The Buffalo Blog

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?

Finding Madeleine with mixed media

Now a couple of days have passed and information has been allowed to flow through, I thought I’d look at last week’s Madeleine McCann campaign and the traction it managed to generate. The campaign warrants looking at firstly because every little bit of awareness keeps her name top of mind and hopefully contributes in some way to finding out what has actually happened to this little girl. The second reason is that the campaign combined an interesting mix of offline and online media techniques which aren’t currently combined that frequently.

At the moment it is usually the big-bucks digital advertising agencies that are using traditional channels alongside video sharing and social networks, for example the Compare the Meerkat adverts and related Russian meerkat online shenanigans. This method often gains mass credence and looks a success in numbers: 610,136 fans on facebook, the top video on YouTube has 255,506 views with four more having over 100,000. The number of ‘Compare the Meerkat’ searches speak for themselves in the following table.

But it’s important to question the end result. Of course, the Compare the Market is looking for brand engagement, translating to sales, market share and real ROI. In terms of associated growth in Compare the Market search, it seems to have done very well indeed.

Whether this all translated into sales and impacted the bottom line is one to look out for at the next Ad awards, where I’m sure we’ll see a lot more of Alexander and friends. It is reasonable to assume though, that such a growth in Compare the Market Searches would mean a substantial uptick in business. On the flip-side of this one wonders how long such interest can be sustained. No doubt Compare the Market will know when it’s time to throw in the towel on this one, to avoid flogging a dead meerkat, so to speak.

Now, compare this with the Madeline McCann campaign. This is a movement that gained and sustained massive popular support for a substantial amount of time after the abduction. The media got very involved and was instrumental in keeping the interest alive for longer than is usual in such cases. A compassionate public, likeable family and adorable child, also helped sustain interest in the story.

Now, a year on, interest has significantly died down and the natural response is for the family to attempt to drum up new support and interest using every means at their disposal. So the work with CEOP and the ‘viral’ video came about. 

Again the media was very conducive to an update on the situation and covered the story heavily on launch day. ‘A minute for Maddie’ was splashed on many front pages, across breakfast news sofas and generally covered in most, if not all, the major news outlets.

The interesting thing is the campaign’s effect on the social media-sphere is was designed to infiltrate. The video, though by no means high on ‘shareability’, was presented as a viral to be viewed and spread more though conscience than anything else. And this worked for a time. The trouble is that attempting to instigate a viral via ‘old media’ PR efforts is almost impossible. Also, without the mega budgets of the big advertising guys to keep plugging away with adverts, interest dies away at an astounding rate. Just look at the Madeleine MacCann searches:

As soon as the news broadcasts stopped, all was effectively lost. The graph goes to an amazing pique then back to nothing in just a day or so. The sad thing is that the interest has also not spread Europe-wide as was hoped. While the YouTube video is offered in numerous languages, searches outside UK and Ireland are few and far between. Having said this, the fleeting interest did translate into 418,568 views of the YouTube video but has not spawned the additional videos or associated sharing of the Meerkat campaign.

These two contrasting examples give the industry some important food for thought for the PR industry:

·         How easy is it to meld ‘old’ and ‘new’ PR tools for long-term effect?

·         What does the success of advertising mixed with social media mean for PR?

·         Does creating mass interest always translate to engagement?

·         Is it right to always focus social media campaigns around short-term projects?

Either way, let’s hope they find Madeleine in the end.

As usual, comments are more than welcome.

Help find Madeleine McCann

Buffalo asks Charles Arthur about journalism, PR and Twitter

A month or so ago, Buffalo Communications was lucky enough to speak to, and record an interesting interview with, Charles Arthur of Technology Guardian.

You can listen to Charles' thoughts on journalism, PR and Twitter here: Charles Arthur Podcast

Google libel - a victory for common sense

Information Week US reports on a huge victory for common sense this week. Yes, Google has managed to overcome yet another law suit, this time over an obviously ludicrous libel claim that, had they lost, would have set a dangerous precedent for communications, customer service and the freedom of information on the internet.

The claim, and I won’t mention any names for fear of litigation, you can read about them in the Information Week article, was that Google should be held liable for third party comments that appear in its search results. You know that derogatory blog post that’s taken on a life of its own in the search results? The one that outranks your own website? Or the forum where customers keep saying your product is faulty or dangerous? The company basically wanted Google to admit liability for anything possibly libellous said about them that appears in its search results.

Well, unfortunately for the lazy communicators out there, and thankfully for those with a shred of common sense, the company lost. You aren’t simply going to be able to sue Google and get any derogatory comment removed. Shame…

It’s important that this case went the way it did, firstly because its obvious that a search engine is there for presenting you with all the information it deems relevant to your search enquiry, It is NOT there to block and selectively present corporate-approved content; we have seen the impact of content blocking and filtering in various locations around the world and it simply doesn’t and shouldn’t work. The second point is that filtering such comments would be to negate a huge part of what the web is about – a forum for feedback and communication.

So, someone says something bad about your company or product. Taking the legal route nowadays will frequently turn dissenting voices into a movement and a movement will gain even more interest, followers and even mass-media coverage. Scary stuff.

SO ENGAGE! Find out what the issue is. Find out whether it’s true, If it is, fix it, If it isn’t engage with those that are saying it and present the correct, evidenced case.

Disgruntled people rarely attack companies for absolutely no reason and if you don’t engage, you’ll never know what their issues are. So many companies are getting so good at this and their customers appreciate it no-end, building long-term brand loyaloty. If you fail to address your customers’ and stakeholders’ concerns, they will say bad things about you and will ultimately buy elsewhere.

Make sense?

Habitat Get It So Wrong

Now we all know that there is a debate that rages throughout the social media world, one that spawns passionate statements about freedom, corporate responsibility and user experience.   This debate tends to revolve around one issue:  Should companies be taking advantage of social media to directly sell to their consumers.  The general consensus is that businesses can (and I would say, should) engage with customers at a personal level, maintaining a strict adherence to a self imposed rule of no selling. 

Social media can be used to give a company a platform to actually engage with the public, whether they are potential customers or not.  There is an exceptionally important line that should, by no means, be crossed by any organisation, or for that matter individual: do not capitalise on a serious social media conversation in order to push your product or service.  Habitat, the furniture retailer, decided to take an enormous step over that line and is now facing an online backlash of unprecedented proportions.

The over zealous retailer (@habitatuk) decided to hashtag (keywords used on Twitter to help users track posts on specific themes, achieved by putting a #theme before the tweet) new season products with incredibly popular and some sensitive hashtags such as #Iran, #iPhone and #Apple.  Of course none of the used themes had anything to do with the subsequent tweets, Habitat were simply using the hashtags to pitch their product to as many people as possible.

This irresponsible and deplorable marketing tactic earnt Habitat a plethora of condemning articles within the online press not to mention the flood of angry tweets sent directly to @habitatuk.  They have effectively alienated any online consumer they were attempting to target, to rub salt in the wounds Habitat have (as I write this blog) as yet apologised for this ridiculous stunt, the company has simply deleted the offending tweets. 

The power of social media tools such as Twitter has become more evident every day.  Earlier in the week, Twitter users managed to skew an insensitive poll on the Daily Mail site, in fact I think more people voted on that poll than on many other Daily Mail surveys.  This time, it was incredible to see how quickly a corporate error can snowball as well as the millions of Twitter users leaping to protect the dignity of planet Twitter. 

The Social Media Today blog captured screen shots and posted the original article alerting a host of other publications and media outlets (including Sky News) to the story.   Twitter users were already moving in on the kill as publications such as ComputerWorldUK and Computer Weekly uploaded scathing articles.   I expect the evening news will pay homage to the story as well as the morning Metro.

This only goes to show how quickly things can go wrong when companies decide to simply ignore unwritten protocol, wade into the online furore and attempt to unscrupulously sell to a highly aware and totally connected community.  Whether this marketing blunder was orchestrated in-house or through a marcomms agency, is yet to be clear.  Organisations have to be fully aware of the potential consequences of getting the online conversation wrong. 

Social media does give businesses the opportunity to interact at a personal level with potential customers, however it is a wild beast and businesses should be prepared to be on the backfoot from the outset and should always follow an honest and open approach to any interaction. Habitat didn’t and one thing is for certain, they have severely damaged their image and reputation with millions of potential consumers; and all in under 140 characters.