It’s not hard to see why corporate brand marketers salivate at the thought of infiltrating the social networking space.
Sure it represents the greatest ‘audience opportunity’ of our times, but it could just as easily end up being a big waste of time, energy and focus.
Should corporate brand marketers step back from the brink and ask themselves whether they are genuinely equipped to take advantage of social networking, and more importantly, if the audience really wants what they are thinking of offering?
There’s a graveyard of corporate brand campaign non-events in the social space.
Forrester’s Best And Worst Of Social Network Marketing, 2008 report critically analysed and reviewed the social marketing activities of 16 firms in four industries: automotive, media, technology and consumer products.
Only one received a passing grade, and half of the firms scored a zero or lower.
A study of Fortune’s 2009 list of the top 100 CEOs showed a miserable level of engagement in social media. Only two have Twitter accounts, 13 have LinkedIn profiles, and of those only three have more than 10 connections.
Not one Fortune 100 CEO has a blog.
For a vastly different outcome, compare this with Lance Armstrong, the seven-time Tour de France winner, who upon having his new time trial bike stolen from a team truck alerted his 140,000 Twitter followers. A Facebook group called ‘1 Million Citizens Looking for Lance Armstrong’s Stolen Bike’ was also created.
Four days later police in Sacramento, California took receipt of the Trek bicycle and admitted that the online campaigns made life difficult for the thieves.
Then there’s the success of the Obama campaign and more recently the demonstrations and rioting in Tehran’s Freedom Square following President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s lopsided election victory, brought to the world in real time through social-media networks and online video.
All are campaigns any corporate marketer would kill to put on their CV.
Social networks – none more than Facebook and Twitter – engage the cult of personality. You are measured by the number of friends or followers. Yet they are also an intriguing dichotomy.
On one hand they are a stage for the extrovert and intensely communal. On the other they can provide instant hermitage (by simply going offline) and impersonality.
Research on 8-12 year olds shows a significant number prefer to communicate online or mobile instead of in person, even if the friend is sitting next to them. How realistic is it to genuinely ‘follow’ 20 people on Twitter, unless of course it gets you more ‘followers’?
What does it say about the audience when Facebook advertisers are dominated by the lowest common denominators of ‘ego enhancing’ products: weight loss, internet dating, Viagra and so on.
Without a doubt, social networks are complex systems, but certainly they are more about the company you keep than the company you buy from.
How do corporate brands make it work in the social space?
Tourism Queensland and Hamilton Island’s ‘Best job in the world‘ was certainly successful, but it was founded on a solid concept rather than being reliant on a social networking channel. Many of the most successful are the facilitators rather than creators of content.
Fallon’s Skimmer application streamlines frequently used social networking activities and just took out the Gold Lion for Digital Design at Cannes International Advertising Festival.
There’s the iPhone and other ’socially-focused’ phones, that a simple shake can refresh your Facebook status. But just being a facilitator won’t satisfy or even make sense to many corporate marketers. I’m not suggesting that you put your head in the sand, but recognise social networks for what they are, and what they are not.
I have likened corporate brands tackling social networking to sitting on a surfboard just outside the break, watching and waiting for the perfect wave to catch.
If you start paddling too early (and jump onto a social network before it blossoms) you risk wasting energy for a wave that never eventuates. If you start paddling too late (and want to instantly dominate on Facebook) you might find the wave simply rides on by before you have a chance to catch it.
Making the most of social networking from a brand perspective requires knowledge of trends and patterns and a willingness to take a risk and paddle early with a wave/network that might or might not turn into a tsunami.
The only other alternative is to surf on those beginner beaches where the waves are regular but there are plenty of people competing for them. Most importantly, remember it’s called ‘Social Networking” for a reason – because it’s about people not brands.
Nigel Malone is a freelance brand strategist and writer, with particular expertise in the fields of tourism, finance, technology, sustainability and social change. Find out more at www.icycalm.biz
Photo: peasap
12 Comments
Tim Edwards
July 1st, 2009 at 6:24 pm
We shall see Nigel !
My view is that you are wrong in this assessment. You did not refer to LinkedIn. I see LinkedIn working for people in business, academia, government every day.
I am a member of 45 Linkedin groups and only for business reasons – I have virtually no interest in these groups for their social value. The vast majority of the people in these groups are highly qualified professionals. I have found / learned a great deal that I would not have learned had I not been a member.
LinkedIn is about people. Professionals of all kinds that are sharing ideas and thoughts where geography is not a constraint.
The jury is still out for my company but for me personally Linkedin has been invaluable. Perhaps we need another name – “asocial media for people that think”.
Tim
[Reply]
Nigel Malone
July 1st, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Hi Tim, I probably should have clarified my view on LinkedIn – I see it as a professional network, not a social network – and a very good professional network for all the reasons you mention, and in terms of corporate branding a fantastic tool. I am a big fan… http://www.linkedin.com/in/nigelmalone
All the best.
Nigel Malone
[Reply]
Scott Maxworthy
July 1st, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Great, enjoyed the article. Seems there’s so much BS surrounding social media – more snake oil salesmen then an old western.
As you say, there’s a very fine balance and sometimes corporate social marketing feels like a MLM steamrolling your drinks at the local pub.
For corporate brands to engage in social media marketing they need to create personality, engage 1:1 and build trust.
[Reply]
Tim Edwards
July 1st, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Nigel, thanks for your response although its much more fun to disagree.
So here’s the kicker. A source described as reliable and in the business of tracking social media made the following statement.
“The top four social media services used by businesses are LinkedIn (79.3% use it), Facebook (77.2%), Twitter (75.3% ), and miscellaneous blogs (68%)”
Whilst I have yet to have the experience it seems likely to me that the Asocial media users will and have infiltrated the social media where they can use the tools they find there to their liking.
The next big number, I have yet to find, is what proportion of business’s use Asocial Media. What ever it is now it is most certainly growing. In the B2B space I believe it is going to get huge. I have a business model in mind for anyone that has the time and energy to address this gap.
Tim
[Reply]
Nigel Malone
July 1st, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Hi Tim,
or at least throw some due diligence at it:
if you insist, I’ll disagree with your anonymous reliable source
“The top four social media services used by businesses are LinkedIn (79.3% use it), Facebook (77.2%), Twitter (75.3% ), and miscellaneous blogs (68%)”
Do these %’s refer to concerted marketing campaigns by management (my line of discussion) and how successful were they, or do they include employees using them for their own social purposes (or to find another job) with a bit of ‘networking’ thrown in on the side?
It’s dead easy to interpret research anyway you want. I see it all the time with Government clients. What counts are the actual questions that were asked, to who and in what context. Be great to hear some more details on that if you have them, as they are certainly interesting statistics.
To me there is a massive difference between a Linkedin and a Twitter/Facebook – very different audience and tone. There’s things that you can do on Linkedin that would be very ‘unsocial’ on Twitter – and vice versa. For example if you started to talk about your ‘business model’ on FaceBook or Twitter you might lose a few friends/followers!
Thoughts?
[Reply]
Graeme Bowman
July 1st, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Agree with the comment about Linkedin, which I must admit I am only starting to use properly. Linkedin is getting better, too, in that they now have quite a few apps that allow you to share presentations, blog posts, etc. For example, I just discovered today this app called Google Presentation, which has let me embed my demo videos on my Linkedin profile. Given that I’m a Hoax Speaker, Corporate Comedian and Lateral Thinking Facilitator, this has been a great plus for me.
But I can see where you’re coming from, Nigel, especially as far as the big corporates are concerned. For us small operators, the person and the brand are one and the same, but it’s different for a big corporation, which by its very nature is quite impersonal.
Actually, I have a problem with the term, ’social media’. I prefer to use ‘online networking’. Referring to Web 2.0 as social media is as crazy as defining the telephone as a social tool. It’s just a piece of technology, and can equally be used for hard-nosed business as it can for ’social’ purposes.
Having said all of that, the greatest truth is this: we’re all making it up as we go along.
[Reply]
Nigel Malone
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:48 am
It’s interesting how the comments have highlighted the value of LinkedIn – quite possibly as it bridges social and commercial networking. In terms of how different networks rate on a global level, a colleague sent me this site which has some really interesting geo-graphs…
http://royal.pingdom.com/2008/08/12/social-network-popularity-around-the-world/
[Reply]
Nigel Malone
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:53 am
It’s interesting how the focus of commentary has highlighted the value of LinkedIn – quite possibly because of its ability to bridge social and commercial networks. In terms of take-ups of various networks globally, a colleague sent me this site, which has some great google data geo-maps – worth a look.
[Reply]
Scott Maxworthy Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:24 am
Hi Nigel – no link and agree with Graeme and comments above – it’s not so much about the technology but the communication and connection.
Aussie “Superconnector” Iggy Pintado has just written a good book on the subject – Connection Generation http://www.iggypintado.com.au
[Reply]
James Tuckerman
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:45 am
This blog post came out of a discussion I’d been having with Nigel on our LinkedIn Group page (Oooh… the irony). It’s a complex one – can corporates use social networking tools for commercial gain?
Part of me finds the idea abhorrent. (Have you ever seen the number of tools online that promise 30,000 Twitter followers in 30 days?)
But, at the same time, we use social networking tools quite effectively to promote our brand and drive traffic to our site. (Click on any of the social networking icons top-right to join a group or one of the icons at the foot of the article to link/share this story.)
We’ve also found that the number of people deciding to ‘follow’ Anthill – through any of these mechanisms and RSS feeds – has rapidly increased over the last six months.
The difference is, we’re in the business of information. We’re not selling washing powder or pepsi-cola.
Also, we have enough ‘information’ coming back at us to correct ourselves, should we misinterpret social media mores, and we are nimble (read ’small’) enough to learn from our mistakes (and successes).
What I’d like to know is whether any big-brand corporates have run any media campaigns with social networking at the core and whether they have been successful – real case studies for brands like Kit Kat to BHP?
[Reply]
Chris Horton
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:54 pm
I am going to get all esoteric on you – this debate is reminiscint of a Charles Dickens novel bemoaning the decline of the agrarian revolution and onset of the industrial and the perceived consequential loss of employment. There’s marathon sentence Charlie would have been proud of. As one declines another rises to fillthe void….
[Reply]
Nigel Malone
July 6th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Not sure what Chris is on but I’d like to get my hands on it…. Meanwhile James in response to your question, just got a tweet from Lance Armstrong that refers to the success of charities in social media…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/05/AR2009070502401.html
[Reply]