Sometimes Small is Better in Social Media

Ther’s a ton of content from pundits out there screaming to “get as many followers as you can” or “face the Facebook reality or your business will die.” Getting massive amounts of traffic is well, just sooo 2001. You needed volume then just to convert. Ecommerce sites were but a few years old and well, Twitter and Facebook didn’t exist.

Forget Big. Find The Right Size.

For all the Twitter fans out there, don’t forget there are well over 80 similar services like Twitter. There’s Identi.ca and Plurk and then there’s others. Your target market may not be anywhere near Twitter. So why bother?

Let’s talk Social Networks. While Facebook may be the largest, it is not the only. If your target market is people who own or crew on sail boats, then find one of the several Social Networks for sailors. Nurses? They too have their own social networks.

Increasingly, we are seeing that people may have a Facebook acccount, but will tend to spend more time in an online network where their interests lie. Facebook, Bebo, NetLog…they aren’t good at that. Ning is. So have a peek around Ning, see if that’s where your audience is hanging out. That’s where to engage.

Size does matter. Most importantly it’s the right size. Having a gazillion fans on Facebook or followers on Twitter is pointless if that’s not where your audience is. From finding where they are, listen to what they’re saying, then start developing the strategy.

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 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 Queen, Canadians and Social Media

As the Queen paid a visit to Canada at the end of last month, we wanted to take a look at what Canadians felt about the Royal Visit. Some countries in the Commonwealth are having that ongoing debate; should the Queen be the head of State or not. Then there’s the Royalists vs. the Republics split. We’re not getting into politics, just a snap look at overall sentiment.

So we set loose our software to look at the sentiment around the Queens visit and here’s the stats on what we found for sentiment;

Methodology: We sampled commentary across Canada’s major news papers online where comments were enabled. In addition we mined semantics from Twitter, Plurk and Identi.ca (primary microblogs) and Facebook fan and group pages. Representative sample size was 21,500 Canadians.

Social Media: One of America’s Greatest Global Gifts?

The most popular and critical tools in Social Media (Facebook, Buzz, Twitter etc.) all came out of the USA. In fact it was in large part the Hippies coming back into San Francisco from their failed communes that developed the initial software that eventually lead to today’s social media revolution.

The impact has been global and is escalating. During the Iranian elections of 2009 it was Facebook, Flickr and YouTube that played a vital role in the democratic parties getting out the message. Democratic parties in Moldova tried to use Twitter. Pro-democracy groups in Egypt have done the same.

America is a model of democracy (set aside your partisan views for a minute) and represents freedom. We in Canada follow the same beliefs, as do all truly democratic countries. Key to good democracy is the ability for people to organize into groups, then to create their content and manage their activities. This is precisely what Social Media tools and services enable.

Although some other great Social Media tools and services have popped up out of Canada, UK, Germany and other countries, it is truly a gift of America. While there may be smaller wars raging, if America wasn’t the hegemony it is today, we’d be in far worse shape.

Social Media channels, tools and services will enable ever greater levels of democracy. Most importantly, these tools are giving people in fragile nations, emerging markets and autocratic states a chance to create global awareness and find help. Social Media tools may help in better managing globalization and systemic risk factors as well.

When I think of Social Media in global terms (setting aside consumerism) one can only conclude that of the many gifts American drive, panache and entrepreneurism has given us, Social Media is certainly in the top three.
What about you? What do you think?

(Author: G. Crouch, MD)