Buffalo Communications Buffalo Communications is the premier provider of B2B marketing consultancy services to the outsourcing and high-tech industries.
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?
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.
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.
‘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."
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 arealm 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?
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
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?