Brands Using Social Media The Right Way

We've all seen the media storms over the past few weeks surrounding Target's social media fails. The most dominant being a mothers rant on a Friday evening posting on the brands' Facebook page how 'slutty' their children's clothing line is. This attracted a huge negative public response but was not attended to by the brand until Monday. Time and time again companies are not realizing the potential for consumer behaviour to impact their brand badly in the social media sphere, or not approaching the conversation quickly enough or in the appropriate manner. Department store giant Myer has even stepped off the mark by stating in the 'About' section of their Facebook page that the page is monitored 9am - 5pm Monday - Friday. This is an utterly ridiculous policy to have for a social media platform that it available to consumers 24/7! 

http://www.facebook.com/myer.mystore/info

However, despite these examples of big brands poorly utilizing online channels to connect with customers, there are businesses using social media to their advantage and getting really positive results from their users.

Beatbox Kitchen has become famous on Facebook in Melbourne. This small fast food business that sells burgers out of a van around different locations on the out-skirts of the city twice daily, has a cult following. With 14, 932 followers, Beatbox Kitchen uses Facebook as a free service to let consumers know where they'll be stationed each day and night, plus any news about the truck or its workers. Customers can interact with the business owners easily and without fuss. Digital marketing perfection.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Beatbox-Kitchen/108806049145877?ref=ts

Musq Mineral Makeup is another small business using social media to grow. As a very small privately owned business, the owner found that their shop in Canterbury was not as profitable as their online store. So, all sales were switched to online and a Facebook page was started up to connect with their target market. Sales are strengthening and users can follow their promotions, product lines and media coverage. Another clear example of a brand implementing social media successfully.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Musq-Mineral-Makeup/114506471942

It is thrilling to see brands getting the most out of social media and using it the right way to build their business.

Pure Marketing Genius

What a creative, attention-grabbing way to start a new online shopping website?! 

When Jasu launches itself this coming Monday on the Internet, for the first two weeks of its operation, only members of the world wide web with a Klout score of 40 or above can access the online retailer and make purchases. After the initial fortnight, the site will be open to the general public, but this distinguishable opening strategy has the potential to benefit Jasu greatly.

This is an example of marketing at its best. Not only will the strategy build hype amongst consumers (in fact it already is judging by the article dedicated to the story in The Age today), but it will enable trend setters to promote the site, and allow Jasu to monitor who these these trend setters are and what they are searching for. Klout is the self-named "standard of influence." It is a measurement of an individual's degree of influence in a social media domain. Imagine the treasure-trove of information Jasu will have on its customers in the first fortnight. The opinions and actions of these people are highly valued by a lot of people on the Internet. What purchases they make can help determine future tastes. 

This controversial concept is certainly conjuring a buzz around the launch of Jasu. 

Controversial Belvedere Advertisement

On March 23 this year, Belvedere Vodka posted a new ad online for their 1 million Facebook users and 100,000 Twitter followers. The ad was meant to portray the high quality of the spirit but was instead quickly pulled from the sites by Belvedere after severe public backlash.

The image shows a distressed woman attempting to escape the grasp of a smiling man with the tag line: "Unlike some people: Belvedere always goes down smoothly."

The connotations of rape in the image resulted in heavy criticism from viewers and has led the female in the ad taking Belvedere's parent company Moet Hennessey to court. Belvedere itself has since issued a statement claiming the ad is incongruous to the brand's values and immoral. The brand has also donated thousands to the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network. 

In an era where online advertising and social networking between brands and their consumers is an absolute must, the attempts to get noticed are becoming more and more contentious. Advertisers are doing what they can to get attention in a market flooded with brands pushing their 'unique,' 'value-adding' products. These attempts however, are increasingly becoming controversial to the point of inappropriate. 

Belvedere has made the mistake of straying from their normally refined image and ignoring the potential consequences of putting material on the Internet that can be easily and quickly accessed by virtually anyone. 

Simply because advertisements are posted online as oppose to in the mass media, it does not mean that social and moral values should be ignored. Controversy in online advertisements has a fine line that, when crossed, has the potential to results in expensive outcomes. I am all for advertisers challenging normality and trying to be edgy, but some topics are not meant to be made light of. All brands can learn a lesson or two from Belvedere's mistake.

The End of Fan Generated Content?

The Advertising Standards Bureau (ASB) has made headlines this week over a controversial new ruling. The self-regulating body has claimed that "the Facebook site of an advertiser is a marketing communication tool over which the advertiser has a reasonable degree of control" and is thus expected to ensure nothing posted by users or fans is of a sexist, racist, obscene or discriminative nature. Any content viewed as unsuitable for the online communication avenue will have to be removed efficiently by the company who owns the brand.

The decision came after a series of user generated content on the Smirnoff fan page of the social media site Facebook resulted in complaints. Comments and images added to the brand's page were considered inappropriate and promoting underage drinking.

Whilst I believe the ASB to be correct in stating that a company's social media site is a marketing instrument and they are therefore responsible for how their brand is portrayed online, there are great consequences for instilling such a significant recommendation. 

• It will necessitate companies to monitor every post requiring around the clock staff (a commercially unrealistic ask). 
• As brewing company Fosters has argued, pre-moderation is "contrary to the spirit of social media and would cause users to become disengaged from the page." 
• And finally, would this watch-dog approach be considered censorship on an online platform that is set up to enable any user to have their own views and opinions? Based on these issues, it is not surprising that companies are uneasy about the ASB's call for social media monitoring.

The ASB's decision that any comments on a brand's site is the official voice of the brand is questionable considering all social media users would understand that such views expressed on a fan page are those of the individual, not the brand. The other questionable part of the ASB's argument is the fact that the bureau is a self-regulatory body set up by the advertising industry, not a law making organization. It is their job to attempt to persuade advertisers to be responsible however, their rules are not law. 

Considering this, it will be interesting to see whether companies are willing to acquire the added costs and monitor their social networking sites, or simply ignore it as it will put an end to the aim of social media fan pages; to connect with consumers openly and gain precious knowledge about their perceptions of a product/brand.     

The Social Media Olympics: Friend or Foe?

This year we have been bombarded by the 'Social Media Olympics.' Viewers and athletes are able to instantly connect, results and replays are easily accessible to all, and the IOC can promote the games more heavily than ever before. However, this strong use of social media has highlighted some potential disadvantages of online marketing as a tool to promote a brand or image.

Swimmer Emily Seebohm found herself in the middle of controversy last week after claiming that she was unable to focus thoroughly on her race due to spending too much time on Twitter and Facebook. This resulted in a failed attempt to clench gold for Australia in the 100m backstroke final. Seebohm has since stated that it was not the pressure from messages on the social media sites that caused the favourite to finish in second place but the debacle brings to question: is social media appropriate for every brand, whether that brand be a multinational company, or an individual athlete?

Athletes such as Seebohm have been encouraged to use social media during these Olympics as a marketing tool for the games and for their own personal brand image. The controversy surrounding Seebohm however, has brought to attention the fact that online marketing is not ideal for every brand if it is going to impede on their performance/output. 

Electronic marketing seems to have taken the world by storm over the past decade. And understandably so considering its ability to engage a huge number of consumers at a fraction of the cost of most traditional marketing practises. As e-marketing continues to evolve, we are beginning to see new ways of utilising the Internet for marketing but users must remain cautionary of its use in order to avoid negative backlash.

Whilst I love the Olympics, I'm beginning to feel the emphasis on social media at the London games is uncovering some of the negative side effects of e-marketing for brand images when used excessively or inappropriately. Are our athletes simply overindulging in social media in London, or, could we have revealed an industry in which e-marketing is not ideal?