Buffalo Communications Buffalo Communications is the premier provider of B2B marketing consultancy services to the outsourcing and high-tech industries.
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?
I rarely blog about politics. It’s not what I know or what I do. But sometimes a story of such magnitude emerges that it requires a blog. The American government should have the most oiled PR machine in the history of the world. So two questions:
·Why on earth did it take 10 minutes for David Petraeus’ microphone to work yesterday? If I was hosting a client event and the microphone took 10 minutes to work, I would expect short shrift from a client. It is something that should not ever happen at that level.
·Secondly, why did he spout such a load of rubbish (when he was able to speak)? A top American official is clearly not reading this blog (believe it or not), but I keep trying to drum home a simple message. Lying is a bad communications tool. Or even presenting a truth to a population who will clearly see through it. Same difference. Is the surge working? I’d beg to differ, as would the Independent (surprise, surprise…) - http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article2950322.ece
Reading the excellent article in Computer World by Mary Brandel I find it funny that a business process that so many are still trying to get their heads round is having to re-invent itself.
Within the article she picks out some key themes: 1 - Outsourcing 2.0 allows genuine global talent management
Indeed, terms like global sourcing and strategic sourcing are starting to replace offshoring for companies striving to fit their use of overseas talent into their overall business strategies. And offshoring is no longer solely about cost. For instance, Siegel has occasionally requested that his outsourcer assign specific developers from other countries to a given project because he’s gotten to know and respect their work on other projects. “These are people who came up through the ranks and ended up being real stars with functional experience,” he says. “Seven years ago, that never would have happened. It took time for them to obtain the institutional knowledge and, based on that, move upstream.”
2 - Moving your business model towards the 'best way' to do business [common sense?]
“It’s about the best way to get business done, whether it’s offshoring, outsourcing, resourcing or insourcing, as well as a broader view than just, ‘What’s the lowest price that I can pay for a service or commodity?’”
Delphi’s strategic sourcing approach does not explicitly require an offshore footprint, McCabe says. At times, he might contract with a domestic outsourcer that chooses to use offshore workers as part of its service. Other times, he explicitly chooses an offshore provider, but for reasons beyond cost.
3 - Buying best of breed and forcing collaboration between competing suppliers [I like this one]
Adopting a more technology- driven sourcing strategy that takes advantage of the core competencies of several providers.
“We can do that more readily than five or six years ago because suppliers are getting the message that we want three or four and we want them to collaborate,”
4 - Just because you outsource it doesn't mean you off-shore (who'd have thought - what a revelation!!)
If the old offshoring model could be represented as a one-way arrow pointing from the U.S. to a lower-cost overseas location, the new global sourcing model has arrows that form a complex web. In the new model, work can flow from a client in the U.S. to an Indian company that passes along a coding piece of the project to a Chinese subcontractor and the consultative piece to its employees in the U.S. Or a U.S. provider might divide the work among a team of U.S.-born workers, offshore coders and foreign employees with deep functional experience.
5 - The new buzz word is "Co-sourcing"
....sees the relationship more as co-sourcing than offshoring. “They have a certain set of responsibilities in the development process, we have a certain set, and we measure each other to be sure we’re each holding up our end of the bargain."
I like that... and it links closely to number 3.
But just to add a dose of reality-salts to the high mindedness - read the comments from Computer World's readers.....It really gives a flavour of US thoughts on outsourcing and offshoring.
