Limitations of Brand Communications in Social Media

While we continue to see companies dancing around their level of engagement and commitment to marketing through Social Media channels, some interesting limitations are apparent with these channels. Limitations in communication that are not easily overcome;

Textual Channels: Twitter, blogs, wall postings…anywhere where text is the primary method of communication. The issue here is “context” as it can be hard to identify what the person is “feeling” or how angry they are. Aside from perhaps a profile picture, it’s not easy to define an image of someone either. As we know, 60% of human communication is non-verbal. One might then say it is hard to truly engage in a medium with limitations to emotional expression. Emoticons are clever, but they only go so far. Flame wars erupt easily in textual channels.

Video Channels: With a service like Chatroulette this is a litter better for communication. One can see body gestures, facial expressions and denote tone of voice. The limitations here are what can be added to the conversation, such as other visuals, since you are often more dependent on location and form of camera. When it’s combining text and video response to posted videos in a sharing service like YouTube there is often delay in engagement and the chance of missed communication that can have any desired effect.

Audio Channels: Like a phone or Skype or similar IP Phone. With video enabled it helps, but similar restrictions to video channels apply. In audio communications we get tone of voice as an aid to completing the communication objective. But still, gestures and facial expression is limited.

So what does this mean in corporate attempts to engage with customer service or marketing through social media channels? Not understanding these limitations can negatively impact the outcome of the desired objective.

As with Nestle’s Facebook experience, the entire issue erupted over statements made by a Nestle marketing employee on the Facebook page for Nestle. It was purely textual. It was also a permanent linear string that all could see. This means the original context or framing of the issue rapidly spins out of hand. Nestle could have added some video response or offered a Web chat with video. This may have helped add elements that would’ve reduced the overheating of the issue. May have.

Each social media channel has its challenges. Understanding the limitations and the risks are key to success. They also add another level of education and knowledge development for a business, which adds cost to the management of these channels and reduces profits.

Do you see any other limitations?

(Author: G. Crouch)

Social Media Use by Diaspora of Fragile Nations

Increasingly diaspora of various nations are leveraging social media tools and services. For the most part, this has been to connect with their home country. To foster their connection, whether they have recently moved to a new host nation or are 2nd or 3rd generation connecting their cultural roots. Beyond fostering sociocultural connections and discovery, there is a growing indication of diaspora wanting to engage in helping their country of origin politically and/or economically.

Just yesterday Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan declared the Nigerian diaspora would not be allowed to vote in the upcoming 2011 election. The claim is that there is not enough time to organize the process, which in part may certainly be a significant reason. In part, this decision came as a result of the Nigerian government realizing the level of organization and activity online in social networks by Nigerian diaspora.

Almost every fragile nation of the Global South has some form of diaspora activity online today. Even though their home country may have limited Internet availability and then that mostly only available to the Elites in the country. That hasn’t served to limit diaspora activity however.

A diaspora is a group of people. Social media tools and services enable the easy formation, communication and management of groups. So it is understandable they’ve begun to leverage these tools. Sadly, some have used these tools to foment anger and hatred.

But increasingly, diaspora are using these tools to gain influence and traction in the political and administrative process of their country or region of origin. Notably however, of the 40 diaspora social media services we looked at, all but one had both English and their native tongue supported.

We see two reasons for this; 1) some 2nd or 3rd generation diaspora don’t speak their mother tongue and 2) these diaspora want to ensure the predominantly English speaking Global North countries can see what is being said. There is an underlying motivation and that is if that country is in the midst of receiving aid, the hope is that a donor nation or the UN or AU body engaged in their home country will understand the “strength” of the diaspora and that they may be able to influence aid.

Social Value As A New Business Consideration

The purpose of a business is to make a profit. To do that, a business must constantly innovate and market itself. To date, a business has not had to think about it’s “social value” to it’s market or community. I argue that is about to change. Is changing.

There’s enough cases of companies facing corporate culture changing crises from the impacts of Social Media and citizens new power of expression. No industry, no public sector organization is immune. None.

It is an illusion for any business to think it a) can control the message and b) that it is not susceptible to an assault from a disgruntled group of citizens or customers.

If this is in fact the case, then does the concept of “Corporate Social Value” come to be a key consideration for businesses now and in the future? I suspect so.

So what the heck is “Corporate Social Value”? It’s a challenge for businesses since it’s pretty much just pixie dust right now. It’s a term we made up. Here’s why though;

Take away fancy terms like “brand image” or “corporate social responsibility” and what it boils down to is do people think the way a company behaves in it’s community of wherever it operates is fair? Do they treat employees well? Do they destroy resources and do nothing to replace them? Do they make and then support, quality products? Are they damaging the environment in their manufacturing processes? Are they seen as indifferent and aloof?

This is how people may “feel” about a company. I think we’re starting to see anecdotal evidence that a company’s “reputation” or how consumers feel about it can impact sales. That’s not an easy glass of kool-aid to swallow. It’s hard to measure and it’s soft, feel good stuff. Business is not about “emotions” it’s about making a profit and reducing costs to maximize those profits. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s just the way it is. Otherwise it isn’t a business, it’s a non-profit organization.

Politicians understand this concept very well. How people “feel” about them is an important part of getting and staying, elected. Perhaps businesses will be taking some lessons from politicians. That opens up a whole other, big can of worms.

Regardless, the ability for consumers to express emotions and values and to share them with others, is having an impact on businesses. And consumers are starting to realize that.

The Most Human Developed Medium

In its broadest context, Social Media is not an invention of the past five years. Newsgroups, forums, Instant Messaging, email and bulletin boards have existed in various forms since the early 1970′s. By  early 2004 platforms such as Blogger, Typepad and WordPress came along and the need to know how to “code” melted away into the background.

As blogs arose into the wider human condition through traditional news media, so did the pundits and then came the “guru’s” and social media “experts” touting their expertise because they’d blogged a few times.

But then many voices joined that mob. Some hilarious, some idiot and some far more insightful and a few, very practical. I’ve always enjoyed Chris Brogan for his ability to draw people in and truly engage in discussion, Dan Zarella for his more methodical approach backed by credible science and Jeremiah Owyang for his networking and Sasha Halima for her witty insights. But there are many, many more. Hey, we’ve even joined the dialog over the past three years.

So in the spirit of theoretical thunking, it would seem that Social Media in it’s broadest sense truly is a medium developed by many, many voices. Perhaps more than ever before in the history of mankind. After all, just how many people can you fit in a cave to draw pictograms? And you can’t really carry a cave around and show people your work can you?

It’s this massive scalability that is most fascinating and the fact that anyone at anytime can add their thoughts and insights, as long as they have a computer or some form of device that enables connection and interaction with the Web. That’s quite astounding when you step back and think about it.

Social Media as a “medium” then, most certainly is evolved by the people for the people.

My World, Your World, The World and Social Media

As we research social media use across continents and cultural groups, we of course are also always looking to understand how social media technologies can make an impact on our world. Both positive and negative. Listening to Devdutt Pattanaik speaking on mythologies and how we view our world, once can translate that into how social technologies can and are bringing our global community together.

If global trade (finance, exporting/importing, global corporations etc.) are enabling the movement of physical goods and the tumbling of walls into nation states that reflected so much of 20th century, then social media technologies are where people are first developing the relationships through sharing of content and ideas.

As people, we all need an “identity” and that is both a personal identity then social then cultural and finally a nation-state sense of identity. That identity and how we behave is through social activities (meetings, cultural broadcast on TV, radio…the Web) and behaviours. This is arrived at entirely through dialog. You can not form a company or a nation without other people (well, you could, but it would be awfully small and collapse when you die.)

My World: In social media terms, this is the sites and services you engage in to view content on the Web and view what other people have created or said. It’s more singular in nature and based on your behaviour.

Your World: That’s how “my world” see’s anothers world. It is the opening of the conversation or the relationship in the social web. In Cyburbia.

The World: This is reality. This is all the tools and the relative state of the Web as it stands today, globally. This is “the” world of Cyburbia. It is the result of my world and your world coming together.

What I believe we’re starting to see is the use of social media technologies to bring our world together. Here’s some examples I think that help make the case.

Smoking Boy: In Vietnam the father who let’s his 2 year old smoke 40 cigarettes a day. Because this hit YouTube it went around the world. Not only through social technologies, but news media. News media around the world. Prior to the web we likely never would have seen that story outside Vietnam.

Iranian Elections ’09: Agressive, planned and consistent use of social technologies such as YouTube and Flickr kept the Iranian election front and centre globally and provided people with an insight into Iran and that there are many there who want proper democracy and human rights.

Playing for Change: The global awareness on poverty project that saw people around the world playing stand by me in various cultures (among other songs) uses that universal translator, music, to bridge between cultures.

That’s just three examples. What do you think? Are we going to be able to better understand one anothers cultures better through social technologies? Can we call this the opening phase of Global Aculturalisation?