Conventional marketers are typically not good listeners. So its no surprise that real-time social media brand monitoring is an extremely confronting concept to some Australian brands.

It challenges what was, until the advent of social media, a predictable,closed loop process.

It used to be simple – marketers had relatively tight control of the process and the process worked well. The content, distribution and target of the brand message was determined by the marketing department and dutifully pushed towards the target consumers. Customers dutifully believed what they were told and did what was expected – that was the theory anyway.

Those that didn’t buy the pitch or had their opinion changed by a poor brand experience had little choice but to contact the brand directly or to go quietly into the night and switch products. Unsolicited views expressed directly to the brand were often excluded from formal appraisal. At worst, the comments of individual customers were viewed as the uninvited ranting of an extreme minority.

Market research faithfully asked the brand recall and value perception questions determined by the client and delivered the answers in numerically legitimate reports – generally into the custody of the same people who would be judged on their findings.

The problem is that for some time now it has failed to accurately reflect the reality of the changing place of the consumer.

With the emergence of web 2.0 and social media brand monitoring services, the voice of the consumer has developed its own channels for self-expression. It uses those channels to discuss the validity of your brand claims and the quality of your product. Customers are now filtering out unsupported assertions and comparing marketing rhetoric with their own experience of the brand. When it comes to brand claims, saying it no longer makes it so.

Inconsistencies travel quickly.

Social media allows individuals to express their conclusions about your brand and distribute them with extraordinary velocity and breadth. Peer opinion and referral now competes legitimately with brand-speak and often carries a higher level of trust.

This is a disturbing development for the traditional marketing process and one that involves a major shift. It necessitates a change in the weight that brands give consumer opinion. It changes the position of consumer from the passive recipient of a series of stilted linear communications to being at the centre of an ongoing cycle.

However, many brands remain in denial. Others are uncertain how, why or even if they should build the consumer back into the picture. What is certain however is that the place of the customer has changed and that this empowered consumer is now an uncomfortable reality. It is equally certain that brands who continue to ignore them do so at their peril.

Brands need to adjust their thinking to accomodate new ways to listen to their customers and understand the importance of the new voice of the consumer. Above all, brands need to start listening to the conversation surrounding their brand and become familiar with the voice of this new customer.

Read anything written about social media brand monitoring and you will swiftly arrive at the advice that every brand should be listening to the social dialogue surrounding their brand. But the question of why is sometimes neglected.

There are a few reasons for this. One is an assumption that clients can figure out the implicit benefits for themselves. Also, in some quarters there is a view that if you can’t understand the space you shouldn’t be there. The first is incorrect, the second is as arrogant as it is unnecessary.

Whatever the motive, the result is that the commercial benefits that follow this type of edict are often neglected.

Sure, hearing the social voice of your customers is a compelling benefit – as is the ability to see problems coming before they hit you or the front page of the morning paper – but the output from a social media monitoring service can offer far more than just crisis control or simply reading other peoples’ mail.

Here are nine often overlooked or understated outputs from your brand monitoring that go beyond social eavesdropping. Some may be obvious but this doesnt detract from their value.

1. Identify your brand detractors – ask any customer support team leader what diffuses angry customers and they’ll tell you that a fair hearing goes a long way. Your tracking will show you who is angry and allow you to pro-actively reach out and provide a chance to resolve the issue.
2. Embrace your brand advocates – not all news is bad news. People actually tweet about good experiences as well. Reaching out to those who speak highly about your brand is a bit like reciprocated love – it nurtures the brand relationship and can often generate invaluable additional positive dialogue.
3. Understand how & where your customers talk – this is invaluable intelligence as it provides a starting point for broader activity and provides a strategic alternative to unsustainable ad-hoc experiments.
4. Do you suffer from brand dissonance – Do your customers think of your brand the same way that you do? Is there a positioning disconnect? Is there a prevailing view in the broader social community that is lessening or discrediting our mainstream communications?
5. Find out what people think of your ads – or if they care. Safe creative generally creates little noise. Creative that gets noticed gets commentary. It can be helpful to see if your customers see your ads the way that you do.
6. How do your compare with competitors? - Its not all about you. Tracking will often show you what your competitors are doing in the space and where your customers see you in comparison.
7. Do you have competitors you didn’t know about? – Pureplay e-commerce operators use social media to develop markets virally. These operators.This is especially so in prestige markets where knock off merchants may be impacting upon your brand perception without your knowledge or eroding your market without appearing on the traditional radar. This can add momentum to your stalled e-commerce initiatives.
8. Find and tap into ready-made communities – In some cases, entire “unofficial” communities form around your product or brand. These communities or interest groups are a ready source of focus group-like feedback and can be a powerful ally for your R&D efforts.
9. Are you making any noise? – Are you getting the most out of the PR that you issue? Is it moving into social media or simply gathering dust on a back page of your corporate site. Tracking can show you here you are falling short and provide hints as to how you can improve the spread of your good news stories.

If you are planning to start monitoring your brand it is worth ensuring that the social brand monitorng service that you select is capable of working with you to provide a breadth of benefits including those listed above.

Consumers calling into the social wilderness increasingly expect the brands that they interact with to answer back. More and more, our brand tracking uncovers evidence of growing frustration and a new kind of social consumer expectation.

We see tweets asking if major furniture retailers are listening, blog posts questioning the relevance of finance companies that don’t respond to negative blog posts and Facebook groups whose 7000+ members have one thing in common – a poor customer experience at the hands of a leading Australian telco. Its no surprise then that brands are beginning to look at various methods of social media monitoring to pick up on brand references as they appear across the social landscape.

With this in mind it is worth remembering the following points.

1. Not all social media monitoring tools are equal

All social media monitoring tools have their specialties and their particular idiosyncrasies. We use a mix of free and paid tools. Some offer better blog coverage, others have broader news coverage whilst others are attached to vast data farms and allow for greater historic searching than networks like Twitter offer via their own search facilities. Some offer convenience by creating an aggregation platform of the native search tools of the various networks. Some crawl the web broadly like search engines and store what they find.

Others are dependent upon primary directories such as Technorati. Many tools are very Euro or US-centric which can be an issue for Australian brands. It is important to understand the strengths and shortcomings of the social media solutions that you select. Tools with blind spots can create a false sense of security.

2. Nothing is truly “free”

Even if the tools are free, the spongy organic matter that interprets it generally isn’t. You will need staff to monitor and respond to the brand references that you find. Bear in mind that tracking takes time – especially if its not a core activity and if you are using manual tools.

3. Machines don’t always get emotion

Be cautious of relying too heavily upon automated sentiment tracking. Australians – particularly angry or dissatisfied ones – love sarcasm. Machines generally don’t. Machines classify dominant emotion on the basis of keyword combinations. Most times this works – but consider posts like this…”I just love being screwed by my (utility) company”, “I enjoy nothing better than spending my Saturday night on hold to my ISP helpdesk”, or “Another example of the high esteem with which my telco views me”. Positive words – not so positive sentiments. Often it’s contextual and needs a human eye to tell the difference.

4. The things you find can’t always wait

If you think that social media monitoring is historical (like getting the day’s press clippings) just ask Dominos Pizza. Disgruntled customers can generate enormous momentum and issues can escalate quickly – especially when their calls for attention/action go unheeded. Be prepared to check your tracking frequently and act if you need to. Predetermine contact points at each of the relevant internal areas – legal, PR/Comms, Marketing, even Executive if warranted -who understand the need for swift response. Issues left hanging might return the favour.

5. Give your monitoring the resources it deserves

Staff your monitoring like a good customer support desk. If you are going to seriously listen and respond to to the views of your customers, make sure you assign the task to someone with sufficient experience and maturity to take the task seriously and to understand that their actions and responses speak on behalf of your brand. Note that this is about maturity – not age. As Nestle recently discovered, moderating a brand’s Facebook brand page in the same way as some might manage their personal account reflects badly on the brand. While its important for brands to have a personal voice, that voice will reflect the real level of respect and importance with which your brand holds its customer relationships.

6. Consider your responses in advance

If you have come to this point then you understand the need to listen to your customers and to hear what they think about your brand. You’re probably wondering what happens if the news isn’t good? It’s worth beginning to consider now how you would respond to negative comments or, more importantly the process required to intervene to solve a customer’s problem. It will give you comfort to map the process in advance rather than have to create the process and solve the problem on the fly.

Remember that social media doesn’t rely upon your participation to exist – conversations about your brand are happening around you whether you are listening or not. Listening can be confronting – it takes courage. Good luck.

You are undoubtedly the best person to engage with customers on behalf of your brand. But that’s not really the question. I recently read a post by Matt Rhodes of Fresh Networks. Like Affiniti Digital, Fresh Networks are in the business of helping clients take their brands responsibly into the social environment.

In a social world polarized between the zealots who maintain that if you don’t get it you’ve already lost, and those who maintain that social media is simply a passing phase, it is refreshing to hear something balanced and frank.

In part, Matt acknowledged that the person best qualified to engage with customers on behalf of your brand is most probably you, the client. I couldn’t agree more. But for every client whose brand and corporate culture blend adeptly to the requirements of social activity, there are many whose cultures are considerably less agile.

Does this mean that brands should stay out of the pool until they can swim themselves? Or is it OK to appoint a surrogate to ensure that the brand relationship gets off on the right foot – and within a relatively short time span? The short answer to both questions is yes – and this is where agencies and outsourcing can actually add real value.

There are two camps when it comes to socializing a brand. The first, a favourite amongst traditional agencies with a campaign approach to social media, follows the FLIT (facebook, linkedIn and Twitter) formula. This approach involves establishing a presence for the brand within the most topical social environments and works on the assumption that one socializes a brand simply by dropping it into a social context.

One drawback with this approach is that it drops the client in the deep end without providing time for the client’s internal culture to adjust or the guidance required to do so. It gives little consideration to the client’s cultural disposition or capacity to maintain and nurture the social relationships which result from social media activity. I would suggest that many of the recent examples of social issue mismanagement are in part the result in part of this “drop in the deep end” method of socialization.

Nestle’s behavior under fire from Greenpeace is a clear example of an internal culture which despite a good deal of wishful thinking is at odds with the rules, etiquette and expectation of the social environment.

It is a mistake to underestimate the impact of internal culture and sustainability upon a brand’s ability to socialize.

The second camp provides a more strategic approach to socialization. This involves working with clients to move progressively through the steps of the engagement cycle and allows the client to learn the skills (and accrue the resources) required to maintain an organic community. This method demonstrates genuine, responsible progress to internal pressure groups and builds a gradual level of comfort and confidence amongst inhouse legal and PR.

From our perspective, a staged, strategic approach makes for sustainable relationships, broader corporate buy-in and can go a long way toward sparing brands the recent humiliations that have recently attracted the interest of mainstream media.

As Matt’s post points out, it also allows brands to receive the short-term benefit of outsourced assistance. It gives clients a framework to learn within whilst acquiring the skills necessary to bring the brand back to its true custodians down the track.

Image credit: Orchidpoet – Fotolia.com

OK, so you never quite got around to checking out Forrester Research’s Groundswell calculator after you finished the book,right? Not sure what Gary Hayes social media calculator does – or why you should care?

Here’s your chance to find out! As part of an ongoing quest to find and provide our social engagement and social brand monitoring clients with some handy and intriguing tools and calculators from across the social web, we’ve put them in our new Tools and Resources area. Both deal with Australian stats as well!

This is just the beginning so if you have come across other tools or resources in your travels that you would like to share, please let us know. In the meantime, check out Forrester’s Social Technographics Profiler and Gary Hayes’ extraordinary social media counter in the Affiniti Digital Tools & Resources section.

As a footnote, it is well worth a visit to Gary Hayes’ site to check out some other intriguing resources that he has created. MQKPMQRJC6NW

Image credit: Dozet – Fotolia.com

Chicken Little seems to be scripting the pitches for a growing number of companies in the social brand monitoring space.

This morning I was reading a recent article in a leading business magazine about the perils of this supposedly brave new world of social media. Whilst the main article was interesting in itself, what grabbed my attention was a relatively small complementary piece running immediately beneath it. Written from a legal perspective, it explored in some detail the many legal dangers awaiting the intrepid brand manager.

Make no mistake – brands need to be aware of the possible pitfalls associated with social media activity and both articles offered valuable viewpoints. In combination, however they highlighted an emerging polarity in the way that brands are being “sold” the notion of social media – and of brand monitoring in particular.

Sure, in any emerging media there will always be extremes. Zealots, like those espousing the virtues of the internet in the late ‘90s, will inevitably ring in yet another new order and tell established marketers that everything they know is wrong. Despite the extreme nature of this approach, it is atleast positive – and is infinitely preferable to the zealot’s evil twin who instills paranoia and fear.

Unfortunately, there are a growing number of companies who seem to view and encourage their clients to view social brand monitoring purely for damage control and without any intention of customer engagement. There is an inherent risk with this approach. It focuses attention upon tools rather than outcomes. Brand monitoring often falls victim to this. Whilst it forms part of a broader strategy, monitoring the “social conversation” is not an end unto itself.

There is a vast difference between hearing your smoke alarm go off and taking action to put out the fire.

The latter requires engagement. The problem with a fear-driven approach is that it treats monitoring purely as a defensive tool and therefore encourages brands to simply find new ways to be evasive, protective and guarded. This conventional PR lock-down thinking is the antithesis of what the social ethos is about – and it gets brands into trouble.

Implicit in this approach also is the suggestion that involvement in social media (in one form or another) is some sort of optional extra to a brand’s communications plan. I remember having the same conversation in early 2000 when clients were contemplating whether a website might add value to their business.

The thing about social media is that it is just that – “media”. Its survival is not dependent upon your brand’s participation. It exists regardless of whether you believe in it – and the information that it conveys about your brand is not dependent upon your approval.

Lets face it, there have always been discussions about your brand – good and bad. Previously, disgruntled customers would flame your brand on a niche forum or burn you on their website. Typically the spread was relatively limited. It’s about the speed with which things can turn.

There is a new level of connectedness. Social media provides a broadcast method that wasn’t there before. As such it amplifies and spreads news about your brand from consumer to consumer and between social networks with a new speed.

But its not just about bad news.

It is important to remember that a well planned and resourced social media presence provides a platform for a brand to create positive interactions and experiences. Ongoing brand monitoring underpins this activity by providing living, breathing customer intelligence and input.

Brand monitoring should be part of a positive, broader strategy that has engagement and a commitment to transparent communication at its core. A brand’s entry to the social environment should not be driven by fear but by a genuine desire to understand the conversations and disposition of its customers and to enter into conversation with customers in new ways.

If anything, I would like to think that it may mark a subtle shift in thinking whereby brands think more about
communicating with – rather than marketing to- their customers.

Image: Fotolia:© Charles Dykstra 6DKNZ42DAFP2

(Tip of the hat to Adam Singer’s Fear Nothing post for adding fuel to the fire whilst I was writing this.)

Brands and marketers who continue to treat information generated by online sources as isolated and inconsequential do so at their peril.

Yesterday I was talking with a marketing acquaintance. He didn’t consider social media to be particularly topical. In fact his exact words were “oh yeah – social media, blogging, twittering…its all cr@p…I don’t have time for it”. Regardless of what you might think of the delivery, the underlying sentiment is all too familiar and reflects a misconception which is common amongst those who have yet to grasp the implications of the social web. Typically, the thinking goes like this…

1. These people believe that there is a clear distinction between the information produced via “mainstream” media and the “unofficial” user-generated content of the social web.
2. As part of this distinction, they believe that most people (like themselves) view mainstream media as trustworthy and legitimate and consider information provided by online sources as lacking credibility and substance,
3. They believe that this distinction is commonplace and is shared by consumers and journalists alike,
4. As a result of this distinction and the value judgment that goes along with it, they believe that a hard barrier exists between mainstream and online information sources that prevents story ideas (if not the story itself) from passing from the social web to the mainstream media.

Essentially this thinking assumes that social content goes somewhere out of sight and stays there. Its convenient, its comforting – its wishful thinking. Its a dangerous wish for those charged with brand guardianship as it ignores the basic dynamics of the social web. Just ask Dominos.

As Sean Howard says “In today’s world everyone is a publisher, everyone has some level of influence, and everyone has a network of influence “. It also ignores a progressive shift in the relationship between offline and online information. The nasty surprises recently experienced by Dominos Pizza, Toyota Yaris, General Motors, United Airlines and KFC demonstrate the ease and speed with which online stories can find their way into early general news. And these are not a product of some random web search.

The use of social media amongst print and press journalists for research and story ideas is now systemic.

While bloggers have always relied upon “traditional” media for topic ideas and research, a recent report by George Washington University and Cision suggests that the door is now swinging more frequently in the opposite direction. According to the 2009 Social Media & Online Usage Study (http://www.gwu.edu/~newsctr/10/pdfs/gw_cision_sm_study_09.PDF) released last week, mainstream journalists increasingly turn to the user-contributed environment of the social web for story ideas, background and research. If you think that content published online isn’t crossing the species gap, consider this…

• Almost nine out of ten journalists reported using Blogs for their online research (89%). Only Corporate websites (96%) is used by more journalists when doing online research for a story.
• Approximately two-thirds of respondents reported using Social Networking sites and just over half make use of Twitter for online research.
• Blogs (64%) are the most frequently used social media tool to publish, promote and distribute what journalists write, followed closely by Social Networking sites such as LinkedIn, Facebook (60%) and Microblogging sites such as Twitter (57%).

If you actively post stories about your brand within the social media environment, then this is probably good news. If, however, you are the unsuspecting subject of an unauthorized or malicious piece, then the experience is likely to be far less pleasant.

This is not to suggest that mainstream journalists run unverified stories. On the contrary, the Cision report suggests that journalists approach online stories with a higher level of skepticism than those developed by their colleagues in traditional media. What it does suggest is that the social web provides a myriad of sources for stories and information – and journalists don’t seems to share the viewpoint of my cavalier acquaintance mentioned earlier.

A good story is a good story – and good stories move with ease between the worlds of social and traditional media. It is therefore a mistake to underplay the impact that social media content may have on your brand or to underestimate the likelihood of its emergence into mass media.

The increasing importance of social media as source of story ideas means that brands should begin to formulate plans for identifying and managing issues before they become viral – and well before they appear in tomorrow morning’s paper.

Image: Fotolia: © Franz Pfluegl