The past week has proven that the rise of social media presents a unique set of both challenges and opportunities for brands. As evidenced by the Domino's crisis, companies recognize, now more than ever, that social media sites such as YouTube and Twitter add an entirely new element to crisis management--negative comments and damaging videos can now spread like wildfire.
Likewise, social media also creates forums for consumers to share positive ratings and testimonials and exponentially increase awareness through online word-of-mouth marketing. Without the presence of social media sites, Susan Boyle, the woman who shocked the world with her singing on Britain's Got Talent, would have never become the online sensation that she is.
With the ever increasing number of social media sites comes the increased importance of monitoring your brand's presence in online forums. In a recent issue of PRWeek, research by Aberdeen Group showed that 63% of companies have already had an increase in social media marekting spending from '08-'09. In fact, the research pointed out that 68% of companies surveyed have a process for monitoring social media, and that 58% employ dedicated resources for social media monitoring.
The escalating use of social media by companies around the world creates an interesting issue for PR professionals whose job is to show their clients the value of their work. Monitoring press coverage and calculating ad values has, until this point, included only print, television and radio.
So, the question on everyone's mind -- how exactly do you calculate the value of social media mentions?
I recently presented this question (via Twitter, as it would happen) to Frank Washkuch, media reporter for PRWeek, and he provided some insight on the matter that I believe is key for any company to keep in mind when discussing this issue. Frank argued that there is no concrete way of assigning value to these mentions, but perhaps most importantly, he brought the two most important elements of any PR/advertising/marketing campaign back to focus--the target audience and the goals of the efforts.
It's important for companies to recognize that social media mentions, much like traditional press mentions, are only beneficial if they advance the goals of the campaign and reach the right audience.
It's an exciting time for companies, as they now have new venues for promoting their brand. In the long run, only those that keep these two key elements in mind will succeed.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Word-of-Mouth Advertising: The Ups and Downs of Online Forums
For some, the opinions of their close friends and relatives will always matter most. While some argue that the proliferation and ease of posting online opinions leads to decreased reliablility, I would have to disagree. In my opionion, the recommendations and information I value most come from those online 'friends' that I haven't even met.
Case in point, I'm now reading Groundswell by Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff. Not because a friend recommended it, or even a professor, but because the people I follow on Twitter, people I've never had a face-to-face interaction with, have recommended it and commented on its usefulness. The ability to opt-in to circles of friends based on common interests, similar jobs or areas of expertise has essentially led to the ability to create a personalized 'yellow-page' directory. Because I know these people value similar information and most likely use similar products, I can rely on their opinions.
Word-of-mouth advertising no longer just applies to brands and products, however.The use of online forums in word-of-mouth advertising has also had a huge effect on journalism. Consumers are spending less and less time looking for articles of interest because, with the presence of social media such as Twitter, they no longer have to. Online publications have taken the place of print publications. RSS readers expedited the process of searching for online articles of interest. And now, Twitter is taking the place of RSS readers--and it's all because of online word-of-mouth advertising. Consumers rely on the opinions of their online social networks to the degree that they now simply follow people, who in turn provide them with sources of relevant information.
Social media sites such as Twitter, Tumblr and Facebook have reversed the online search engine. The ability to follow those whose opinions you value means you no longer have to search for information. Rather, information is now brought to you.
Case in point, I'm now reading Groundswell by Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff. Not because a friend recommended it, or even a professor, but because the people I follow on Twitter, people I've never had a face-to-face interaction with, have recommended it and commented on its usefulness. The ability to opt-in to circles of friends based on common interests, similar jobs or areas of expertise has essentially led to the ability to create a personalized 'yellow-page' directory. Because I know these people value similar information and most likely use similar products, I can rely on their opinions.
Word-of-mouth advertising no longer just applies to brands and products, however.The use of online forums in word-of-mouth advertising has also had a huge effect on journalism. Consumers are spending less and less time looking for articles of interest because, with the presence of social media such as Twitter, they no longer have to. Online publications have taken the place of print publications. RSS readers expedited the process of searching for online articles of interest. And now, Twitter is taking the place of RSS readers--and it's all because of online word-of-mouth advertising. Consumers rely on the opinions of their online social networks to the degree that they now simply follow people, who in turn provide them with sources of relevant information.
Social media sites such as Twitter, Tumblr and Facebook have reversed the online search engine. The ability to follow those whose opinions you value means you no longer have to search for information. Rather, information is now brought to you.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Explosion of Social Media
Social media is quite possibly the most overdone topic circulating right now, but for good reason.
I remember back when I was in middle school, when the closest thing to social media was the profile you could create on AIM, complete with background color and crazy fonts. Now, I'm a member of not just one, but multiple social networks. Facebook, Myspace, Tumblr and Twitter to be exact, but let's not forget this lovely blog or the poor excuse for a Web site that I'm slowly creating (I'm working on it, just give me time!). As sad as it is, I often feel that the majority of 'socializing' I do is online, and I think it's a safe bet to say that many others feel the same.
About four years ago, when I reached the pivotal moment in life where I too could have a Facebook account (mind you, this was back when you still had to have a valid college e-mail address) I never would have guessed that these social networking sites would be used for anything other than just that.
But, here we are in 2009 when sites like Facebook and Twitter are put to use far beyond the context of connecting with friends and staying in touch--they're now used for professional networking, marketing yourself to potential employers, and perhaps the biggest difference, they're used as part of most business models.
Social media is allowing us all to witness history-- its changing the way business is done. Companies recognize, now more than ever, the importance not of listening to consumers, but engaging in conversation with them via social media. Consumers no longer take complaints to the company, they take them to the internet, so monitoring the convesations about your brand is more important than ever. Yes, this ability for consumers to voice complaints to the masses instantly presents a huge challenge for companies, but more importantly, it provides a great opportunity for companies to effectively handle these situations in the public eye, a great PR move that can boost the company image.
I can't wait to see what approach brands choose to take--who will dive head first into social media, and who will continue treading water to see if the trend passes?
I remember back when I was in middle school, when the closest thing to social media was the profile you could create on AIM, complete with background color and crazy fonts. Now, I'm a member of not just one, but multiple social networks. Facebook, Myspace, Tumblr and Twitter to be exact, but let's not forget this lovely blog or the poor excuse for a Web site that I'm slowly creating (I'm working on it, just give me time!). As sad as it is, I often feel that the majority of 'socializing' I do is online, and I think it's a safe bet to say that many others feel the same.
About four years ago, when I reached the pivotal moment in life where I too could have a Facebook account (mind you, this was back when you still had to have a valid college e-mail address) I never would have guessed that these social networking sites would be used for anything other than just that.
But, here we are in 2009 when sites like Facebook and Twitter are put to use far beyond the context of connecting with friends and staying in touch--they're now used for professional networking, marketing yourself to potential employers, and perhaps the biggest difference, they're used as part of most business models.
Social media is allowing us all to witness history-- its changing the way business is done. Companies recognize, now more than ever, the importance not of listening to consumers, but engaging in conversation with them via social media. Consumers no longer take complaints to the company, they take them to the internet, so monitoring the convesations about your brand is more important than ever. Yes, this ability for consumers to voice complaints to the masses instantly presents a huge challenge for companies, but more importantly, it provides a great opportunity for companies to effectively handle these situations in the public eye, a great PR move that can boost the company image.
I can't wait to see what approach brands choose to take--who will dive head first into social media, and who will continue treading water to see if the trend passes?
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
The Music Issue
While cleaning out the old, overflowing mess of a publication library at work in order to make room for the new overflowing mess of a publication library that will, no doubt, begin to populate itself as soon as many subscriptions are renewed, I stumbled across the July 2007 issue of Creativity, The Music Issue.
And while the publication saw it's prime a good 18 months or so ago, the opening POV from Josh Rabinowitz, SVP-director of music at Grey Worldwide whose website tells of his goal to "produce a hit record through an ad" still seems to ring true in today's ad world.
Rabinowitz brings up a multitude of questions regarding music in advertising, and I thought I'd share a handful of my favorites.
#3: Advertisers continue to utilize well-known songs in their ads, but curiously many of them opt to use the same song.
I find it amusing that in an industry full of people who take pride in their creativity, so many revert back to using a dime-a-dozen song that could be linked to any product, by any brand, in any commercial. Is this the fault of the ad guys or the suit-wearing business men in the client office, I wonder. Do companies and brands rely too heavily on catching the attention of a viewer who simply recognizes the song in their ad? And if so, will the viewer actually remember the ad or the brand, or just that it featured "Baba O'Riley"?
#4: Isn't it even more effective to find a great, not so famous, not so expensive track to license for your ad, where the narrative of the song perfectly enhances the ethos of the visuals and concept?
Who draws the line on the trade off between cost and effect? How does a company decide they would rather pay 100 times the licensing fee to get the well known artist's song featured in an ad whose product has virtually no connection to the song, than pay a fraction of the cost to license a song by a virtually unknown artist whose song has everything to do with the product featured in the ad? Does the well known song actually increase ROI? I think the same applies to television shows and movies as well. Does the more well known song add anything to the scene? I think you could argue that putting a well known song in the middle of a scene could in fact detract from the scene rather than adding to it, simply due to shifting the attention of the viewer.
#7: Is advertising the best outlet for a talented indie band to get their music to consumers in a way that a record label can't?
I think this showcases both the problem that new artists face with today's music industry as well as the solution to the economic issues facing virtually every brand in America. Where do music consumers go to find new music? Is it the radio? Itunes? Do you go to a store to browse CDs, pick one out and just see what songs you might find on it? Or do you stumble across new music unintentionally, say while you're laying around watching your favorite shows? What songs do you get stuck in your head? Is it the last one you had playing on your ipod, or is it the short clip of a song that you last heard when a commercial came on TV? Again, ROI. I'd be interested in seeing if paying more for an established artist's music actually has enough effect on ROI to warrant the higher costs.
And while the publication saw it's prime a good 18 months or so ago, the opening POV from Josh Rabinowitz, SVP-director of music at Grey Worldwide whose website tells of his goal to "produce a hit record through an ad" still seems to ring true in today's ad world.
Rabinowitz brings up a multitude of questions regarding music in advertising, and I thought I'd share a handful of my favorites.
#3: Advertisers continue to utilize well-known songs in their ads, but curiously many of them opt to use the same song.
I find it amusing that in an industry full of people who take pride in their creativity, so many revert back to using a dime-a-dozen song that could be linked to any product, by any brand, in any commercial. Is this the fault of the ad guys or the suit-wearing business men in the client office, I wonder. Do companies and brands rely too heavily on catching the attention of a viewer who simply recognizes the song in their ad? And if so, will the viewer actually remember the ad or the brand, or just that it featured "Baba O'Riley"?
#4: Isn't it even more effective to find a great, not so famous, not so expensive track to license for your ad, where the narrative of the song perfectly enhances the ethos of the visuals and concept?
Who draws the line on the trade off between cost and effect? How does a company decide they would rather pay 100 times the licensing fee to get the well known artist's song featured in an ad whose product has virtually no connection to the song, than pay a fraction of the cost to license a song by a virtually unknown artist whose song has everything to do with the product featured in the ad? Does the well known song actually increase ROI? I think the same applies to television shows and movies as well. Does the more well known song add anything to the scene? I think you could argue that putting a well known song in the middle of a scene could in fact detract from the scene rather than adding to it, simply due to shifting the attention of the viewer.
#7: Is advertising the best outlet for a talented indie band to get their music to consumers in a way that a record label can't?
I think this showcases both the problem that new artists face with today's music industry as well as the solution to the economic issues facing virtually every brand in America. Where do music consumers go to find new music? Is it the radio? Itunes? Do you go to a store to browse CDs, pick one out and just see what songs you might find on it? Or do you stumble across new music unintentionally, say while you're laying around watching your favorite shows? What songs do you get stuck in your head? Is it the last one you had playing on your ipod, or is it the short clip of a song that you last heard when a commercial came on TV? Again, ROI. I'd be interested in seeing if paying more for an established artist's music actually has enough effect on ROI to warrant the higher costs.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Publicity
I just read the latest issue of Wired, and was interested to see that one of the articles in the mag ( a 6 page article no less) revolved around an issue closely related to PR, the field I'm studying and working in.
The article was about Julia Allison, a blogger I had actually never heard of until reading the article in Wired. And yes, I read Wired. I will say though, that the article seemed a little out of place in a magazine whose demographics, undoubtedly, are predominantly male.
Anywho, Julia Allison is pretty much your average non-celebrity, who has used the blog world to create an "image" for herself. I'll leave it up to you to decide if its a good image or a bad image, but after reading the article and then checking out her site (http://www.xojulia.com/) it's obvious that regardless of good or bad, she has definitely taken a niche market and created a spot for herself.
I gotta say, I'm not sure that I would go to the extent to which she's gone to make myself known. It sorta seems like selling your soul for attention, but hey it looks like she's gotten a reality show out of it, so I guess it's working for her.
Point being, the article posed the discussion of whether or not PR and marketing firms are really all that necessary in a tech-savvy environment where you can pretty much market yourself to an extent. It's all gone from a terrible realization that you can now be googled, to utitlizing the web to promote yourself, your product, your company, etc. (On that note, this post is slightly ironic in that when Julia Allison checks her Google Alerts for media hits, which I'm sure she does daily, that this blog will actually come up.)
Just something to think about, I suppose.
The article was about Julia Allison, a blogger I had actually never heard of until reading the article in Wired. And yes, I read Wired. I will say though, that the article seemed a little out of place in a magazine whose demographics, undoubtedly, are predominantly male.
Anywho, Julia Allison is pretty much your average non-celebrity, who has used the blog world to create an "image" for herself. I'll leave it up to you to decide if its a good image or a bad image, but after reading the article and then checking out her site (http://www.xojulia.com/) it's obvious that regardless of good or bad, she has definitely taken a niche market and created a spot for herself.
I gotta say, I'm not sure that I would go to the extent to which she's gone to make myself known. It sorta seems like selling your soul for attention, but hey it looks like she's gotten a reality show out of it, so I guess it's working for her.
Point being, the article posed the discussion of whether or not PR and marketing firms are really all that necessary in a tech-savvy environment where you can pretty much market yourself to an extent. It's all gone from a terrible realization that you can now be googled, to utitlizing the web to promote yourself, your product, your company, etc. (On that note, this post is slightly ironic in that when Julia Allison checks her Google Alerts for media hits, which I'm sure she does daily, that this blog will actually come up.)
Just something to think about, I suppose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
