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.

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.    

The damaging media spotlight

Luke Johnson wrote in this Tuesday's FT about the damaging effects of the media spotlight when it is unleashed in anger. He highlighted some interesting opinions about reputation but appeared to miss the point on media crises and the long-lasting effects they have on companies.

Contrary to his article, the effect of a media mess-up can easily destroy a company, perhaps even more so in the B2B space. The colossal amounts of money spent in B2B industries makes people a lot more diligent in their selection of suppliers. A whiff of malpractice, failure, or underhanded tactics, in the press, will quickly see a supplier struck-off any procuremrnt list.

The fact is that bad press stays with a company for a long time; interminably now with Google news cataloguing just about everything on the web. In the consumer space, as with his Bernard Matthews example, sometimes price comes to triumph over opinion but this is rare. The oft-cited example of Ratner’s Jewellers, destroyed by derogatory comments of its owner, is a clear example of a media crisis turned business disaster.

It’s important for public facing businesses to recognise the reputation risks that are out there. Don’t stop talking to the press, just put the measures in place to respond appropriately when things go pear shaped.

Bad Bloggers

Communication has taken a new turn in recent years.  The freedom to communicate with vast audiences has never been as great as it is today.  Businesses, governments and the public all have the access to platforms that allow them to speak to whoever they want, whether the audience like it or not!

There is now a growing trend of those who are now using these communication vehicles to undermine, belittle and in some cases attack other people.  These acts of libel are now creeping into the business sphere. Some online publications for example, have been experiencing high volumes of businesses posing to be rivals and posting pretentious, potentially damaging, blogs and opinion pieces. An example is IT Director, a respectable publication, that is now actually having to vet people who post articles or opinion pieces in order to ensure that they are actually the person who they claim to be.  This underhanded posting is clearly not cricket, however in such an unregulated arena as blogging who’s to stop them?

The media have highlighted the issue of detrimental communication backfiring on individuals.  The Times commented on how Tricia Walsh-Smith’s YouTube divorce campaign went against her when the settlement judge condemned her for humiliating her husband.  Of course the more these occurrences are brought into the legal limelight the more likely it is that bodies will attempt to regulate the social media landscape – this would be damaging for content and blogging in general.

If businesses are found to be misusing blogs, forums or various other new media communication tools then there should undoubtedly be heavy consequences. The problem is that without going down costly legal routes this is unlikely to happen. In the meantime social media users should band together and regulate for themselves. It is up to the reader to be vigilant and savvy enough to question supposedly independent pieces and to flag them up as soon as possible.  Businesses and individuals using these innovative forms of media simply to vent grudges or slander competition should be exposed for what they are doing.  Hopefully through this collective ‘policing’ of the new media landscape, social media can remain free from restrictive legislation without compromising the content.

Media Moogles – Google media domination

The Guardian’s Media 100 was released yesterday filled with the big and bright of the ‘media’ industry (if the expanding and multifarious industry can still feasibly be categorised into such a neatly fitting box). Predictably, and I’d infer, by a long way, Larry Page and Sergey Brin made number one spot of all powerful new media gurus.

The achievements of the ever-expanding Google entity alone should be enough to secure this accolade, however, there is something that puts Google so far ahead in these rankings that it is almost scary to think about.

Google has rapidly managed to go from innovative, quirky ‘new media’ start-up to what is, the living, breathing and evolving centre of the web. Indeed it is reported that 70% of all web traffic is now directed via Google searches. This empire has been created with only the smallest whiff of anti-competitive investigation even though the company does have what is unquestionably a monopoly of the search industry. It’s clear that Google developed just too quickly for anyone to notice.

The fact is, Google now dictates whether your company exists or not online; being hidden from Google means being hidden from the world and almost all of your customers. Ask yourself, would you go to the second page of a Google search for a casual search term? Would you continue searching for a company if you couldn’t find them via Google in a few minutes? Very few people will take the time to consult a phone directory or call 118 if they’re just doing an initial search. This means if you’re dead to Google, your dead to the internet.

This uninhibited dominance of search has to be the real reason behind the Google top spot and will continue to be so for some time. Sergey and Larry’s invincible position in the Guardian Media rankings would really need something as industry changing as Google itself to ever truly dethrone them.

The company now owns almost all online visibility and companies that don’t realise this will lose interest, lose clients and ultimately, lose themselves in the age of Google.

Achieving the right 'Phorm-ula'

The continuing controversy over Phorm (the advertising service secretly trialled by BT to track and target ads based on internet surfing patterns) highlights exactly where so many advertisers, new wave advertising services and social networks, desperate to wring money out of their service, are going wrong. Two elements are continually prevalent, those of awareness and trust – do users know what they’re being signed up for and do they trust that it is both legitimate, secure and won’t see their details sold to every Tom, Dick and Harry that comes begging.

The trouble is that consumers either don’t perceive this trust in the first place due to clandestine tactics of those less scrupulous marketers or they initially trust the company or service but it is promptly taken away when advertising comes into the equation especially when it is done ‘under the radar’.

A prime example of this is Facebook and its ‘revolutionary’ yet universally condemned, Beacon advertising service. The trouble is that users never signed up to Facebook to be plied with advertising and, as such, its ‘Beacon’ advertising service was destined for controversy from the word go. The decision to make it an opt-out rather than opt-in technology was one step too far for users, feeling aggrieved at having the service forced upon them. This action was truly damaging to what could have been a highly successful advertising product.

Predictably people were rather annoyed about Beacon sparking reams of bad press, a swift backtrack by Zuckerberg and a failure of the service to truly take off. One blog prints reports (though unconfirmed) of current click-through rates of just 0.04%, a pretty abysmal average. And while poor click-through rates obviously aren’t all due to distrust of Facebook, the secretive way in which Beacon was implemented definitely had an effect on the success of the system.

Now we find Phorm is trying similar tactics which also have blown up in their faces. Its secret trials with BT have created such a media furore that the EU may intervene and punish.

Online advertisers need to recognise that transparency is the key; keeping users fully appraised of what they’re signing up for is the only way to build the trust that might, with luck, lead to success. Launch a service in an ill-considered, secretive and invasive way and it’s simply doomed to failure and rightly so.

Zattoo - a gift horse?

Interesting news this morning surrounding the launch of Zattoo – a Swiss/US startup that retransmits content from UK terrestrial broadcasters online, paying them commission according to subscriber numbers.

At the annoyance of the main UK players, Zattoo appears to have slipped under the radar of copyright law. Or at least no one has yet succeeded in unravelling the growing tangle of internet legislation to work out whether this is actually legal or not.

Either way the company has an interesting model, simply broadcasting terrestrial content online and inserting ads every time a user switches channels (a tactic that could be quite successful with today’s channel switching population). The service already has over 2m subscribers in old-Europe so could become quite lucrative.

However, more so than many ‘download to own’ players, Zattoo’s streaming service will require a big slice of bandwidth, so is subject to the limiting constraints of the UK’s network infrastructure and the types of deals internet users are currently signed up to.

Whether this latest company will do any better than those that have gone before remains to be seen. What is clear is that the UK broadcasters should look on this launch as an opportunity, not a threat. No one has clearly won the war between 4OD, iPlayer and ITV.com, and the Zattoo service only streams live media so is not a threat to these or their planned ‘Project Kangaroo’ service.

Zattoo provides a new outlet for terrestrial content and could help garner a wider audience and possible new revenue. UK broadcasters would do well to look at the growing number of questionably legal streaming TV services now online to see just how well this could go down.