The following excerpt is from a post about the Interbrand Top Global Brands survey, vs the Sysomos on-line presence survey – which shows how top brands are perceived in terms of social media ‘buzz’. (Horrible word, not mine.) Here you go:
“One conclusion that could be speculated based on the data from this small study is that well-established, mature brands don’t seem to need the high levels of social media buzz to sustain their value, while new and growing brands can reap great benefits from the power of a social media buzz.
Of course, this is a very small study of just the top 20 brands based on global value, so conclusions can only be hypothetical. However, it makes sense that new and growing brands have more to gain from investing in social media advertising and branding campaigns than established or new brands do.”
While this is quite clearly a statement of the bleeding obvious, on a bit of reflection, like most statements of the bleeding obvious, it actually needs saying.
If there is any benefit in social media as a marketing tool, it is most easily accessed by small companies who a) have nothing to lose b) have everything to gain c) do not have massive organisations and overheads d) have limited employee numbers e) do not have massive marketing budgets and programmes, thus having the ability to dedicate time to social media as their sole (or major) route to market and f) will see and appreciate any ROI their activity generates. And if you reverse engineer points a to f, you’ll see why established organisations are wasting their time.
Here’s a link.
thewordmonger 