- To Talk with the target audience. For example, the way Radox uses Facebook to have two way conversations with fans.
- For customer service e.g Comcast Cares on twitter
Sunday, 31 October 2010
Wednesday, 27 October 2010
Monday, 25 October 2010
Many people were automatically up in arms about paid for tweets – as I was originally when I heard about the initiative. Then I actually had a think about it and realised that slebs being paid to advocate a product is nothing new and has happened for donkey’s years and no doubt will continue to happen for years to come. The fact that they are using a ‘social channel’ is just a new way of doing the same thing.
However, when you see a TV ad with a sleb talking about a new hair product that makes their mane shiny, you know they have been paid to appear on the ad and say ‘they are worth it’ to camera. In Twitter, people expect genuine conversations and points of view. They expect people to say things because they truly believe what they say, rather than being paid to say nice things.
So, IMHO, slebs can use Twitter like any other channel , but they need to obey the unwritten rules of that channel and fully disclose when they are being paid to tweet and when they are tweeting their true feelings. They have to do this in the US by law by saying 'spon' or 'ad' before any sponsored or paid for tweet. I reckon the same should apply to all users of Twitter.
Thursday, 14 October 2010
- Social media has made good customer service very transparent. Subsequently, those brands that provide good customer service get their brand talked about positively across the social graph = v good marketing.
- Social media has given people platform to whinge and rant about any little niggle or problem they have with a company. This results in white noise of so-called customer complaints that it is difficult to determine if a company is actually good or bad at customer service.
Monday, 11 October 2010
Sunday, 3 October 2010
In September, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) announced details of its plans to regulate online content, including marketing activities in social media, by extending the CAP code to all online content in the control of a brand or organisation.
Generally I think anything to help provide people with a better experience of brands online and to help guide brands’ behaviour on t’internet is a good move. However, most reputable brands are already behaving, well, reputably. They hold two way dialogue with people, honestly, transparently, with full disclosure and no attempts at deception.
The challenge for the ASA will be policing the application of the CAP code to online content, particularly content in social media where there is a grey area on who owns the content. At a recent Marketing conference, a spokesperson from the ASA responded to a question about how the code applied to social media with the answer that ‘any UGC under a brand’s control will fall under the CAP code’. Unfortunately, we didn’t get to explore the issue further and clarify how CAP applies to ‘shared media’.
Shared media is content that isn’t quite owned by a brand or by a user. For example, comments by a user on a brand’s Facebook Page, blog or YouTube channel, is usually referred to as shared media.
So, if a user makes a comment on a brand owned social media that doesn’t comply with the CAP code, then what happens? Does the brand have to take it down? But if so, does the brand have a right to delete a comment that technically doesn’t belong to them? I think this is an area that the ASA need to provide some clarity.
IMHO there is still a large amount of grey in this move by the ASA. Perhaps the ASA should work more closely with those bodies that have great experience in conversational type communications e.g. PRCA, CIPR, WOMMA. Stuart Bruce, with who I sit on the CIPR Social Media committee makes a very pointed comment here.
Rob Brown, chair of the committee, expresses probably all our concerns here.
Clarity is definitely needed, but until we receive that clarity, brands need to go on behaving reputably online, by being transparent, honest and listening to what people are saying.