On LinkedIn this morning and responded to a question posted in the Public Relations category – which is where I spend my time. I tried Inventory and Supply Chain once, but it just wasn’t me, if you know what I mean.

In short, the questioner was looking for some examples of companies, brands and organisations that have successfully used Twitter for marketing activities. I responded with my recollection of Dell’s success – in short, and I believe, that they had reputational issues around customer service and, through Twitter, not only turned those issues round, but also saw a quite considerable uplift in sales. A success indeed.

I also – because I am still stubbornly certain that social media is just another minor royal with a limited wardrobe – suggested that the Dell example (if it’s true and not an urban myth) is probably the only way a company, brand or organisation can benefit from social media. There has to be an issue already, something that the social networketers are already talking about.

In that way, you can address their conversations, provide solutions to their issues and provide them with what they want. It can only work for a while mind – once you’ve satisfied their perceived need, they’ll drift away. And if you continue to chase them after that point, you’ll alienate them and undo all your good work.  The true social networketer is fiercely proud of the independence of his/her space – we know this from the reaction to brands who’ve gone in all heavy hand with the commercial messages, only to find no-one there to listen or, worse, a real and negative reaction.

After posting my answer, I actually came across some case histories of brands that were using social media to promote their products (see http://www.digitaltrainingacademy.com/socialmedia/#001926) and I thought these were worth sharing. Mainly because some of the things that are being claimed as ground-breaking and earth-moving actually – well – aren’t. In some of these case histories, it is hard to see what the real value of the social media element was.

I’m not taking away from the likes of BMW and T-Mobile mind – they created genuinely grandiose bits of film (at huge cost) and this is the sort of content that people want to share. But in the case of T-Mobile – the film (I would guess) was always destined for TV. Big budget, mass audience. If there wasn’t a YouTube (hard to imagine, I know) then the film would still be part of the public consciousness, only via TV. It didn’t need social media.

Another example is Gatorade – massive budget, launched unbranded film clips, using their affiliated celebrities. Loads of interest on t’interweb, massive digital ‘oh – of course’ when the brand was unveiled. Microsite created as a repository for these and other films, free to download, re-post and share – sadly, no brand interactivity. So, ten out of ten for commitment of budget, ten out of ten for content creation, nil out of ten for RO massive I in terms of brand engagement and reputational enhancement. Ooops.

Anyway, my favourite case history is this one for Pepsi Raw:

“The Pepsi brand in the UK was lacking energy and edge. The distributors Britvic opted for an integrated social media campaign that combined sampling, coupon redemption, in-store promotion and the Twitter social media platform. They used a traditional sampling approach of branded street vendors in high traffic areas that matched with good concentrations of the target demographic. The sampling was combined with giving out vouchers for a price promotion that could be redeemed with a single supporting retailer. And the social media came in the form of on-pack branding and a call to action for people to share their opinions at twitter.com/pepsiraw This is one of the first major integrated FMCG promotions to harness the microblogging application Twitter, and the website tool plays two key roles. The site is the latest zeitgeisty tool that reflects well on the brand by simply being there, but more importantly social media users are the typical early adopters and trendsetters Pepsi needs to gain leverage in the market. “

 Oh yes. Twitter is a zeitgeisty tool. Social media users are early adopters and trendsetters, who get a brand leverage. Hmmmm. Then you visit www.twitter.com/pepsiraw and you read some of the posts from the early adopters and the trendsetters. For example:

“@pepsiraw Best Pepsi drink i’ve had. But then i don’t like the other Pepsi drinks. Raw had a nice taste.”

and

“@PepsiRaw not as nice as Red Bull Cola ;-)”

and

“@PepsiRaw you guys, when is pepsi raw being released nationwide? i live in the middle of nowhere and i’m DYING to try it <3”

Obviously, I’ve not published everything here and I’m sure there are some posts that leverage the market (I’m slightly suspicious of that last one, mind) – but it does strike me as (whisper it) slightly pointless. Social media for the sake of social media, and unlikely to have a major impact on sales.

But, hey, a whole social media marketing industry (for such there is now) cannot be wrong.

Discuss.

Amazing what you find behind the metaphorical sofa of the internet. Despite the fact that I’m not a fan of social media, I liked this presentation, given in April this year at the Don’t Panic Guide to Social Media Event at The Barbican.

But, I’m afraid, it still doesn’t convince me that there’s much of a case for Tweeting Teams – which, surprisingly (for me anyway) a lot of companies, brands and organisations seem to think are a good use of time, effort and money – or for a focus on social media as a major platform of your communications/marketing strategy.

I’m going to re-visit this topic (Here! On the Blog That Nobody Reads!) – mostly because I can (that’s the beauty of blogging, no-one tells you to shut up – well, not yet, anyway) – but I’ll leave you with this thought. Why is it, when you get involved in any discussion about social media and how it can be ‘harnessed’ (which is the point at which, normally, I try and find the bar) you only ever hear (I am generalising, obviously) three names mentioned – Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter?

I can only think of two reasons. One, the lack of general knowledge out there about social media is frightening and/or two, none of the other social media are of any worth (Bebo, Myspace, Audioboo, Ipadio, Brightkite, Maycontain etc etc). So, either we’re running before we can walk, or/and there’s nowhere for us to run to.

Enjoy the presentation.

Twitter for beginners presentation

I’m just throwing this one out there, right? And I’ll leave you to fight over its bones.

Sony Ericsson launched ‘two new ‘green’ ‘phones with a pioneering live webcast that incorporated three live digital elements simultaneously’. These were Twitter, Kyte and ipadio. In the first six hours, they received 5,500 hits. (Just to clarify, I take ‘digital elements’ here to read ‘social media’ , because of the media they chose.)

Now, I’m seriously hoping that they had a bit more to their launch campaign than this – I’m certain they must have done (and no, I’ve not bothered to search to find out whether they went all ‘trad’ media as well, because it’s not the point) because they are a giant, global organisation and thus they must employ at least some people who are not of the calibre of Merran Wrigley “We needed to start at the beginning of our story in order to gain credibility with a green audience. We used digital to generate and keep the buzz online.” Say wha’, Merran? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and choose to believe that you were misquoted.

But it’s in Merran’s quotation that my problem lies. Global organisation, apparently a global launch. ‘Phones. Need to sell lots. Green ‘phones. Very aux courant. Could sell absolutely shedloads, I’d have thought.

Therefore, and here’s the thing. Out of a potential global consumer audience numbering hundreds of millions – if not billions – do we really think that 5,500 hits in six hours is good? Personally, I think it’s pants.

And the comms guru (in the Alanis Morissette sense) who sorted this triumph out said “digital-only launches were more environmentally-friendly than traditional media launches.”

And considerably less effective. Remind me again, someone – sustainable vs environmental? Isn’t environmental green at all costs, regardless of its effect on the business (wrong) – and sustainable is doing your best to be responsible, and going out of your way to be responsible, but recognising that being sustainble means that your business should be sustainable as well (sounds about right).

The more I think about this, the more amazed I am. If I was a shareholder in Sony Ericsson, I’d want someone’s cojones, lightly sauteed, on a plate.

Had my attention drawn to a piece of research – which you can see here

http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/cs/2009/06/new_twitter_research_men_follo.html

by the Harvard Business School, which – and I’m paraphrasing – says that among Twitter users, the median lifetime number of tweets is one. It also says that the top 10% of prolific Twitter users account for 90% of content. (I don’t know whether this means there’s 90% of prolific Twitter users who, well, aren’t very prolific, or whether the use of the word prolific is simply an academic trying to brighten his writing style. I suspect the latter.)

Somewhere on this blog – I think – or perhaps I posted the thory somewhere else – well, whatever – the theory I had was that Twitter, like other established social networks (eg Facebook, LinkedIn) would go in a cycle. Early adopter, fashionista, marketer, masses. (At this point, I’d like to preen slightly – I was on LinkedIn over four years ago – making me, if not an early adopter, at least a fashionista, nice and near the front! This is genuinely the first time I have ever been anywhere near the avant garde. I’m breathless just thinking about it.)

The social network development cycle – if we can call it that (and I think we can) – is not really a theory – I’ve seen it with LinkedIn and Ecademy, and others have told me it’s happened with Facebook (although Facebook is less business-focused and thus still has a loyal core who use it, seemingly, to organise their lives).

What it means is that, if you are lucky, you arrive in the network near enough to the beginning to get some value out of it. Before everyone piles in and it becomes impossible to build relationships and have decent conversation because of all the background noise and bumbling idiots, who are only there because they’re worried they might miss something.

Personally, of course, I don’t believe there is much value to be had from social networks – not enough to merit the current hoo-ha (but that’s another song) – but if there IS any value, then it’s to be had early on. Arrive past the peak and your time is wasted.

The trouble is that the cycle time seems to be getting faster – which will eventually mean that unless you’re the very first person in the network, there’ll be no value. And the value-hunters (who are the people you’ll want to have your ‘conversations’ with) will know this. So you’ll find yourself the first person in a network which no-one will join because they’ll realise there’s no value in being second. And so the social media phenomenon becomes social isolation, with hundreds of early adopters waiting in virtual rooms for meaningful conversations that will never happen. Which is kinda sad. But inevitable.

Anyway, Twitter. It appears to have done the cycle already. Any value that was coming out of it has probably now gone. The masses have invaded it and, when they found it took a bit of dedication and input – well – they abandoned it. Now what you have is a selection of loudmouths (the 10% of prolific Twitterers) desperately competing for the attention of an increasingly disinterested audience.

It’s all about vanity, always was. How many followers do I have? How interesting must my life and my random meanderings be for me to have that many followers? Uh-oh – my follower number isn’t growing – I must post more! Meanwhile, those masses who joined because everyone else was and they don’t want to miss anything, who ended up following people because – well – that’s what you do, because they were mates, because they were famous, for whatever reason – these people can’t be bothered any more.

The truth is, Twitter was never about the valuable conversation – which is what the pro-social media lobby tell me (again and again and again) is the big benefit of social media – it was about shouting loudly. It is a vanity publishing tool, not requiring or desiring interaction. There’s a reason for calling it a micro-blog – because if you bother to look at a cross-section of the blogosphere, you’ll find a frightening number of people who think that their cats are interesting. Or indeed that their thoughts on communications are interesting.

I know there are those who are trying to use Twitter to improve their business – I happened across a search consultant who was using Twitter to post about the role assignments he was handling and the words of wisdom he was garnering from various industry heavyweights. I would imagine – I would hope – that maybe he got a few decent candidates as reward from the efforts he put in.

But, unfortunately, like it or not, it’s the wrong medium. It’s short form. Influencing, encouraging people to do stuff, building reputation – it’s long form. Twitter does not encourage people to explore or to think. It’s disposable and transitory, has a limited lifespan and thus – I’m afraid – has limited value to the corporate communicator.