http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/05/AR2009070502401.html

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?

Aussie “Superconnector” Iggy Pintado has just written a good book on the subject – Connection Generation http://www.iggypintado.com.au

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.

“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?

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

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.

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