing ROI calculations and metrics, their basic advice is to remember it is just another media, treat it normally, and not to do it in isolation. Integrating it with your mainstream media analysis gives you a larger and more complete picture on which to base future decisions.

Search engine optimization also made the list as an essential part of any online marketing campaign. Explaining not only the benefits of good search engine placement and increased rankings, they also warn of “white hat and black hat” approaches to improve these search engine rankings and remind their members they are required to adhere to the CIPR codes of ethical conduct.

Online tracking and advertising also appear for the first time in this version of guidelines. Addressing again the ethical codes surrounding the gathering of personal information and how that information is handled, shared and stored is prominent. Lifted up as an example of a social media pitfall is Facebook’s Beacon, which received a number of complaints when launched in 2007.

The last new topic addressed in the guidelines is user generated content. With the invasion of YouTube and web casts, as well as the popularity of on-demand television, this is the genre that is the hardest to manage. The CIPR reminds members of their ethical code recommendations and the requirements that online product placement needs to be transparent and not disguised in a cloak of artsy, backyard filmmaking.

All in all, the guidelines seem to be much more comprehensive than the last version and have evolved to address the continuing areas of concern that organizations face. Though the CIPR is based in the United Kingdom, the guidelines can apply across the world just as social media knows no borders or walls.

The SSN Take: Remember social media is just another form of media.

Melody K. Smith, March 10, 2010

Note:   Post not sponsored.

As companies continue to discover the power of social media, the India-based divisions of IBM and cloud-computers ECM are beginning to let their employees enter the fray.

“Social networking is serious business” profiles the two companies who are urging their employees to use networking tools to stay in touch and collaborate with friends and colleagues.

But it’s not just fun and games: each company has designed their own social networking software to enhance productivity. ECM uses ECM One, where employees collaborate online to “make presentations and exchange ideas,” while IBM uses LotusConnections – a tool similar to Facebook with profiles, blogs, photos, and forums. The internal success of LotusConnections has made it desirable for other companies, and IBM has licensed the social collaboration software to the likes of Colgate and India phone company Airtel. The bottom line: with proper planning, a social collaboration system can help companies improve their workflow.

Sam Hartman, March 5, 2010

Note: Post not sponsored.

A recent Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel column by Seth Liss: “As social media usage expands, how will it change us,” dissected social media’s impact on our culture. While the piece did a great job of showcasing positive results, it hardly touched this phenomenon’s negative cultural impact.

The article stated users age 8-18 are focusing on social media approximately 7.5 hours a day and possibly 11 hours a day when you count multitasking. The article optimistically cataloged the benefits of this lifestyle: an increase in online reading means that literacy rates will increase since knowing how to read is essential to social networking; more interactions with a wide variety of people will enhance a child’s communication skills; and this leap in multitasking (such as simultaneously managing Facebook, iPod and doing homework) will improve critical thinking. While promising and thought provoking, its results fail to notice how these same benefits can severely wound our culture.

Conversely, British newspaper, The Guardian, article “Facebook and Bebo risk ‘infantilising’ the human mind“ warned: “children’s experiences on social networking sites ‘are devoid of cohesive narrative and long-term significance. As a consequence, the mid-21st century mind might almost be infantilized, characterized by short attention spans, sensationalism, inability to empathize and a shaky sense of identity.’”

While shocking, this is still only theory since barely any hard research has been done on the subject. However, The Guardian claimed there were other ways to show how critical thinking and attention are negatively affected. It stated prescriptions for methylphenidate, an attention-deficit hyperactivity drug, have gone through the roof for young people in the last five years, roughly the same stretch of time the social media phenomenon has taken flight.

In addition, this piece argued that an 8-18 year old social media fanatic’s communication skills will not be enhanced, but rather diminished. “Real conversation in real time may eventually give way to these sanitized and easier screen dialogues, in much the same way as killing, skinning and butchering an animal to eat has been replaced by the convenience of packages of meat on the supermarket shelf. Perhaps future generations will recoil with similar horror at the messiness, unpredictability and immediate personal involvement of a three-dimensional, real-time interaction?”

While both viewpoints agree it’s still too early to definitively understand the benefits and dangers of social media interaction, they both state our culture is shifting rapidly. The question is, which direction is it headed?

Patrick Roland, March 4, 2010

Note: Post not sponsored.

The Internet is a wide open space for free thought and expression, right? For the most part, yes. Millions voice their opinions, share jokes, post photos and more through social media sites like Twitter, MySpace and the big daddy of the scene, Facebook. Many businesses are also discovering what a boon these accounts can be for marketing and customer service. But with increased popularity comes increased responsibility for Facebook’s 100 million users. While nobody wants a few bad apples to spoil the fun, individuals and businesses alike should keep a close eye on the social media giant’s policing tactics.

Facebook is not out to look over your shoulder and tell you what is appropriate. However, they do employ strategies to keep users feeling safe. The question is, when is it too much of a good thing?

A very positive, yet unsettling, example of monitoring came from a recent Guardian article, “Facebook takes down 30 prisoners’ pages after victim taunts,” about prisoners using the Facebook inappropriately. Working with the British Justice Secretary, Facebook removed more than thirty profiles of inmates who posted threatening material toward victims. Together, the secretary stated, they discovered a long-term solution to a very old problem: victim harassment. He went on to describe the arrangement as, “…essentially, if they get a notice from us that this site is improper then all they have to do is not make a judgment about it, but press the delete button.”

Separating convicts and victims is undeniably sensible and the proper thing to do, but this mix of government oversight and social media threw up our red flags. And it turns out, our flags weren’t alone.

In “Facebook’s New Terms Of Service: ‘We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever.’,” The Consumerist was shocked by Facebook’s new terms of service, deciding “anything you upload to Facebook can be used by Facebook in any way they deem fit, forever, no matter what you do later. Want to close your account? Good for you, but Facebook still has the right to do whatever it wants with your old content. They can even sublicense it if they want.”

Additionally, an Electronic Frontier Foundation report “Facebook’s New Privacy Changes: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly,” detailed its problems with Facebook’s new privacy changes. The article said: “Facebook treats [personal information] — along with your name, profile picture, current city, gender, networks, and the pages that you are a ‘fan’ of — as ‘publicly available information’.” It continued: “Before, users were allowed to restrict access to much of that information. Now, however, those privacy options have been eliminated.”

Certainly, nobody is intentionally restricting free speech or stealing intellectual property. However, businesses must use foresight before throwing weight behind a social media campaign. While simply promoting your brand is surely not as heinous as harassing victims, will higher powers someday determine what is appropriate for Facebook? When the world moves on to its next online infatuation, will Facebook use your data? Organizations cannot afford to ignore Facebook, but with some concerning moves, an organization must be prepared to deal with an internet that is not quite as free range as we once thought.

Patrick Roland, March 3, 2010

Note: Post not sponsored.

Flexing its internet muscles, Google recently jumped on the social media bandwagon with Buzz — its most ambitious attempt to marry the Gmail Web interface with status updates and media-sharing technology in an attempt to solicit the social media junkies to spend more time on Google’s sites than on competitors like Facebook or Twitter. However, the lack of clarity on the privacy settings and the outrage shown by the users may result in a knockout punch.

Though Google has announced some changes to Google Buzz addressing the privacy concerns with the new service, it already may have been too little too late.  Early users found the privacy settings confusing and very complicated to maneuver – especially the ability to hide one’s followers. This earned them very strident criticism and all out venomous customer feedback, along with a mass “turn off buzz” reaction.

Even for those who are okay with revealing more of their self in the social media world, there was also some assumption on the part of Google, that they may have mistakenly considered insight, where they assumed the most frequent people emailed from user’s Gmail accounts would be the same people with whom those users would want to share Buzz updates. Have they never heard what happens when you assume? One would think with all the focus on the security of information in social media sites such as Facebook in recent weeks, Google would be more ahead of the curve on this one.

Cnet.com referred to this public relations debacle in their aptly titled post “Google Buzz: Privacy nightmare.” Buzz hasn’t impressed users, even without the privacy issues. Inflated notices of new “Buzz” available only to find duplicates and retweets of the same news post and the fact that all the annoying features are set by an “opt-out” status — which means unless you know about them you can’t stop them – makes the user’s first impression of Google’s Buzz, well, kind of a buzz kill.

Some people think the fear regarding privacy on the web is over exaggerated. Technorati recently referred to Google’s approach as “revolutionary” in their post “Google Buzz Privacy Fears Overstated”. The author believes concern over privacy on the Internet is antiquated and users need to get used to the idea that what we do on the Internet is not private. It seems like there should be a happy medium somewhere in this that we can all live with comfortably.

Melody K. Smith, March 2, 2010

Note:   Post was not sponsored.

In “A look at Toyota’s social media reputation with Webtrends“ Webtrends and reputationonline.co.uk joined together to analyze how Honda’s reputation is holding up during its airbag recall. Webtrends uses social media analytics to measure factors related to online discussions.

Toyota’s global recall of cars that suddenly accelerate has overshadowed Honda’s recall debacle; but what if the maker of the Accord wanted to know if Toyota’s troubles have hindered or helped their image? To do this, Damien Hews, a social measurement specialist for Webtrends, used special tools like the “view by sentiment” tool. He found that “Honda is the only automotive brand to have the word ‘recall’ appear in its discussion cloud, although over the last seven days key words mentioned in 5866 posts have been predominantly positive.”  Words indicating positive feelings included “quality” and “hero.”

Social media analytics isn’t just about damage control, it can provide precise data to help you better understand your customers and discover new business opportunities.

David Thimme, March 1, 2010

Note: Post not sponsored.

Twitter was responsible for forcing customer service actions out of an organization, whether they were prepared or not. As reported in “Southwest Airlines in ‘epic’ social media fail with Kevin Smith,” Southwest Airlines was dragged out of the form letter closet with the recent public relations scandal involving filmmaker Kevin Smith. Before the airline giant could regroup after their customer relations faux pas, Twitter users took on the role of advocates and took them to the carpet demanding a response.  This unexpected response forced Southwest Airlines to apologize publically to both Mr. Smith and the Twitter users as a whole. This has set a precedent for social media and public relations as a whole. Are the days of too late form letter apologies and complimentary products over? I believe organizations need to take note of this shift in power and public opinion, and train their personnel accordingly.

Melody K. Smith, Feb. 27, 2010

Note:   Post was not sponsored.