The internet and especially the social networks in it, such as Facebook an others interest the commercial community. The use of social networks interests as a marketing tool for specified target market segments, with identified opinion leaders - the pipe dream of a marketing manager.
Consider a Facebook page of teenagers from a specific school living in a specific area demonstrating a cohesive market segment with similar socio-economic status, similar tastes and preferences and opinion leaders. By using the Facebook community and the opinion leaders, marketing of specially selected products can be done with amazing accuracy and higher efficiency than classical advertizing ever could before - a case of accelerated "word to mouth" combined with an expert opinion.
The situation mentioned above would make it seem as if this was a world of marketing managers. Acting wisely has its rewards. The social networks respond quickly, accurately and efficiently, and reaching the entire target population is fast and relatively easy. Spreading the news may be compared to a flash bulb going off - short and very bright.
But the success stories and big sales are mingled with ethical problems and even commercial problems and heavy damages. The social networks are as dangerous as they are promising success.
Nestle and Social Networks
If you want the story behind Nestle recent trouble in public relations you can find one version in the Guardian. The story is (according to CNET for example) that Nestle was attacked by Greenpeace for using oil from environmentally mismanaged plantations which resulted in the killing of orangutans. Greenpeace published a video to that effect. In an attempt to block it Nestle used its Facebook fans support page to assmbl enough support for u-tube to remove the video, under the claim that it violated copyrights. The fans were responding and some of them used modified logos of Nestle as their pictures in Facebook which the firms asked them to removed as it violated the firm's trademark rights.
That move started a negative response avalanche which the firm's responses, treating the issue as a legal problem while the fans regarded it a freedom of speech issue. According to the Guardian over 90,000 responders have signed in, most of them arguing with the firm.
The company Nestle made several mistakes, at first it supplied a stage among its supporters for Greenpeace to present its own case. Thus Nestle made sure that more people saw the video that Greenpeace could hope for. The company increased the damage the attack could do. The bigger mistake it made was of course to get into a direct, public fight in which Nestle seemed to be in the wrong with its own followers. Nestle came out from both claims as an anti free speech organization, inflexible and unfriendly.
It is easy to analyze the mistake in hindsight, but where did the firm actually go wrong?
It would seem that if 15 years ago a video was being aired (TV, Video, cinema etc.) and it approached the authorities with the claim that it infringed copyrights, it would probably have succeeded, and be held a serious firm standing for its rights. If at the time it found out that people were using the modified fir logo on stationary it would probably also find support for requesting that this be stopped. But we are in a new and different place today. In the world of social networks the rules are different, everything you say is seen by the whole world (potentially) and therefore must be reasonable or at least explained. Moreover, the world of social networks on the internet, does not like censorship of any kind, and is different than the business world. Nestle could have announced a contest regarding its logo to present the firms new commitment to the environment and harnessed the social networks public's creativity to its benefit, generate positive feeling towards the firm and move the focus away from the film. After all if no one is fighting the internet audiences move their attention to other topics. At least it would have forced Greenpeace to produce something new and work to earn the attention they wanted - not do their work for them.
What can be done?
One option of course is to ignore the social networks, but that option would leave the field to the competition which would be a big mistake. Could result in the firm ignoring the social networks, loosing huge market shares. Another option, which many firms seem to select as their course of action, is to enter the world of social networks, while assuming that it is similar to the world they know, only with a faster technology and better results. As the Nestle case shows this would be just as huge a mistake. Another option, requiring a lot of work, would be to enter the world of social networks on the internet, while learning the rules of the new world, employing people who understand it to operate the activity for the firm. One must bear in mind that this is not just a new technology this is a world with new rules.
Great post and very curent as well. We are at the very beginning of a major revolution and marketers are only starting to learn how to deal with it. The future is bright, however the dinosaurs (TV, radio, newspapers) will have to adapt and quickly. They will cease being the most important mediums for advertising.
ReplyDeleteSo right - it is the inertia that makes us neglect to learn the rules of a new ebvironment. Why accept readily that the internet social networks are a great marketing tool and be ready to use it, and not imagin that there could also be new dangers?
ReplyDeleteOne thing we should understand underlies all new technologies, they allow things to happen faster than ever before. As you say, we will need to adpat quickly.