The Buffalo Blog

Tweet, Tweet, Ka-Ching!

The news broke this week that the much debated micro blog, Twitter finally looks set to make some serious money after questions have been raised about how the site can fund its long-term existence and move to profitability.

In less than 140 characters…  Good old advertising.

According to several sources including The Guardian, Silicon and Mashable, under Twitter’s new advertising model, brands will have the option of 'promoted tweets', the sponsoring of a tweet in searches.

Unlike normal keyword-based Google ads, these sponsored tweets will still fit the same 140 character format like any other tweet. With big brand names such as Virgin America, Red Bull and Starbucks already signed up, the move seems to be already proving a hit financially.

So we all knew the site would one day come to contain ads, after all how else can a social media site make money? However the interesting aspect of twitter’s proposed model is the interaction aspect the adverts will have with the brand’s target audience.

 

Unlike a Google AdWord ad, Twitter sponsored tweets give users the ability to reply to the ads like any other tweet- utilising the marketing mix to its full potential whilst integrating market research into the equation -  something advertisers are keen to lap up and let’s face it, as an advertiser who wouldn’t?

 

This gives a new dimension to paid advertising - two-way communication.  

 

Consumers will be able to able to give immediate feedback directly to the advertiser, something in which I see as the start to a whole new style of relationship marketing.

 

However this said, I wonder with this somewhat invasive advertising thrusted upon myself and fellow tweeters, how will this affect its user experience?

 

Unvarnished - The personal brand

The government may have banned employers from giving bad references but according to Time magazine it doesn’t look like this will matter in a couple of years. The magazine reported yesterday on the launch of Unvarnished, a site that uses Facebook connect to tag anonymous reviews against people’s profiles.  

The site’s creators are enthusiastic about the site’s potential saying it will ultimately ‘be more useful than the carefully selected job references or curated [sic] blurbs on someone's LinkedIn profile.’ This is interesting stuff considering the dreaded Google and Linked-in search that has become the pre-interview qualifier of choice for today’s employers.

This concept could easily take off with the meteoric rise of review sites for things like restaurants and attractions. Imagine it as Qype for the job market – scary and exciting at the same time. The ability to post real, un- censored ‘people reviews’ will be very attractive to employers and very useful in the recruitment process.

The article cites worries over the obvious potential for abuse, should someone exercise a personal vendetta by writing bad reviews for example. This is valid, but then the site is still in Beta and countermeasures will undoubtedly be developed for this kind of problem.

Another issue is the fact that more people tell others about a bad experience than a good; if this holds true with staff and colleagues, people could easily end up with more bad than good. The counter argument is, of course, that if you do well in your career and try not to ruffle too many feathers, you’re likely to come out looking pretty good either way. The whole point of it is to weed out the bad performers so why worry?

Aside from the possible negative implications, Unvarnished clearly continues the evolution of what could be called the ‘personal brand’. As the internet and its uses have evolved, you can chart a continued individualisation of the way brands and people are communicated.

This has an important effect on the way brands are developed and influenced. Marketing text books may have long extolled the importance of front-facing staff in shaping the way customers think about products and services. Now those people have the potential to influence a much greater audience either through what they write, or what people write about them. The more of a brand that individuals take on, for example through helping customers on twitter, the closer they bring their personal brand to that of their organisation. Sites like 123people are increasingly ensuring this individually-based information is aggregated and viewed as one. Organisations need to understand this as their online strategies are developed.

The other side of this is the way that people now need to be more aware of their own digital footprints. I know various people that have crafted their personal brand to the extent they can now make a good living from their skills, while their online persona increasingly attracts new buyers. Another side to this will inevitably develop as time goes on – a minor indiscretion made in a position long, long ago could conceivably haunt job seekers for a whole career.

These kind of sites aren’t going to go away either. So if you want my advice, look after that brand of yours. Polish it daily and keep it looking as healthy as possible – after all, you never know who is watching.

Nestlé learn how NOT to use social media

Towards the end of last week Nestlé started to feel the full brunt of the BBC’s Panorama special ‘Dying for a biscuit’. The documentary focused on the devastating effects both the usage and lack of regulation surrounding palm oil has on deforestation and consequently the fate of hundreds of species local to the Indonesian forests being destroyed – especially the Orangutans.

The documentary sparked debate surrounding the food giant after it showed a trolley filled with Nestlé goods all containing palm oil. Shocked viewers couldn’t wait to voice their opinions on the matter, posting comments, joining groups and signing petitions whilst the programme was still being aired.

Consequently Nestlé is now facing a PR battle with charity Greenpeace over claims that it is continuing to source palm oil from Sinar Mas, the Indonesian company accused of illegal deforestation and peatland clearance.

Greenpeace ignited reports after protesting outside the company’s headquarters last week dressed as orangutans. Following this the charity decided to bring in the tried and tested shock tactics,  posting an online video featuring an office worker accidently biting into an orangutan finger instead of a Kit Kat.

The backlash wasn’t to end there however, the firm has continued to be bombarded every minute with angry comments from both consumers and protestors alike. Nestlé’s Facebook and Twitter pages have truly taken a lashing.

Surely this must stand to be the most in your face example of when social media needs to be monitored and managed? With over 90, 967 Facebook fans, Nestlé’s reaction has been criticised as being a ‘major social media fail' with only inexperienced moderators fanning the flames.

Whilst consumers threaten to boycott the brand and others have altered their Facebook profile pictures to a bloodied Nestlé logo, the company has however responded by saying:

“We welcome your comments, but please don't post using an altered version of any of our logos as your profile pic - they will be deleted.” - Comments which have further fuelled the fire, rather than extinguish it.                                                 

One furious user wrote: "Nestlé is the work of the devil. Evil evil corporation, and your bullish reactions and arrogant comments have won you no favours at all.”

Instead of parachuting in a crisis management team, the Nestlé moderator has just whimpered: “As you can see we're learning as we go. Thanks for the comments.”

Surely if Nestle and all the other organisations continue to explore and interact within the social media realm, then they should have some sort of  crisis plan in place if it should all go wrong -  NOT risk the brand’s reputation by simply relying on non experienced employees to ‘learn as they go’.

In my opinion Nestlé forgot the PR basics when dealing with a crisis, off or online the principles are the same.

Firstly – in any crisis it is important to show you are addressing the situation, monitoring the online sphere requires full time attention and so in this case, Nestlé would have done well in employing the help of social media PR professionals.

Secondly – Nestlé’s Facebook page was initially set up as somewhere fans could rave about their products, however now the tables have turned it’s been totally overtaken by angry protestors. Choosing another forum to communicate with customers (with advanced privacy and moderation settings) would definitely have been one way to avoid such damage.

Thirdly - as PR disasters.com nicely points out, Nestlé’s Facebook tone of voice is all wrong; a bit sarcastic and scolding at times - which doesn’t foster positive Web2.0 PR.

And lastly it is important to remember social media works both ways, now “learning” from their mistakes in a very public and damaging way, now at least Nestlé should now maybe go about employing someone who has some experience in online crisis management, which could have made the situation avoidably in the first place.

‘Payment by results – Evaluation is key”

 ‘Kerry Hallard, Buffalo Communications, MD in response to PRWeek article, 'Shift towards clients requesting payment by results criticised by the PRCA'

 

"Last week I was shocked to read the PRCA’s critisicm of the PBR model in PRWeek…

  For an established PR association like the PRCA to come out and criticise payment by results is simply outrageous. Especially as they are basically saying the industry isn’t competent enough to evaluate properly. Their argument devalues what we do as professionals and makes us look decidedly amateurish, vis a vis other marketing disciplines and the business world where ‘gain share’ models are becoming the norm.

 

Trying to dismiss the PBR model because of outdated evaluation techniques is a fallacy. If clients are increasingly requesting payment by results, which they are, consultancies must step up and adapt. Rather than dismiss the model out of hand, what the PRCA should be calling for is specific PBR based evaluation guidelines which can be set against realistic fees which can be levied.

 

I agree that the model of simply charging for coverage is rarely useful nowadays and this type of commoditisation should be consigned to history. Nowadays PBR should be offered, but only when based on clear communications and business-oriented metrics. Digital advancements have allowed progress in certain areas, but solid evaluation will always require a good portion of budget and sizeable time investment. It is also important to focus on outcomes not just outputs of PR metrics.

 

As a consultancy it is important that you are able to put your money where your mouth is and achieve return on investment for both you and your client. Buffalo has definitely found payment by results to be a very successful method among most clients, allowing them to see exactly what they are getting for their money based on pre-planned and agreed metrics that we can realistically impact."

Social media journalism – a fad gone too far?

 
Trend peaks as BBC journalists are told to accept social media - or leave

Over the last year or so there has been an apparent and increasing trend whereby journalists have looked to social media sites to source news stories.

Whether it be broadcast, print or eNews – these news organisations have been scouring the likes of Twitter, Facebook and MySpace in a bid to either bulk out stories or find comment where interviews are not attainable.

Although, already aware of this fashion I was somewhat shocked this week to find that this is being openly encouraged by even the most respected and ‘trustworthy’ news organisations in the world.

Peter Horrocks, the BBC's director of global news, has pretty much ordered his reporters to either familiarise themselves with sites such as Twitter, or leave, as reported by The Guardian.

The BBC director made his opinion very clear on the issue, "This isn't just a kind of fad from someone who's an enthusiast of technology. I'm afraid you're not doing your job if you can't do those things."

I must admit I do agree with Horrocks’ statement, that yes technology is changing journalism, however I can’t help but question whether it will be for the better.

As citizens and to an extent PRO’s look to news reporting to be somewhat ethical and reliable, how can journalists ensure all facts that they collate online are actually true from a  realm of such anonymity.

Typically, journalists have used such sites to look for reactions from the friends and family of victims of high profile crimes, such as the highly broadcasted story of Meredith Kercher.

Even today as I sat on the Tube reading the Metro, I turn to the news of Alexandra McQueen’s death whereby his Twitter updates had also been printed i n the run up of the tragedy to add depth.

Whilst there are several issue, with such methods of reporting, the implications surrounding both privacy and what makes good journalist practice stand out to me.

Firstly whilst both the emergence and general acceptance of social media has lead to these sites becoming part of us and part of our every day lives, however should reporters be allowed to use comments,  ‘Tweets’, pictures and other personal information found on a persons profile in order to plump out their stories? Or is this a simple breach of privacy?

Surely social media creates far too many conflicts of interests for journalists? -  In the 160 pages of the BBC's 2009 editorial guidelines, social media is only mentioned once, where editors are warned to "consider the impact of our re-use" of social media content – does this not speak for itself?

On the other hand during recent world events, news organisations such as CNN have gone one step further and professionalised their approach towards user content and social media, enabling the reporters to get closer to their sources such as with the coverage of the Haiti earthquake – however does this method always equal a balanced argument or is it just lazy journalism?

Social media - giving Haitians a voice

 

 

With traditional communication channels disrupted by the disaster in Haiti, once again social media’s importance was emphasised.

Minutes after the catastrophic earthquake hit Haiti, the power of the internet and social media started to shine through. Where more typical communication channels were affected by the quake, Haitians and aid workers alike turned to the likes of Twitter and Facebook to spread the word through the horrific scenes captured on mobile phones.

Among its multiple uses, social media in this case played a vital role in letting the world know the disastrous extent of the tragedy and that help was needed quickly in order to have the most positive effect.

Both citizens and aid workers alike uploaded TwitPics, tweeted the news and tried to find the whereabouts of loved ones on Facebook. The world turned to the platform when all other forms of communication were not an option. Even the landlines near the epicentre were wiped out by the quake, hampering rescue efforts.

Next came an outpouring of well wishes and support for the Haitian people as thousands of Facebook and Twitter updates appeared every minute. Among these updates were the appeals of the American Red Cross.

Even if you were to type "Haiti" into Twitter, Youtube or Facebook now, a few days on,  you will soon encounter @redcross’s message of appeal sent at 05:38 GMT on January 13, less than 48 hours after the tragedy.

In such a short space of time the American Red Cross was able to both set up an appeal and receive more than $35m in donations through the site.

Praise has already been awarded by the American Red Cross to the social media platform for “playing an extremely significant part” in spreading the word.

So this got me wondering, what makes Twitter, Facebook and YouTube so accommodating when communicating disasters quickly?

Well, when looking at Twitter you need to address the key advantages of the site. The main advantage is the initial barrier breakdown through the ability to communicate with anyone and everyone from celebrities to your next door neighbour.

For example famous Haitian musician, Wyclef Jean, managed to raise $1m for earthquake victims, after appealing for help from his 1.3 million followers through Twitter. People like Michelle Obama were also contacted by aid charities, first through tweeting then retweeting appeals, further spreading the message.

Meanwhile on Youtube, there was an influx in bloggers posting their own appeals and calling for donations. On Facebook, awareness groups, such as Earthquake Haiti gained over hundreds of thousands of members, linking them directly to charity sites.

These examples show how social media is set on continuing to play an important role in the communication of disasters, keeping the news at the forefront of the public agenda whilst it starts to slip off of the front pages of the Tabloids and fade out of the media’s spotlight.

In keeping with the trend, please pass the word on and visit British Red Cross

Pepsi benches superbowl for $20m cause marketing initiative

The news that PepsiCo dropped their prime time Super Bowl opening ad slot came as quite a shock. Not only will this be the first time in 23 years the infamous Super Bowl will not have one single ad promoting Pepsi, but also the drinks giant will be taking an uncertain gamble by trading it for a $20 million social media campaign.

From what we have all seen in the way of successful social media campaigns in 2009, this transition may prove positive for a brand that has been decidedly disjointed in its recent marketing. The move could show the extensive possibilities social media can open up to Pepsi and others alike.

Unlike rival, Coca-Cola, Pepsi spends almost all of its advertising budget on TV slots and with only 250,000 (actively engaged) facebook fans compared to Coke’s 4 million plus, bosses must have been on the edge of their seats when agreeing the deal.

To implement the new strategy, Pepsi will go full throttle into the increasingly growing field of cause marketing where the company aims to build two-way communication (an updated practice of the good old Grunig and Hunt, 1984 communication model us PR students have drummed into our heads at university) with consumers on how the company can become involved in social causes. 

Pepsi’s proposed 'Refresh Project' will provide consumers the chance to vote for suggested projects, and each month Pepsi will award grants to chosen causes.

To me this seems to be a very clever and interactive way for the brand to communicate with its publics through a popular platform whilst demonstrating its CSR credentials.

Other companies have also announced they are too following suit. Controversially ‘healthy’ fast food brand, McDonald’s, for example has recently revealed plans for its Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics marketing campaign. The media campaign, ‘How do you McNugget?’ will include both a Twitter and Facebook scavenger hunt to promote the athletes favorites, Chicken McNuggets.

So with Facebook, Twitter and other various social media networks so easily accessible to consumers will the move to online marketing campaigns be able to fully fulfill all objectives? Or will it be an unfortunate case of Pepsi putting too many of its eggs in one basket?