Will be updating regularly again shortly.

But are sponsored adverts that bad? In some respects, yes. As the Techcrunch article points out the ability to talk about products or brands within a social space could be geneuinely useful but its also open to abuse in the form of unwanted spam. However, since FB is happy to give up user data to its advertisers and commercialise the site in as many ways as possible it’s doubtful whether the motives behind this recent proposal are to do with protecting the sanctity of the space. Perhaps it’s better to focus on the fact that the new proposal forbids users from “using their personal profiles for their own commercial gain”. This contrasts strongly with other social media platforms: from Twitter to Youtube to Google’s Blogger users are allowed to monetise their sites and pages in a limited way. So FB seems to be locking down every possible advertising pathway on the site and making sure that users can’t deprive the company, or third-party developers, of any potential advertising revenue.

If that is the thinking behind this new proposal then it implies that FB sees its users as a potential threat to its financial well-being. An odd attitude for a company that’s built its fortune on the back of user generated content, but an understandable one considering FB’s over-valuation³ and ongoing issues with finding an effective business model.⁴

1. Retrieved August 11, 2009 http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/11/facebook-proposes-to-ban-sponsored-status-updates/
2. Retrieved August 11, 2009 http://redtape.msnbc.com/2009/07/hey-peter-the-ad-said-hot-singles-are-waiting-for-you-he-might-have-dismissed-the-advertisement-which-appeared-on-his-fa.html
3. Retrieved August 11, 2009 http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/06/28/want-some-facebook-stock-at-a-3-billion-valutation-we-know-who-to-call/
4. Retrieved August 11, 2009 http://www.reuters.com/article/smallBusinessNews/idUSTRE54L5VV20090522

With typical clarity Godin cuts straight to the heart of the matter: any networking should be about making genuine actionable connections with people. It’s the quality and depth of the relationships within a network, rather than the size of it, that makes difference in business performance.

But in the same breath B2B social networking shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand since it depends on how a business’s social networking is managed. The central issue is whether or not there’s an online networking strategy in place that can benefit the business in concrete terms. How are you measuring networking success? Do the connections you make online further your overall business objectives? Are there methods in place to leverage the fleeting contact and attention gained by initial contact through an online social network? Is your business’s social networking selective and targeted? Is there some way you can add value to the interactions you and a potential partner have online?

When someone reads your business’s profile or interacts with your content their attention, for a few moments only, is totally focused on your company’s space. It’s up to each business to figure out the best way of maximising the potential of that contact. It’s not a question of whether or not it’s possible to build an online network. Rather, it’s a question of whether or not your business has the framework in place to utilise that network in the best possible way.

1. Retrieved August 5, 2009 http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/07/four-videos-about-noise-social-and-decency.html

So how can the likes of Walmart¹and McDonald’s,² with their huge PR and marketing budgets, lack the insight and strategy to effectively cope with something as straight-forward as blogging? It boils down to aims, culture and a growing consumer resistance to brand communications³ Bloggers, like most web users, want to discuss and share authentic content. Brands want to sell and promote. The two aims aren’t mutually exclusive but brands struggle to reconcile the difference because of the second reason: business and marketing culture.

Traditional offline brand management thinks in terms of media buys, sales funnels and the sort of advertorialising that ensures a brand message is repeated as many times as possible. This approach has given rise to a multitude of semi-successful-at-best corporate blogs: seldom discussed and often ignored. And if obvious promotion doesn’t work then there’s always “stealth marketing” to get around consumer resistance. The result? Well if Sony’s,⁴ Walmart’s, and Mazda’s⁵ experiences are anything to go by then it’s epic fail all the way. It’s all the more surprising since it goes against the very principles that good marketing communication is built on: Creatively synch your message to the needs and attitudes of your target market, speak the language of the consumer and you’re more likely to be listened to. But as soon as brands go online something almost always gets lost in translation.

Which is where, in theory, Social Influentials come in. Over the past few years companies and PR agencies have begun aggressively recruiting Socials to represent their brands online. Case in point: Jessica Smith over at Jessicaknows.com.⁶ Recently hired by Fleishamn-Hillard,  Smith is a corporate dream of a Social. She kicked off her career as one of the growing number of “mommy bloggers”: A group of writers courted by brands because of their influential status amongst power moms, digital-savvy mothers responsible for most of the purchase decisions in their households. Writing about business and motherhood, Smith built-up an extensive following amongst both moms and business professionals alike.

Fleishman-Hillard gains her expertise in community building and access to her word-of-mouth following. It could be argued that Smith’s credibility in the eyes of her social network would be lessened by her involvement with a PR firm. However, Smith has always been involved with corporate interests and this hasn’t harmed her blogging reputation in the slightest. In part this is due to her honesty: She’s never concealed the fact that she’s blogged on behalf of corporate interests. But it’s also important to bear in mind the attitudes of her audience and community: Most mothers simply don’t share the anti-corporate ideals of other web users who will always demand authentic non-corporatised content.

Socials aren’t a total fix for brands in the blogosphere. Undoubtedly they have an influence over the spread of online messages but situational factors such as stickiness and context will always affect the adoption of a brand message.⁷ Just as with traditional marketing, new media brand strategies need to be balanced and coordinated across different channels in order to maximise reach and effectiveness. And bloggers should also be used with caution in terms of product endorsement. Consumers, whilst trusting bloggers for certain types of information, tend to trust top bloggers least when it comes to product purchase recommendations.⁸

Leading bloggers can become victims of their own success: By gaining a large profile they lose an ability to genuninly connect with their core audiences. They cease to be community members, people “just like me”, and become just another information source. The trustworthiness of bloggers is further undermined by sites like PayPerPost.com⁹ which pay bloggers, and not necessarily top ones, to write about products and brands. Hiring a blogger through a site like PayPerPost.com, which pays bloggers to write about brands and products, might serve as a short-term social media fix for a brand. It ticks off the “blog audience engagement” box on the marcomms to-do list in an easily monetized and measurable way. But in the long-term it will just further compromise the integrity of the blogosphere. Bloggers will stop being seen as community members, a trusted part of people’s networks, and start being seen as just another part of an advertising channel. And when that happens those blogs will cease to have much relevance to readers and they’ll either be ignored or flamed.

Because as much web users love to connect with each other in authentic dialogue, they love spotting and outing fakes much much more.

1. Retrieved August 5, 2009 http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=49505
2. Retrieved August 5, 2009  http://www.blogherald.com/2005/02/07/mcdonalds-outed-for-fake-typepad-blog/
3. Retrieved August 4, 2009 http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/116672977.html
4. Retrieved August 5, 2009 http://adage.com/smallagency/post?article_id=113945
5. Retrieved August 5, 2009 http://www.marketingvox.com/mazdas_blogviral_campaign_falls_flat-017206/
6. Retrieved August 5, http://jessicaknows.com/
7. Retrieved August 5, 2009 http://www.conversationagent.com/2008/01/forget-influent.html
8. Retrieved August 5, 2009 http://www.micropersuasion.com/2008/04/trust-in-peers.html
9. Retrieved August 5, 2009 http://payperpost.com/index.html

Influence ripples and social media fragmentation

Whilst browsing Ben Haim’s blog¹ I came across a great series of visuals by David Armano². One of them, shown here, shows the interplay between social media fragmentation and influence. The ripples between individuals nicely illustrate how Social Influentials, one of the subject of today’s Basics post, affect their networks and accelerate the spread of communications.

Social Influentials, e-Fluentials, Digerati, New Media Mavens…The terms are often used interchangeably but they all refer to net users who are more engaged with the online world than average. These individuals participate in online and offline communities, discussing and sharing topics of interest as they do so. They don’t always have leadership roles but they do have authority and influence. Basically, when Socials speak people listen

One of the main reasons Socials have credibility stems from the fact that they’re seen as community members rather than as outsiders trying to push an agenda. In effect Socials are the opinion leaders in an ongoing series of dialogues and discussions. But because those discussions are web-based Socials have the potential to reach millions of individuals through the use of their personalised web-spaces.

Unsurprisingly, Socials are often regarded as vital in driving the spread of online communications, so much so that companies have recruited Socials to represent their brands online. The Corporate Socials are a relatively new, but potentially important, addition to the social media landscape.

Social influence as a concept isn’t a new one. Social psychologists have long talked about the affect that influence has on our thoughts and behaviours. Effective marketing and PR, leadership, persuasion, conformity, peer pressure and more all involve influencing the individual socially. The strength of that influence depends on the source. Trustworthy, credible or attractive information sources are usually able to exert the most influence. ³ A fact that PR professionals and marketeers are well aware of: When Nike hired Michael Jordan to endorse their shoes they were counting on Jordan’s high profile and sporting credentials to send just the right message to prospective buyers. Jordan had the reach and credibility to heavily influence the purchase decisions of Nike’s target demographic.

In his book The Tipping Point,⁴ Malcolm Gladwell introduces three personality types responsible for influencing change and social trends: Mavens, Connectors and Salesmen. Each one of these influencers possesses a unique blend of personal and social characteristics that allow them to drive change within their networks. Connectors are natural-born networkers with a wider group of friends and confidantes than average and are able to accelerate the spread of information through the groups they belong to. Mavens are similar in some ways to Connectors but their influence comes from their helpful nature and acknowledged expertise in a particular area. Salesmen are the negotiators of social change and are skilled at persuading people to see a desired point of view or take a desired action.

Gladwell’s model has its problems,⁵ not least of which is the fact that his assertions are seldom backed up by rigorous peer-reviewed studies. However, his ideas about influential personalities remain a good starting point for understanding social interactions online. In many respects Social Influentials are simply the Mavens, Connectors and Salesmen of the online world. This has given rise to one of the other terms for online social influentials: New Media Mavens. And of course the web, with it’s extraordinary capacity for networked communications and global reach, is an ideal medium for the behaviours exhibited by Gladwell’s three personality types. The internet is purpose built to accelerate communications and social change.

Introducing the Socials

You’ll find New Media Mavens, or Social Influentials, in any online network. Forums, message-boards, blog aggregators…..all of them have resident Influentials. Typically they’re active and respected members of the community. Their opinion is valued and they’ve got the admiration if not respect of the people within their network. It’s this blend of active participation and social authority that allow online Influentials to act as gatekeepers for their networks. It’s important to note that this “gatekeeper” status isn’t just down to social standing: Socials are also considered authorities on particular topics.

Every Social is usually part of a number of different social networks. These networks, both on- and off-line, are the real source of any Social’s influence: they allow the Social’s message to be heard extensively and they supply the Social with new and varied information about their area of expertise. It isn’t a coincidence that Socials often have links to industry insiders or are insiders themselves.

To get a better understanding of this aspect of online Social Influence let’s look at these links and connections from the perspective of social network theory.

Social and network theory

Social network theory characterises groups of connected individuals by the depth and frequency of the relationships they share with each other within their respective networks. A relationship, or tie, can be “strong” or “weak” depending on the quality of the connection between two people. Typically weak ties exist between individuals who are in touch with each other infrequently or have a shallow connection. Strong ties usually exist between people with deep connections and a high frequency of contact.⁶

It’s via the weak ties that we’re most likely to gain fresh or novel information. This is because the people we share strong ties with usually access the same networks and information sources as we do. So more weak ties means increased access to novel information and insight. Most individuals usually have a handful of strong ties and a largish amount of weak ties.⁷ Connectors, and sometimes Mavens and Salesmen, have far more weak ties than average and this accounts for their sizable influence and knowledge base.

The role that web-based communications play in extending the influence of Socials can’t be understated. A Social can easily access a huge amount of information and can also keep in touch with network members very easily. Most importantly, the connective nature of the web allows Socials to reach a wide audience as well as grow and maintain their network of weak ties.

There’s a huge number of online channels that support Social Influentials. Youtube, social networking sites, message-boards….even emailing lists all offer ways of maintaining and interacting with desired networks. But perhaps the most ubiquious platform for online Social Influentials is the weblog or blog.

The blogosphere

Originally a niche publishing platform used by internet enthusiasts, blogs have become a mainstream media channel used by everyone from soccer moms to nation states and major brands. ⁸.  It’s estimated that a blog is created every second and over a hunded million are online at the moment⁹. The huge number of these interconnected spaces form the many communities collectively known as the blogosphere.

A visual representation of the blogosphere

The spread of web-based communication has always had a degree of measurability due to its hypertext-based nature and this is doubly true of the blogosphere. Using memetracker sites such as diggit and other social media tools it’s possible to track the spread of discussions and identify which communications and individuals are the most influential. ¹⁰

And of course this knowledge is very useful to marketeers and PR specialists in terms of planning and measuring online communications efforts. Which in turn is vital knowledge for any brand wishing to engage with the blogosphere in order to influence online discussion.

1. Retrieved August 2, 2009 http://www.benhamin.com/
2. Retrieved August 2, 2009 http://www.flickr.com/photos/7855449@N02/sets/72157606844282993/
3. Aronson, Elliot,. 1999. The Social Animal. 8th Ed. New York: Worth Publishers
4. Retrieved August 1, 2009 http://www.gladwell.com/tippingpoint/index.html
5. Retrieved August 2, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tipping_Point#Reception
6. Retrieved August 1, 2009 http://www.si.umich.edu/~rfrost/courses/SI110/readings/In_Out_and_Beyond/Granovetter.pdf
7. Retrieved August 1, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_ties
8. Retrieved August 3, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog
9. Keen, Andrew,. 2008. The Cult of the Amateur. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing
10. Retrieved August 3, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blogosphere

Blogging about the need for innovation during the financial crisis reminded me of an inspiring Juan Enrique TED presentation¹ made earlier this year.

In the first 7 minutes Mr Enrique succinctly, and often hilariously, summarises the current financial downturn. Some of the causes and consequences of the recession are discussed and possible short-term solutions to the crisis are outlined. In the latter part of the talk Mr Enrique, a leading tech and economics expert,² presents a fascinating insight into how innovative technologies could solve our global economic problems and radically alter how we work and live.

1. Retrieved July 28, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNcLKbJs3xk
2. Retrieved July 28, 2009 http://www.biotechonomy.com/juan.htm

Time’s Square debt clock

I just found out recently that the US Debt Clock has gone digital¹. Now we can all watch the US economy haemorrhage in real time. And in case you’re wondering, US debt stands at about $11 trillion as of today.

Late last year the real world US Debt Clock was shut down. The reason? In the decade since the Clock was first launched the US has racked up over $10 trillion in debt. Ten. Trillion. That’s a whole lot of zeros. So many in fact that the Clock didn’t have enough digits to cope and had to be switched off.

The Clock was first launched in 1989 by real estate developer Seymour Durst and apart from a short period from 2000 to 2002 had seen the US debt climb from around $3 trillion to a whopping $10 trillion in 2008².

The accuracy of the Clock is debatable, US debt actually exceeded 10 trillion in 2006³.  The real strength of the Debt Clock lay in what it symbolised. A stark reminder of the state of the US’s finances it received particular media attention during times of economic turmoil. For myself, the Debt Clock was one of the most interesting sights to see in New York. Set in the heart of Manhattan it contrasted powerfully with the commercial grandeur of Time’s Square. To this day I’m convinced Mr Durst, the Clock’s creator, would have made a fine political satirist had he not gone into real estate.

Of course where the US goes the UK is bound to follow: when  it  comes to the epic national debt premier league we come in a close second⁴, far ahead of France, our closest competition in debt.

1. Retrieved July 23, 2009 http://www.usdebtclock.org/
2. Retrieved July 23, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_clock
3. Retrieved July 23, 2009 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-tepper-marlin/the-us-10trilliondollar-d_b_67196.html
4. Retrieved July 23, 2009 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2079rank.html?countryName=United%20Kingdom&countryCode=uk&regionCode=eu#uk

The response from Web 2.0 pundits was typically guarded: Whilst everyone agreed the campaign was innovative, concerns ranged from doubts about ROI and execution² to musings on how web 2.0 has “changed our ideas of what friendship really means”³. ROI aside, an FB application that causes grown adults to worry about the social fabric has to be doing something right. But what’s the real significance of BK’s Sacrifice?

The application, developed by CP+B, will hopefully become a benchmark and inspiration for the potential of innovation in new media. The app was a nicely targeted communication, beautifully in-synch with the brand message, and flawlessly leveraged the connective power of Facebook, the targeted online social network. All of which was achieved through the use of a promotional tool that’s been in the marketeers arsenal for over a century: the coupon giveaway.

The targeted online ad sector, the The Great White Hope of advertising, has contracted rapidly over the past year⁴. The recession is no doubt a factor in the decline of digital advertising, but there’s a suggestion that the sector has peaked and will become increasingly irrelevant in the future⁵. The need for marketing innovation has become ever more urgent and the Sacrifice campaign offers an insight into a possible future direction for online advertising.

For some commentators the idea of “sacrificing” facebook friends seemed an odd component for a social network based campaign. But it’s a good cultural fit for BK’s young, male and digitally aware target demographic. The WKD generation: Up for a laugh and not afraid to tease their friends to prove it. By using Facebook as a channel the campaign engaged with the public in a convenient and intimate way. Burger King asked for, and usually got, permission to become part of the ongoing dialogue within each user’s social circle.

The strong viral element to the campaign came courtesy of the 10 friends users had to “sacrifice”. Each friend (or ex-friend as it were) was notified about the defriending and linked back to the Sacrifice app. In this way the cycle could repeat itself with the brand message being propagated through different individual networks. From the perspective of social network theory this would be an ideal method to spread an interactive brand message since it’s likely that the the people defriended by Sacrifice users are those on the fringes of the defriender’s friendship group. These fringe individuals usually have a higher chance of belonging to a social circle that’s removed, to an extent, from the original user’s core group of 6-10 close friends. In this way Sacrifice was able to rapidly penetrate the Facebook target market by jumping from one different social circle to another over a short space of time.

The Sacrifice campaign won Burger King’s creative agency, CP+B, a gold at this years Canne’s festival⁶. It highlighted the strength of the creative partnership between the two companies, a partnership that has consistently produced innovative, often ground-breaking, new media content. However, it’s important to bear in mind that despite these victories Burger King has still been unable to seriously challenge McDonald’s dominance of the fast food sector. Undoubtedly the biggest reason for Burger King’s failure in this area is the recession; BK has positioned itself as a high quality, pricier alternative to McDonald’s. But during these lean times a premium pricing strategy would seem to be damaging BK’s ability to compete effectively in the fast food market⁷.

It’s arguable whether or not BK’s investment in new media has cushioned the impact of the recession. Any brand that presents itself as a premium proposition will usually suffer during an economic downturn and predictably this has occurred with Burger King. However, the adeptness with which BK engages with new media could very well help support and accelerate its recession-focused strategy during the downturn. It’s also worth asking: does BK’s type of new media engagement actually build brand loyalty and value? In a nutshell: Probably not.

Though the CP+B partnership has delivered extraordinary content it has failed to create the sort of ongoing emotive relationship with consumers that premium brands usually aspire to. Most of the Burger King new media initiatives have been innovative and entertaining one-shots lacking any real depth with which to meaningfully connect with consumers. From one perspective this fits very well with the profile of the young male digital consumer who wants interesting content that isn’t too taxing or time-consuming. But this contrasts with the hugely successful Dark Knight viral. Aimed at a similar type of consumer to BK’s target demographic, the viral was deeply involving, lasted months and generated a huge amount of sustained buzz for the film’s opening.

The campaign Sacrifice campaign successfully engaged with tens of thousands of Facebook users and generated extensive brand buzz. It was a smart ambitious project, but in common with a lot of new media initiatives it failed to convert consumer engagement into solid brand equity. Nevertheless, Sacrifice was an innovative achievement, one which will hopefully stand as a benchmark for excellence in new media innovation.

1. Retrieved July 8, 2009 http://www.whoppersacrifice.com/
2. Retrieved July 8, 2009 //www.ideablue.com/2009/01/09/whopper-sacrifice-social-media-marketing-roi-done-wrong-buzz-done-good/
3. Retrieved July 8, 2009 http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10211898-36.html
4. Retrieved July 8, 2009 http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/02/25/online-ads-even-the-evangelists-turning-bearish
5. Retrieved July 8, 2009 http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/03/22/why-advertising-is-failing-on-the-internet/
6. Retrieved July 8, 2009 http://work.canneslions.com/titanium/entry.cfm?entryid=9418
7. Retrieved July 8, 2009 http://adage.com/article?article_id=137472

Using traditional channels, like TV and print, Ad men have attempted to engage consumers with brands for decades. As you can see from the above short¹ Web 2.0 differs from traditional comms in that the flow of information between individuals and organisations is extensively democratised: Communication becomes an interactive, continually evolving process. In traditional forms of marketing comms a consumer is a largely passive receiver of brand messages and is usually the final link in a top-down chain of communication. With digital, the consumer becomes a de facto partner in communication spread and acts as an agent in creating dialogue about brands. Of course due to the networked nature of new media this dialogue occurs whether an organisation wants it to or not, which sometimes results in everything from minor PR gaffes to widespread calls for brand boycotts.

Driven by ever-evolving IT technologies, this change in the power dynamic between users and brands represents a major paradigm shift in how comms and marketing management function in the digital millieu. Traditional ways of thinking of the relationship between brand and consumer are increasingly irrelevant online. The rule book is being rewritten line by line, often leaving brands in a situation where they’re unable to leverage their offline recognition effectively within the digital space. However, the aim of marketeers remains the same: to engage with consumers in the most creative and efficient ways. Ultimately, the rules may have changed but the game certainly hasn’t.

It’s an interesting time to be a marketing professional: where there are challenges there are always opportunities. And new media represents one of the most significant challenges the marketing discipline has ever faced. Not just in terms of technique and strategy, but also in terms of the philosophy underpinning the bulk of traditional marketing management practices when it comes to online communications.

1. Retrieved June 28, 2009 Web 2.0 An Intro in 5 minutes by Prof. Wesch at KSU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOE

Researching online communities, viral spread and e-fluentials was rewarding but tricky. Armed with a background in psychology and statistics, a taste for the digital zeitgeist and a fascination for social media and marketing I attempted to pin down viral phenomena in all its glory.

During the course of the study I blogged about my investigations as a sort of record-cum-livejournal detailing the many-headed beast of a problem that viral research presented.

Investigating virals was fascinating but tricky. Virals can be almost anything: Short gimmicky movies or deeply involving multi-channel media extravaganzas. Virals are at once a form of old skool marketing comms whilst at the same time being radically different in design and spirit. More than just a one-way communication, virals represent a dialogue not just between brand and consumer but between individuals and their social circles. A good viral has to be attention grabbing, but it also has to be socialised in such a way that friends will pass it on to one another: Marketing comms as social glue and water cooler moment.

New innovation

The desire to document and engage in dialogue about new media largely stems from the surprising changes I’ve witnessed since finishing my thesis in late 2006. At the time digital marketing was continuing to revolutionise consumer-brand relationships and user generated content was king. The times they were a-changing. Digital marketing was instrumental in driving and responding to those changes. But it wasn’t until recently that I truly appreciated what those initial shifts would herald.

Firstly, the advent of the iphone seemed to rewrite a whole chunk of the marketing bible. Secondly, the BK facebook whopper app showed the full capabilities of the social networking sites as a comms channels that could rival other online channels and potentially entirely out-perform offline channels when it came to ROI and measurability. And thirdly, skittles, one of the biggest brands in B2C marketing, turned its entire N. American site into a UGC-fest.

I’ll go into why those three developments were so remarkable to me in later blog posts. For now, suffice it to say, I feel as excited today about digital as I did when I first started researching digital and new media in 2005.

As well as helping me get my thoughts down in a concise and well-researched way I’m also hoping that the blog can act as a resource of sorts for those a little less digitally-minded than the rest of us. During my consultancy work I often come across business professionals who are interested in new media but are still a little unsure of how it all fits together: The Basics part of the blog will be dedicated to explaining in simple business terms what digital marketing and new media is all about.

]]> http://viralmojo.net/?feed=rss2&p=9 0