Feb 25 2010

Sitting on the Fence: Twitter or Facebook

February 25, 2010 – 6:00 am
Photo courtesty of Dawn - Pink Chick

Photo courtesty of Dawn - Pink Chick

By Jenn Riggle

I have a confession to make – I’m not a huge Facebook fan.

Now don’t get me wrong, I have lots of friends who love Facebook. They’re always telling me how it’s changed their lives, making it easier to keep up with high school and college friends. By the same token, organizations have done a great job to use their Facebook pages to create virtual communities and develop closer relationships with consumers.

And Facebook has definitely established critical mass. According to a Slate posting, “Facebook has crossed a threshold—it’s now so widely trafficked that it’s fast becoming a routine aid to social interaction, like e-mail and antiperspirant.” Yet for some reason, it just doesn’t speak to me.

So I thought I’d take a critical look at the two social networks and try to iron out my feelings:

With 150 million users, if Facebook were a country, it would be the eighth most populated in the world, just ahead of Japan, Russia and Nigeria. It continues to grow in popularity, with the fastest-growing groups are Gen Xers nearing age 40 and Baby Boomers – the latter seeming to join as a way to see photos of their grandkids. Most use Facebook to share real-life experiences, whether it’s photos or videos or updates on what they’re doing. It also offers a variety of features and functionalities, including games like FarmVille and Mafia Wars, applications and quizzes. And the majority of Facebook relationships seem to be formed in the real-world, whether they’re friends from high school or college, family members, colleagues or neighbors.

However, for organizations/businesses, Facebook is a strategic tool, allowing them to create fan pages and online communities where it can communicate directly with consumers. In addition, Facebook ads provide an inexpensive and targeted way for organizations to reach people online.

While I’m not a Facebook fan, I see its value for others – like eating Brussels sprouts.

Twitter, however, seems to appeal to a different group of people. It’s popular with adults the ages 35 to 49 years, 62 percent who use Twitter at work (and 35 percent from home). While Facebook users seem to be people who want to re-connect with old friends, Twitter users seem people who want to share information and ideas. Most (but not all) of these relationships are formed online by people deciding who they want to follow or by developing lists. Essentially, people can use Twitter to “create” their own communities.

Twitter is built for speed and unlike Facebook, doesn’t have a lot of bells and whistles (it’s hard to include those in 140 characters). According to Brian Solis, Twitter usage peaks on Mondays and Fridays (although there’s solid usage on Saturdays), again hinting at the high number of business users. And according to a new study conducted by the Society for New Communications Research (SNCR), Twitter is the fastest growing social media channel among the Fortune 500 companies.

So What Does This Mean?
I came upon an interesting theory about how people “self-herd” in social media. Web 2.0 is based on “human 1.0 characteristics” because people look for people like themselves in social media. We can do this by becoming an organization’s fan, “friending” people or by creating virtual communities.

I’ve read posts from Tired or Inspired and Language and ICT that compare Facebook and Twitter, and they unanimously, chose Facebook over Twitter because it offers a richer online experience. I agree with them, Facebook has interactive features that people and organizations want. It also makes it easier to create regional initiatives and communities. However, there are others, like ProBlogger, who are de-friending people from their Facebook accounts to help create a barrier between their personal and professional lives.

But being realistic, there are only so many hours in the day and you have to choose how you’re going to your time. After all, you can’t be everyone at once – although with social media, it sometimes feels that way.

Like Robert Frost, I choose the road less traveled. As a news junkie, I love the fact that Twitter helps me find people who share similar interests and who can point me to information I would never find otherwise.

However, I’ll continue to persevere with Facebook and hope that someday I’ll have a change of heart. Although, I’m afraid I’d bore my friends with talk about my travails balancing work, swim schedules and endless repairs on my old home.

Are you a die-hard Facebook fan? I’d love to hear how you’re using it. Maybe it will help me change my mind.

 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button By Jenn Riggle | Posted in Social Networks, social media | Tagged , , , , | Comments (1)
Feb 22 2010

60,000 Droids a Day Keep the Apple Away

February 22, 2010 – 6:10 am
4255426890_0629d08c03.jpg

Right now it seems every company wants to build an iPhone app. Yet given that 60,000 Android phones ship every day, one has to wonder how much longer Apple will have a lock on shiny object syndrome du jour (image by Andrew Mason).

That’s roughly 5.4 million a quarter, and the numbers continue accelerating to rivalingl iPhone shipments. Android shipments will only continue increasing as we see more devices hit the market. Further, globally carriers have now come to recognize Google Android’s presence as a tour de force.

Rather than open up it’s operating system, or allow manufacturers to license the Apple OS, or even releasing a new phone, Apple seems to be relying on reactive techniques. The word Android has been banned from applications being developed for the iTunes store.

Whether or not a mobile application fits into your strategy is one thing. A second evaluation critique for communicators now must include platform.

Unless Apple does something drastic quickly, it’s likely to find itself second in smartphone OS shipments by year end. That means Android applications will become the hot platform. Given the saturation of applications (more than 100,000) that are already in the Apple store, Android may be a quick way to generate mobile traction by being first. At least in the near term.

 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button By Geoff Livingston | Posted in mobile | Tagged , , , , , | Comments (17)
Feb 19 2010

PGA Shanks Tiger Woods Decision

February 19, 2010 – 2:49 am

Eventually, it had to happen. Tiger Woods had to speak in “public” about his, uh, situation.

But, did official golfdom have to provide the venue?

Tiger Mounts Comeback

Tiger Mounts Comeback

Enough has been said about Tiger to fill several PR crisis communications classes, and the true, sad fact of this matter is that too many of us still care too much about his plight. The most troubling aspect of the whole deal, aside from the obvious family matter, is that his catting about has cost golf, the game, a great deal. And, the money contributed by the tour to worthy causes, estimated at over $100 million by CNN, will similarly diminish, taking many recipients into this messy wake, as well. Oh, and this doesn’t even count the multitudes of ticket scalpers and corporate hospitality providers who have suffered a recession on top of the recession.

The reward for this family-professional golf-charitable cause demolition derby? The PGA invites him over for what Jeff Shain of the Los Angeles Times writes today is probably one of the most highly anticipated mea culpas since President Bill Clinton’s.

This is a bad PR move for the PGA. Even if, as TMZ reported, the association’s leader made a bit of a blunder in commenting on Woods’ rehab circumstances, that little slip should NOT have caused him to feel obligated to agree to this show/apology.

It’s understandable that the PGA is a bit nervous about their sugar daddy staying away from the game any longer, and the, well, commerce of the thing just may have figured a little bit into this decision to host the first of Tiger’s public amends. But, the public relations value to Tiger of delivering this monologue at TPC-Sawgrass has to be balanced against the lack of any real rationale (except commercial) to allow it to happen in one of the homes of professional golf.

The better solution would have been to welcome Tiger back with open arms after the apology. The apology could have been staged in a major arena  or in a rehab center closet and still would have received worldwide coverage, questions allowed or not. The crisis for Tiger Woods is not the PGA’s crisis, even though his economic impact on the game is significant. And, if the public statement backfires, as James Moore suggests in his Tiger Woods’ Dumb Advisers commentary in The Huffington Post, then the PGA and Tiger both lose.

Without Tiger, there is still the game, and I can only wonder if the Royal and Ancient at St. Andrews would have hosted such an affair from their vantage point of over 100 years of governing the game. I hope not.

 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button By Michael Whitlow | Posted in Internet Marketing | Tagged , , , , , | Comments (1)
Feb 18 2010

Are Hospitals Tilting at Windmills Searching for Social Media ROI?

February 18, 2010 – 6:30 am
Photo courtesy of John-Morgan

Photo courtesy of John-Morgan

By Jenn Riggle

How do hospitals measure their social media return ROI? Or are they tilting at windmills and trying to fight an imaginary foe like Don Quixote. Too often, we find ourselves counting the number of Facebook fans or Twitter followers or the number of people who viewed YouTube videos, trying to justify engagement in social media.

However, the bigger question is whether hospitals can afford not to engage. Here’s why:

  • Share of Voice  

No hospital can allow a competitor to be the only healthcare voice in the market. Why should you allow your competitor to dominate a market – even if it’s a virtual one? An important rule of thumb: if your competitors are using social media, you need to be there, too. Approximately 60 percent of adults and 75 percent of youth (ages 15 to 24) go to the Internet to find health information, so it’s important for hospitals to be able to reach people wherever they are on the Internet – whether it’s on Twitter, YouTube, Facebook or the Web. Not only does this allow your hospital to find new ways to connect to the community, it also helps position your clinicians and administrators as community leaders and health experts.

  • Search Engine Optimization  

Last year, both Google and Bing signed deals with social media sites, including Facebook, Twitter and MySpace, to include them in their real-time search results. This can be a bit of a double-edged sword for hospitals. While updating your Twitter or Facebook page will improve your hospital’s search rankings, it will also be easier for people to find tweets from people who are complaining about the customer service in your Emergency Department. So now, more than ever, you need to know what people are saying about you online.

  • Improve Customer Service  

The fact that people can easily update social media sites from their Blackberries and iPhones presents new challenges for hospitals. We’ve heard a number of stories about how hospital communications people have seen an angry tweet from a patient who thinks they’ve been waiting too long in the Emergency Department and have spoken to the patient and helped address the problem. There was a recent case where an angry wife tweeted about her husband’s ER experience after a heart attack. And while no one wants to see negative information tweeted, it provides hospitals with an opportunity to fix the problem and hopefully, the person will be relieved and use social media to let others know how the problem was resolved.

  • Reach Younger Healthcare Consumers  

Hospitals tend to focus their marketing dollars trying to reach the Baby Boomers. Not only are they the largest generation, they are also reaching the age when they are using more healthcare dollars whether it’s to replace achy joints, have cardiac procedures or do a little cosmetic surgery. However, Gen Xers and Millennials also need health services (and will be healthcare consumers in the future) and social media is proving to be a good way to reach them. Research shows that social media has influenced nearly 40% of hospital or urgent-care center patients, with more than half of 25-to-34 year olds reporting they are influenced by it. In addition, forums and discussion boards were a major influence on 20 percent of the 25-to34-year-olds who recently made a hospital visit for maternity reasons.  

  • Develop Closer Relationships with Patients  

KevinMD.com writes that half of Facebook and Twitter users are under the age of 34 and rely on the Web for most of their information. It’s possible that as this group ages, they will go to social media first to answer their health questions, rather than schedule an appointment with their doctor. So it’s important for doctors to think about how they use social media and e-mail to answer questions and put news into perspective. It would be a perfect way to address patient healthcare concerns about changing policies about when women should have mammograms. 

  • Crisis Communications

During the Fort Hood shooting earlier this year, Scott & White Healthcare in Temple, Texas was one of the hospitals to treat the victims. Even though they had just received approval to establish social media sites for their hospital, they have become an example of how to effectively use social media during a time of crisis. Ed Bennett’s blog, Found in Cache, has a great interview with Steven Widmann, director of web services at Scott & White, who talks about how Scott & White used social media to help manage the flow of information during this crisis. They made extensive use of Twitter (@swhealthcare) to provide a continuous string of updates with everything from Emergency Department access, operation status and re-tweets from the Red Cross. In addition to Twitter, they also used a blog and YouTube to keep everyone informed.Talk about baptism by fire! But it’s proof that hospitals can use social media to provide up-to-the-minute updates during a crisis.

  • Find Blood Donors

There are lots of examples of how hospitals have used social media to find blood donors. Puget Sound Blood Center has organized two blood drives using social media. Their Tweet-up Blood Drive 2.0 reached people via Twitter and allowed people to sign-up via Facebook. Coney Island Hospital used a Facebook application that allows people to fill in their personal information and blood type. If the supply of their blood type runs low, people are contacted with a request to make a donation. For those who don’t have a Facebook account, people can register on a dedicated Web site, MySpace, or cell phone network.

  • Promote Your Service Lines

Too often, social media seems to be operating in a silo and isn’t integrated with an organization’s marketing and business goals. In order for it to be successful, hospitals need to develop a plan and find ways to integrate social media into their existing marketing plans. Doing things like posting videos, creating a Facebook application, live-tweeting during community events, educational sessions or during surgery (provided it’s an area of specialty for your hospital). In addition, Aurora Health “live-tweeted” during a knee replacement surgery to help promote its orthopedics service line, which generated 20 inquiries about knee surgery, 14 who actually had the surgery performed.

Once a hospital agrees to engage in social media, the next challenge is to decide how the process should work. We all know that hospital marketing teams are pulled in so many directions, dealing with the crisis du jour and promoting the hospital’s various service lines, that it would be easy for social media to be one more item on their daily to-do list.

We’re working with hospitals to help them identify ways to make it easier for them to embark on social media campaigns. I’d love to hear what you’re doing to engage internal experts and bring original content to your efforts.

 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button By Jenn Riggle | Posted in Social Networks, social media | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments (16)
Feb 15 2010

Google’s Great Buzz Gamble

February 15, 2010 – 12:12 am

In 1944, the ABC — comprised of the remnants of the NBC blue network — launched to compete with NBC (Red) and CBS. Last week marked the very loud and controversial launch of Buzz to more than 175 million Gmail users. After almost a week to digest the launch, I’m starting to think Buzz is Facebook and Twitter’s ABC.

At first glance, I wanted nothing to do with Buzz and literally turned it off. The increased amount of bacon (social network email, akin to, but not quite spam) simply disturbed me. Then there were the incredible privacy issues. The overall intrusiveness and Google’s audacity to force a severely flawed opt-out service on me was really annoying.

buzzimpact.jpg

What changed my mind? A) Consider the incredible impact Buzz made right out of the gate. You need look no further than the above screen capture which shows my Mashable column from Friday. Buzz links outpace Facebook links.

B) Google responded quickly to privacy concerns and changed Buzz within 72 hours. The latter demonstrated to me how serious Google is about making Buzz work. Google wants the pageviews from a major social network… It’s about advertising, folks. And while some say search is Google’s core competency, I’d argue it’s Internet advertising.

Statistics reflect the changed opinion. A new major social network has been born… As much as I could do without it personally, I cannot afford to ignore Buzz.

How Will Buzz Impact the Market?

Is Buzz for real? Yes, there’s little doubt. But none of us, not even Google, knows how this will play out. Here are a five points that I am watching closely.

1) How will Buzz impact the social network landscape? Like Jason Falls, I don’t see Buzz as a Facebook or Twitter (or MySpace) killer. Competitor, yes. However, there are so many people using social networks, in my opinion I think this will simply compete for share not kill one or the other.

Each major network has functional strengths and weakness, which will cause some people to migrate to one network or another. One thing I don’t see is use across all three. People are getting social network fatigue, and carving out more time for a social network isn’t likely.

2) How many Gmail users will bail on Google? To create the mass network capable of competing with Facebook and Twitter out of the gate, Google made all of its 175 million Gmail accounts Buzz users. Further, even upon initial complaints, Google will not decouple the two. It’s an opt-out privacy afront for many.

While it’s inevitable that some Gmail users will love Buzz, others will say no, and some will leave Google service altogether. As Corey O’Brien said on this Buzz Post, “Google forced Buzz upon mainstream users, who aren’t as willing to put up with the ‘growing pains’ that early adopters are.” We’ll see how much Google cannibalized itself.

3) What will happen when the apps come? We’re talking about a one week old social network making this kind of impact. But what will happen when the Seesmics, mobile apps, and all of the other clients come to play? Traffic will increase. Dramatically.

4) How will the mobile factor play out? One of Google’s other major plays in 2010 is the mobile Android OS, which is battling the iPhone for Internet smart phone market share. It’s no coincidence that Buzz has location based mobile functionality integrated into its functionality from the get-go.

BuzzLunch.jpg

With GPS location and mobile client searches that let you see what’s happening locally, Buzz instantly differentiates itself from Facebook and Twitter. And that’s going to create a mass social network that caters to the fifty-five percent of Americans that connect to the Internet wirelessly (Pew Internet & American Life Project).

Which brings to mind the increasingly powerful mobile social network FourSquare. Specifically, does it move from an attractive, fun app for your phone to a must purchase for Facebook or Twitter? Whatever happens, Facebook and Twitter mobile functionality will need to increase to stay competitive.

What are your thoughts on Buzz? Or if you’d like, let’s find out together. Here’s my Google profile address.

 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button By Geoff Livingston | Posted in Buzz Meter, Social Networks, mobile, social media | Tagged , , , , , | Comments (19)
Feb 12 2010

Sharing Awe

February 12, 2010 – 2:45 am
I’m often asked by clients just what it takes to “go viral” or “get a million views.” It’s really quite simple, it appears. All you need is awe.
Courtesy SXC

Courtesy SXC

There is nothing more interesting than human relationships and responses, even in the virtual world, and humans use relationships to spread happiness. The British Medical Journal said that social networks may spread happiness from person to person after studying almost 5000 individuals for 20 years in the Framingham Heart Study. Happiness in this study was shared through close relationships (spouses, family, neighbors, group members),and seemed to spread more readily than unhappiness through the network. Generally, happiness spreads to those nearer the center of a network better than to those on the edges –  like a virus. So first, dear posters and sharers, spread happiness where you can. Positivity is a pre-requisite to experiencing awe.

In some interesting recent research, University of Pennsylvania researchers studied The New York Times list of most-e-mailed articles, according to science reporter John Tierney, and over six months, analyzed thousands of articles. Jonah Berger and Katherine A. Milkman found that people like e-mailing articles that struck positive themes, and also noted that intellectually interesting subjects stimulate sharing.

People, it turns out want to share articles that inspire “awe.” If your product or service or point of view contributes to or creates overwhelming feelings of wonder or admiration, you are well on your way to gaining traction in your social network. It’s a tall order, for sure, but just think if we started our conversations about our latest and greatest thoughts, services or products with the question: “Will this inspire awe?“  For my own protection, let me admit that this post will be at least one step removed from awe, but it does point out just how high the bar is raised for the truly viral event in the social networking world.

Virality is a challenge, of course, in that many expect “new” or “improved” or “different” or even “surprising” to drive the conversation. Seems they don’t. “More emotional stories were more likely to be e-mailed, the researchers found, and positive articles were shared more than negative ones,” Tierney writes. Longer also bested shorter, it appeared. (“Surprising,” by the way, did help, but there were factors in the most shared that exceeded mere surprise.)

I like the idea that we ought to hold up “awe” as the hallmark of something worthy of sharing. As authors Berger and Milkman suggested, an awe-inspiring subject prompts us to view the world in a different way. It opens up our minds. The “Awe Rule” could put me out of business, too, on some fronts, but at least I minght not have to read as many posts about the sleeping habits of Facebook friends.

Take a look at this research, and ask yourself how you can contribute to awe today. I’m damned if I can think of another post for next week that fills the bill, but I’ll be working on it.

 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button By Michael Whitlow | Posted in Internet Marketing | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments (3)
Feb 11 2010

Public Relations is Like a Clean Bathroom…

February 11, 2010 – 6:50 am
Photo courtesy of Karen Horton

Photo courtesy of Karen Horton

By Jenn Riggle

Why? Because it’s easy to take a clean bathroom for granted until you really need one.

It’s a well kept secret, but public relations is the driving force behind the majority of news stories. When you think about it, the only stories that aren’t PR generated are crime, traffic accidents and weather/natural disasters — although there’s bound to be a PR person on hand with these events as well, making sure reporters and the community get the information they need.

Yet, for all the work we do behind the scenes, the media often portrays PR people as sleazy PR hacks, like Colin Farrell’s character in the 2002 movie Phone Booth, or glamorous party girls like Samantha Jones of Sex in the City and Amanda Woodward of Melrose Place.

My all-time favorite is Fractured Fairy Tales’ version of Rumpelstiltskin, whose title character is a PR guy who says: “I can make you famous overnight … I am what is known as a PR man,” he squeaked. “You know, public relations. Publicity. Flackery. Glamourize the unglamorous. Turn the pedestrian splendorous.”

But when things go wrong, organizations turn to public relations to clean things up and do damage control. National media outlets like USA Today and NPR’s Talk of the Nation are saying that Toyota should use PR to salvage its reputation after its massive recall. And while it’s nice to see that the media believe that public relations has the power to save the day during a crisis, I realize that most people don’t know what public relations is.

Maybe social media can give public relations the facelift it’s needed. Not only is it a friendlier and more straight-forward medium, but PR people no longer have to be the corporate mouthpieces. Employees and executives can speak for themselves, whether they’re writing blogs or posting information on Twitter and YouTube. It also moves organizations away from simply repeating corporate messages to engaging in conversation with their consumers.

Are PR folks going away? No. They will always be needed to assess a situation and develop the communications strategy whether it’s to build an organization’s reputation or manage a crisis. However, we have a chance to give the industry a makeover. Let’s do it.

 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button By Jenn Riggle | Posted in PR, Social Networks, social media | Tagged , , | Comments (8)
Feb 9 2010

Trust Me

February 9, 2010 – 7:00 am

 By Mike Mulvihill

 2667337875_0af24ec979_mPhoto: Exercise in Mistrust from Black wolf

Okay, so the last 18 months have been near cataclysmic for many Americans.  We lost our money in the stock market, our jobs and even our homes. We’re mired in a two-front war. We loaned money to save the very institutions that created the financial collapse of the Great Recession, only to have them thumb their noses at us by loaning little of our money to help small business and average American’s while they continue to pay out big bonuses.

 No, I’m not disillusioned (well, maybe a little).  But now the 2009 edition of the highly respected Edelman Trust Barometer reveals that we have lost trust in virtually every form of communications, most industries and all but a few people. To this, I feel I must quote Homer Simpson, “D’oh!”

I trust my dog and my mom less this year than I did in early 2008.  (I pick them not only to make a sardonic point but because neither has a computer or cell phone where they read this betrayal.)  As Richard Edelman said about the study, “The events of the last 18 months have scared people.” Damn straight it did.  And fear is the antibody of trust.

 Michael Bush’s article Monday (Feb. 8) in Ad Age about the Trust Barometer purports that the survey shows that social media waned in 2009.  The evidence?  The number of people who view their friends and peers as credible sources of information about a company dropped by almost half, from 45 percent in 2008 to 25 percent.  Not surprising given the general sentiment and how many more people are using – or, perhaps more accurately, misusing – social media over this same time period.

 Several blogs, among them Going Social Now, disagree.  They even go into great detail about what makes certain individuals more credible than others and that individuals are more credible sources of information about products than they are on companies.  I mostly agree with these points.

 But Edelman staffer Steve Rubel does a good job of putting things in perspective – “…for social media the Trust data shows that we’re desperately seeking out experts.  It means that we’ll have to work harder to build credibility through online thought leadership.”

Who is credible?  The sources we trust more this year than we did in 2008 include CEO’s (26 percent), government officials (27 percent), NGO representatives (44 percent), financial/industry analyst (52 percent) and academic experts (64 percent).  While increased trust in CEOs and government officials is, at least to me, surprising, their numbers are still relatively anemic. (And to put this in perspective, the study says I trust my friends as credible sources about a company on a par with the CEO?   I don’t think that’s saying much about the CEO.) Meanwhile, perceived independent experts – like analysts and academicians – carry some considerable credibility.

There’s a lot of noise in social media and a lot of companies using social media as part of their marketing mix.  Like any medium, perhaps those with the most knowledge and expertise in a specific topic will carry the most weight – and create the most trusted messages in the social media space.  There’s nothing new there.

 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button By Mike Mulvihill | Posted in Blogging, Branding, Internet Marketing, Social Networks, communications, market research, social media | Comments (3)
Feb 8 2010

Fragmented Branding – The 21st Century Reality

February 8, 2010 – 4:05 am

2674913829_fe491d7768.jpg

by Geoff Livingston

We live in a world where anyone can hijack a brand and put it on the Internet with their own views, positive or negative (image by Brent Nelson). Brand control no longer exists, in large part because of widespread fragmentation of traditional and citizen-created media. The resulting brand distortion creates a situation where communicators attempt to paint the abstract.

The abstract takes pieces and puts them together to create a larger picture. Sometimes the pieces are clear, other times they are not. In the case of fragmented branding, some pieces are issued by corporate, others are the expressions of stakeholders, positive and negative.

There’s no greater example than the current Pepsi Refresh campaign. A brief recap of the initial Buzz Bin post: Pepsi has opted out of the Super Bowl in favor of a $20+ million integrated campaign that features crowdsourced charitable giving, a contest form of corporate social responsibility.

Ironically, given the quality of this year’s ads, this may have been an incredibly brilliant coup. Both Richard Laermer and I dubbed the campaign an instant success on our podcast, simply because of the many conversations it has created. See Richard’s breakdown above in this video.

The conversations aren’t all positive. In fact, the nonprofit community has doubts and questions, many of which are legitimate concerns about the viability of the contests and the sustainability of the program choices. Pepsi acknowledges these criticisms and has engaged in dialogue. I like that they aren’t running, in spite of valid criticism.

And why should they? In spite of cause-based and marketing critiques, to the common American this is a huge investment in society and a big statement. The abstract brand picture, even with the smudges, is a pretty strong one for Pepsi. In fact, without the criticism one could argue that the conversation would be less believable and loud. Brand fragmentation in the form of generosity and community contribution works.

It should be noted that Pepsi did not just launch a social media campaign. The Super Bowl ads are missing, but the company has not left the abstract painting strictly in the hands of folk artists. There’s been serious PR as evidenced by stories like the CNN piece appearing in every major media outlet, as well as substantial advertising to notify citizens of Pepsi’s Refresh America attempts.

Welcome to the fragmented brand marketing of the 21st century: A combination of mass campaigns featuring traditional advertising and PR mixed with corporate social responsibility efforts as well as authentic social media that enables both good and bad conversations. There’s no call to action beyond doing good, because Pepsi simply wants to refresh its brand. And in this case, it’s a win. I guarantee you that people — as in the people who walk into Safeway with a grocery list — will think about Pepsi again, and in a new light. Fragmented branding measures the composite view — not the individual wins or Monday morning quarterback complaints — to determine success.

Three Additional Musings for Those About to Experiment

1) Pepsi is relatively early in the crowdsourced social philanthropy game, but not the first. What was notable in this project was the size of the purse, as well as the opt out of the Super Bowl. Copy cat marketing efforts are sure to arise, and less successfully so. Less money + me, too copycat = a yawn.

2) Corporate social philanthropy needs to be authentic to the core of the company. Customer-centric efforts with crowdsourcing efforts are cool, but ultimately represent a novelty especially for niche brands that are not serving mass markets. They will be better served building programs around the corporate culture or strategy. For example, if one is a software company, one might focus on digital freedom, transparency, developing programming jobs in the U.S., as well as technical education in high schools and universities.

3) Contest fatigue is setting in. And criticism of cause-based contests is also on the rise. Make sure this is the right tactic as opposed to engaging your community in a different, more sustainable way.

 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button By Geoff Livingston | Posted in Branding, Case Study, Internet Marketing, communications, social cause, social media | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments (16)
Feb 5 2010

Toyota Took Risks. Did PR Know?

February 5, 2010 – 12:22 am

The recent massive recall at Toyota, aside from breathing new life into a moribund General Motors (an Obama conspiracy?), raises an interesting question for public relations folks. If your management makes a conscious decision to take more risks in manufacturing, is it also obligated to communicate this strategy’s potential impact to stakeholders, particularly customers and investors?

Toyota Taking its Lumps

Toyota Taking its Lumps

The Lean Manufacturing approach at Toyota puts standard parts into a wide variety of vehicles in their lineup, and by doing so raises the risk that failures will cause havoc to the company’s public relations, or worse, harm to its customers. So, how do you balance the additional profit per vehicle with the increased risk that if something goes wrong, it goes wrong big-time?

As Daisuke Wakabayashi reported in The Wall Street Journal last week, the Lean Manufacturing technique is seen as risky even by its promoters. David Meier, co-author of “The Toyota Way Fieldbook” and a consultant on the approach, was quoted in the Journal: “The cost may be decreased in the short term, but the risk is increased.”

Some experts say that Toyota’s perceived quality score could fall 20%, leading to a 4% drop in the residual value of its cars. The company could face difficulty borrowing for its operations (Fidgety Fitch put the company on negative watch recently).  Some analysts predict impact on sales of over $1 billion. Add to that the lawyers’ fees, the increased advertising and incentive costs, and you have the makings of a true corporate crisis.

Now, Consumer Reports has a dedicated page of blogs on Toyota issues.

Another overlooked-but-important question, then, is “How much is this going to cost me when I sell or trade my Tundra pickup?” Toyota had about 17% of the 10.7 million car and truck sales in 2009, according to WardsAuto.com. In recent years alone, their huge share increases mean that they’ve put millions of us at risk of experiencing a drop in the value of our vehicles. 

Does a company engaging in this risky business of Lean Manufacturing have an obligation to tell customers and investors of the risk? Or, is it caveat emptor? Toyota lists 10 risks of doing business in its 2009 annual report’s automotive section. Lean Manufacturing didn’t make the list. While it may not be material to Toyota in an accounting way, what about reputation and brand risks based upon exposing Toyota owners (both of their vehicles and of their shares) to such significant costs?

Roger Vincent and Ken Bensinger, reporting in The Los Angeles Times this week, focused on the “public relations blitz” begun last Sunday, quoting some PR professionals saying that the recent communications represent a “too little; too late” approach. In their reporting, Vincent and Bensinger characterize CTS Corp., manufacturer of the pedals, as apparently “taken by surprise” by the recall.

Was the Toyota PR team surprised, also?

Regardless of what happens to Toyota sales, it is important for the company to look at this incident with its legendary attention to detail. While the recall certainly has an impact on the seven wastes that are so high on the Toyota Production System radar screen, there is an even better reason to analyze and address the circumstances that led to this foulup.

The confidence of consumers can be a fragile thing. The discipline of disclosing risks to consumers and investors has to include revealing risks like the one coming from Lean Manufacturing practices. This means that a very deep look into operations should be married with a propensity to overdisclose; both to the company’s public relations, risk and sustainability professionals, and other, external stakeholders.

Toyota will survive and even thrive. The bigger opportunity here is to rewrite the book on how a manufacturer tells the rest of us about our risks due to its way of doing business. Toyota is in a great position to change the rules in favor of such transparency.

 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button By Michael Whitlow | Posted in Blogging, Branding, Internet Marketing | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments (10)