The Use of Facebook
Nick, I can see value in your argument that we need to flip that idea of ‘What’s in it for me’ and look at what’s in it for the company – however based on the constant growth of Facebook I worry about the company's loss in not being involved.
Just like consumers have come to assume and expect a web site presence from brands and services I would suggest they will and are coming to presume and expect a Facebook presence from them. Even the other night watching the start of “Hey Hey its Saturday” the host stumbled over references to Twitter and their new webpage ending with the afterthought of “and of course we are on Facebook”.
I want to build on Bryan’s statement that the question of whether or not PR reps should use Facebook is moot. I would argue that Facebook will continue to grow and that although its original purpose was not for commercial opportunists, it is a medium ripe for this activity and in turn will be used as such.
Statistics Facebook itself has released, (although for this reason are limited in their use) reveal the immense possibilities it offers to marketers. Consider:
• More than 400 million active users
• 50% of these active users log on to Facebook in any given day
• More than 5 billion pieces of content (web links, news stories, blog posts, notes, photo albums, etc.) shared each week (important when considering word of mouth)
• More than 1.5 million local businesses have active Pages on Facebook
• More than 20 million people become fans of Pages each day
• Pages have created more than 5.3 billion fans
• Average user has 130 friends on the site
• Average user spends more than 55 minutes per day on Facebook
• Average user writes 25 comments on Facebook content each month (important when considering word of mouth)
• Average user becomes a fan of 4 Pages each month
• Average user is a member of 13 groups
In the article sent to us from Sydney Morning Herald, Leon Gettler notes that a Nielsen survey this year found that people now spend seven hours a month on Facebook. (Side note - Even the Nielsen company who conducted this survey have a Facebook presence!)
Based on this I would argue that there is greater risk and consequence in not being involved in Facebook. Companies who are not becoming involved are likely to find themselves left behind. In turn I suggest that Facebook is becoming a necessary part the broader IMC strategy for brands, services and products.
Online WOM
What we seem to agree on is Facebook as a forum for information sharing. Part of this is the Word of Mouth marketing it facilitates. In the consumer marketplace you have little control over who consumes or talks about your product (for example, on Facebook it may backfire for Coco Channel not to accept a friend request but in the real world Coco Channel can’t stop someone they would not want to be affiliated with wearing Coco Channel and telling others about it). This is not much different to the issue raised about an unwanted brand ‘friend’ or people talking about a product on each other’s or on the brand page. At least on the brand page it can be monitored and responded to.
Although not mentioning Facebook directly Riegner (2007) outlines that online rants, raves, comments, and reviews are having an impact on purchase decisions. Importantly Riegner outlines that while consumers find emotional and practical benefits in participating in online discussions the ratio of people who read blogs to people who actually publish roughly reflects an 80/20 rule, with 80 % consuming what 20% write. This reveals is an important point to consider for companies looking to get involved in Facebook and an essential part of facilitating verbal WOM around a product: the identification and use of influential people within a network. In our week one reading Kotler, Brown, Adam, Burton and Armstrong (2007) assert that favourable WOM can best be achieved through targeting opinion leaders and those who have the greatest impact on the spread of WOM in their particular category and supplying them with the product on attractive terms or educating them so they can inform others. Information a company can get through using Facebook would make the identification of these influential individuals easier.
How to use Facebook effectively then? Gimmicks and the way forward
I agree Nick that some of the aforementioned Facebook ‘initiatives’ are as you say ‘gimmicky’ and that there is danger in marketers not thinking through their presence on Facebook in their desire to “ just to jump on the bandwagon”. The ‘gimicks’ mentioned were simply ideas to stimulate interest and get consumers to affiliate themselves with the pages of these products. They are by not by any means what I suggesting as a rule nor things I have or would get involved in myself.
I would however suggest that our attention should focus on procedures and guidelines for companies to effectively use Facebook instead of whether or not to use Facebook. Gettler outlines that some of the world’s leading companies have developed social media policies incorporating Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn into their marketing and business strategies, which in ways forces other smaller companies to replicate this. He states that these policies help these companies “monitor what is said about them online so they can deal with problems quickly and creating communities that share information and increase innovation”.
Building on Rebecca’s provided list of ways to use Facebook professionally, some basic commonsense rules Gettler mentions from Coca-Cola’s social media policy are:
• disclose your affiliation with the company;
• keep records;
• when in doubt, don't post;
• give credit where credit is due;
• don't violate others' rights; be responsible;
• keep in mind that local posts can have a global significance;
• and try to remember that anything posted on the internet is permanent.
Also mentioned is the recognition on the pages of prior company problems like product recalls and PR crises, under the idea that if the company doesn’t mention it and spin it positively, someone else will and it may not be as pleasant.
Other important considerations include who will be responsible for the Facebook presence within the organisation and who will monitor and respond feedback. Brand specific guidelines will need to be considered, as the issues that arise will be category specific as well as generic.
Currently UWS are organising a forum with staff about the effective use of Facebook and creating University wide procedures from this discussion. This will not only be for the UWS main Facebook page but for course and unit pages that can and have been created across the university.
Prior meetings about the use of social media have been rife with social media management issues, debating how to approach different scenarios. Like you mention Nick – what happens if people we don't want to join – join? What if they make negative remarks? Can we delete negative or wrong posts about the university? Or will this make us look worse? If we don't delete these comments will it damage the universities reputation? All sound too hard… well it is … but not once has the option to remove our Facebook presence come up because we recognise that as much of a pain that it is – we need a to incorporate it into our broader marketing strategy as it is a forum that our students and potential students understand and will use. It’s also understood that whatever procedures that are agreed upon will need to be fluid to address the constantly changing terrain.
So I would be interested hear what the rest of you think… are the risks greater risks in PR’s not being involved? And what other ways can PR’s effectively use Facebook?
www.Facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics
Reigner, C (2007) Word of Mouth on the Web: The Impact of Web 2.0 on Consumer
Purchase Decisions. Journal of Advertising Research 47 (4)
No comments:
Post a Comment