Is Social Media a sales tool for retailers? A study by Forrester Research and GSI Commerce says Social Media has almost no influence on online purchasing behavior. The survey shows that social media rarely leads directly to purchases online — less than 2% of orders were the result of shoppers coming from a social network. The question is what the ideology of Social Media is for companies… and there are examples like Threadless that can deny such studies. If retailers see it more like listen-to-act approach, pre-selling, sensitising and serving their consumers, then they will be successful in also selling through Social Media.
C-Level is engaging in Social Media! A recent study by Useful Social Media – State of Corporate Social Media 2011 – gives us some compelling charts that describe the trend how the C-Level increasingly gets into Social Media.
Although the European managers are still not completely behind the Social Media vision, the following chart suggests that it won’t be long until European senior C-Levels understand the advantages of Social Media.
How does the future of shopping look like? Mobile will definitely play a massive role for the consumer 2.0, or 3.0?! Where can I get the best bargains? Which company or retailer has the product I want in stock – now and not in 5 days? Sumi Das explores the “ultimate personal shoppers” of tomorrow.
BrightEdge recently uncovered with a research project that social profiles of most leading brands don’t rank well in Google. Although many companies still invest a lot of their budgets in SEM/SEO activities, most of them forget to increase their social media presence from a search results perspective.
The research reviewed 200 of the world’s top brands for their social media presence. Most of the those brands, nearly 100%, stay on top or near the top ranks for their brand names on the SERP’s. However, a high percentage of 71% did not have their Facebook pages in the top 20 results. For Twitter it showed more or less the same result: 68% of the brands surveyed were not amoungst the top 20 results of the Google SERP’s.
“Brands today are pouring countless resources into social media channels and are creating great content that will help them engage with consumers, optimizing these for SEO purposes is a crucial way to drive exposure. Brands may be missing critical customer connection points if consumers can’t easily discover their social media pages in search.” Jim Yu, CEO, BrightEdge
Interestingly enough, there seems to be no necessary correlation between the number of friends and followers and SERP rankings according to the analysis of various social media pages that the BrightEdge surveyed. For example, the Facebook page of a leading photography brand did not perform in the top 20 search results, although more than 160,000 were fans of their Facebook page. On the other hand, a leading auto manufacturer with only 17,307 fans had a Facebook page that ranked in the top 10 of search results.
The least effective brands at optimizing Social Networking sites are coming from the finance and insurance sector. Only three of the top 43 companies had their Facebook pages rank in the top 20 search results. In comparison, retailers were much more successful: 13 out of the top 23 retailers surveyed were found in the top 20 search results.
Brands could argue it is more important to find your homepage or branded pages for products or services in the top search results. Social Media experts might see this different as some of the main brands invest a lot of their branding activities in the leading Social Media sites at the moment. Especially, under the aspect from last year’s report that some big brands reported to loose their traffic on corporate websites to Facebook, the search impact for brands might become more and more important in the future. Would you agree?
Google published a survey (in partnership with the independant marketing research firm Ipsos OTX) and present insights into how U.S. consumers use their smartphones. A video presents key findings from “The Mobile Movement: Understanding Smartphone Consumers”.
The research, conducted at the end of 2010 among 5,013 US adult smartphone Internet users, was meant to better understand how smartphones are used in consumers’ daily lives and how smartphones have influenced the ways consumers search, shop and respond to mobile advertising.
Some of the key findings of the study don’t show special new insights. However it illustrates that we are not alone anymore in our bathrooms any longer. We are taking our friends, business partners and our social graphs to the bathroom… by using our smartphones like we used to read our newspapers or magazines in the past. Google states that 39% admit to having used their smarthone while going to the bathroom.
Some more findings…
– 93% use smartphones at home
– 81% browse the Internet
– 77% do search for information
– 72% do parallel use of smartphone and other media (over 30% like watching TV)
– 45% use smartphone to manage their daily lives
– 20% would give up their Cable TV for using their smartphone
Obviously, Google wanted to find out how smartphone users access search via their mobiles. And no suprise there as well. Search is the leading website type accessed (77%). It helps consumers access information like News (57%), Dining (51%), Entertainment (49%) , Shopping (47%), Technology (32%), Travel (31%), Finance (26%) and Automotive (17%).
Interesting from a marketer’s perspective is that the report actually finds that mobile advertising is engaging. The research states that after seeing an ad (on print, online or mobile) 71% of users search on their smartphones. A remarkable 82% of users notice mobile ads, and of those 49% purchase (!), 42% click on it, 35% access the website, 27% contact the business. This shows the new power of mobile marketing for companies and that marketers should have a close look at mobile marketing opportunities in the future.
PS: And if 39% of people use their iPhones in the bathroom, I don’t want to know how many use their iPads to read the latest news or watch a video, and how this increases the average “bathroom staying time”…
Leadership was, is and will be the most challenging sauce for successful of the future. Have you ever thought what the perfect ingredients of a great leader are? Sarah Robinson has asked her followers on Twitter and created a nice summary. It inclu four priorities in various answers: integrity, inspiration, intelligence and the right portion of initiative. Maybe you have some more?
How does Twitter make money? And is the predicted revenue of 250 Mio. USD realistic? Are their products Promoted Tweets, Promoted Accounts and Promoted Trends a great product line for the future. Harry Gold discusses on Clickz the products and how Twitter makes money.
How can you get crowd-sourced websites stay agile and creative? Ben Huh, CEO of Cheezburger Network, explains how his company tries to identify future potential for growth on communities and websites. He also how he sees a benefit if the core audience shed in favor of a broader target-group. And he talks about the importance of failure. “Failure is not part of a dead end but as a part of a process. Damaging is “if you don’t learn from a mistake or if you don’t take a risk.” Ben sees this as a much bigger problem than failure.
Many web evangelists are sharing their views about the future of the next web these days. What will The Web 3.0 be, and how will it be named? For years people have foreseen The Semantic Web. Some might say, it is The Mobile Web, and know how to illustrate the opportunities (i.e. Augmented Reality) in their video.
Others deny this theory and state it is The Spatial Web.
“What tend to define Web 3.0 as not semantic, but rather the extension of the Web 1.0 (content) and Web 2.0 (Social Graph) into the spatial domain. Web 3.0 web content and social nodes are both tagged with spatial relationships and able to form social relationships based on current location. (…) We at the Web 3.0 Lab thing that by adding more spatial dimensions you will get improved semantic understanding. Much of our social understanding is spatial. Reasoning that some people hope to get out of triplestores we think will emerge out of geo-tagging of information. Spatial arrangements of data will drive interesting conclusions about how that data relates to the real world, how it is used, and therefore what it means.”
And if we listen to the conversation of Dennis Crowley, co-founder of Foursquare, and Robert Scoble, at this year’s Web 2.0 conference, then the power of location-based data will be connecting the dots of user behaviour for future business and customer service strategies. Dennis envisions the future of Foursquare in “listening for what’s going on around you (…) You’re walking down the street and normally you eat lunch, but you haven’t yet. And Foursquare will tell you that you’re close to a sandwich place you read about in the New York Times three weeks ago. And that’s what you want to try.”
Thinking about the development of location-based technology the Web seems to move away from being The Global Web to The Local Web.
In the end, some proclaim Web 3.0 will be The Contextual Web.
“It is a robust procedural grid that understands us, and responds appropriately given the user’s current context.”
Isn’t it funny how we all try to invent our own Web 3.0 stamp as web specialists? And I could imagine different other namings or titles. The Authentic Web. The Realtime Web. The Live Web. And be sure, I will find some explanations for all of the above named. In the end, the Web is about people. People invented and continue to drive the Web – from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 to Web 3.0 – now more conversational, engaging and transactional than ever before. So, why not name it The People’s Web or The Human(ity) Web?
You decide. What title seems most appropriate for you? Come on, let’s discuss…
I am wishing you all a great Easter! Today, we just want to share some fun. And as you will have some time to think about life, here is something to think about…
Think about the new ROI metrics in the future. And we better rethink if we don’t spend more time with our real friends over Easter…
Why spend time with your real friends? To tell them the true story of the Easter rabbit…
…or to remember how nice love could be (if you are not the husband)…
Liest man sich so die letzten Nachlesen zur re:publica durch –hier, hier, hier und hier– so bilden sich mehr und mehr Falten auf meiner Stirn. Nachdenkliche. Fragende. Suchende. Wo ist der Mehrwert der Partizipation an solchen Veranstaltungen über die Zukunft des Web, die da in London, Paris, New York oder eben auch Berlin stattfinden?
Bei jeder Web-Veranstaltung überlege ich: “Teilnehmen oder nicht?” Teilnehmen ist heute mehr Arbeit denn je. Aber nur, wenn ich denn partizipiere, wie das heute heisst. Aber ist Partizipation nun gleich Partizipation? Und wenn ja, wie definiere ich zukünftig das Luxusgut offline einem Event beizuwohnen? Tweets schreiben, Blogpost Resumee anfertigen und im Web kommentieren? Oder meint es eher… Mitmachen. Kommunizieren. Diskutieren. Oder beides? Dann geht es an die Substanz. Dann ist es harte Arbeit.
Aber was wäre modernes Partizipieren 2.0 bei solchen Events? Partizipieren stelle ich mir mal so vor…
Partizipieren wäre interaktiv, z.B. eine Diskussionsrunde, in der Wissen geteilt wird. Es wird moderiert, nicht referiert. Auf die Diskussion bin ich voll konzentriert, und nicht zerstreut umherwandernd zwischen realen und virtuellen Kommunikationssträngen. Ein offener gestalteter Vortrag, der animiert, der frägt, der Wissensteilung ermöglichen will. Jemand, der Imperative wie Teilen, Unterbrechen, Nachfragen als Grundlage des Vortrages sieht. Wann wird ein Zuhörer vom Vortragenden mal persönlich animiert zum Mitdenken? Wann wird man involviert in den Vortrag? Und wann kritisiert ein Zuhörer den Sprecher auf der Bühne (Gedanken an das aristotelische Theater sind hier erlaubt)? Oder wäre das zu spontan, dem “Homo Connectus” unangenehm in der Offlinewelt 1.0? Ist Partizipation 2.0, ein Schritt dem Menschen zu fern…
Seit Jahren erscheint mir fraglich, ob sich die Zeit auf den einschlägigen “Web-Zukunfts-Veranstaltungen” auszahlt. Seit Jahren kommen diese Events sehr brav und angepasst daher im 1.0 Stil daher. Seit Jahren fehlt mir die Symbiose aus Offline- und Onlinediskurs, die selbst Twitterwalls nicht einmal schaffen (wenn vorhanden oder vom Vortragenden/Moderator darauf eingegangen wird…). Wie sinnvoll ist es, der “Web-Avantgarde” unumwunden zuzuhören oder mit ihr den Diskurs online zu pflegen, wenn er offline bei Events nicht existent ist, geschweige denn gelebt wird? Man schaue sich nur an, wie dieser “Inner Circle” an ihren Smartphones, Tablets oder Notebooks klebt. Zuletzt habe ich Tweets von Leute gelesen, die Sprecher oder Moderatoren bei solchen Web-Events am liebsten von der Bühne gezogen hätten. Erkennenswert aufbegehrt hat niemand. Aber haben die Kritiker denn dann wirklich partizipiert im zukunftsträchtigen Sinne?
Oft hatte ich auf nationalen wie internationalen Veranstaltungen der letzten Jahre den Eindruck, eine Community in der Community inszeniere und feiere sich selbst – ohne weiterhin selbst mitzuwirken. “Den Vortrag habe ich schon zigmal gehört, lass uns einen Kaffee trinken gehen…” konnte man mehrfach hören. Muss ich nicht gerade dann den Vortragenden unterbrechen, zum Weiterdenken motivieren, um so “Geteiltes Wissen” zu aggregieren, zu katalysieren, zum Leben zu erwecken? Stehe ich sonst nicht als einstieger Vordenker schnell im Abseits, ohne es zu merken und verhindere den erwünschten Mehrwert für alle?
Noch vor wenigen Jahren galt es als Wissensvorsprung ein Teil der Web-Avantgarde zu sein und bei solchen Events mitmachen “zu dürfen”. Doch dank des Webtrends des “Geteilten Wissen” wird schnell eine Mainstreambewegung des Networking aus diesen Events aufgrund der alten Event-Tradition, Vortrags-Mentalität und Marketingabsichten der Referierenden 1.0. Wo entspringt dem online “geteilten Wissen” mal ein zündender Funke auf modernen Veranstaltungen, der den Offline-Diskurs auf den Plan ruft? Irgendwie beherrscht der lähmende Monolog auch weiterhin die dialogmüden Massen der Eventteilnehmer – zumindest während der Vorträge.
Sobald der Event endet, kehrt der Diskussionsdurst in Blogs schlagartig zurück. Es entsteht Kritik, Lob und Anregungen. Die Blogosphäre lebt auf. Während des Events aber verstummt die viel gepriesene Konversation. Mal aufgrund fehlender Brandbreite, mal aufgrund fehlender Motivation an Partizipationsinitiative oder -motivation. Obwohl doch der Wunsch und Drang da ist, etwas zu sagen.
Kann sich die Web-Avantgarde dank ihrer Blogs gerade deshalb von der Gemeinde des “Web Normalicus” distanzieren? Und macht das den Unterschied zwischen Vordenker 2.0 und Partizipant 2.0 aus? Oder wächst, adaptiert und lernt dieser traditionelle Kommunikationstyp unaufhaltsam. Und lebt inzwischen die Event-Partizipation intensiver und nachhaltiger in persönlichen Gesprächen nach den Vorträgen, ohne aber darüber in Blogs zu philosophieren….?
Vielleicht gehen diese Gedanken aber auch zu weit, zu abwegig, zu revolutionär… Was meint ihr zur Partizipation 2.0?
According to a study released by the BtoB Magazine, 93% of all B2B marketers use social media marketing for their day-to-day activities. For most marketers the most popular channels are LinkedIn (72%), Facebook (71%), Twitter (67%), followed by YouTube (48%), blogging (44%) and online communities (22%).
The main challenge for B2B marketers is a lack of resources (70%) and defining valid success metrics and key performance indicators (57%). Surprisingly enough, the lack of knowledge about social media (44%) is still a big topic… and management resistance (22%).
Statistics are the best argumentation against management resistance, and to get management behind the changing world of your web-strategic efforts. Hubspot’s author Marta Kagan put together 12 mind-blowing arguments that will empower the change your modern web-strategy is heading for.
In order to get your future web-strategy right, companies need to proof their areas of best practice and knowledge. Jacob Morgan published on his blog their companies Adaptive Social Business Strategy (or framework) which in my eyes is an interesting check-list for businesses on their strength and weaknesses from a web-strategy perspective.
The survey polled 200 men and women (35 – 64) to find out what drives this audience towards certain brands and how this might affect the purchasing decision process. The message is: We don’t forget those brands we had when we were young. Our personalities are closely connected with these brands – especially if these brands were associated with positive messages.
“Marketers need to ask themselves if they’re missing the boat when it comes to Boomers. Are they offering them optimism and social conscience, and are they identifying with inherent qualities of their youths? Think of the impact that kind of thinking could have for sports retailers or restaurant chains for instance.” Julie Halpin, Founder and CEO, The Geppetto Group
The study sums up three major findings that are important to know for marketers…
1. 66% of adults are looking for brands that express their personality
For the GenXers and Boomers technology brands express what their personality stands for. Especially if the brands are going hand-in-hand with expressing youthful qualities. Brands like Apple, Dell, Sony and HP were good reflections of their inner selves. And also Levi Jeans are still popular for them, not so much fashion brands like Diesel or Seven for all Mankind.
2. 57% of adults are challenging brands to surprise and delight them
The study finds that Boomers get exhited about brands that for younger generation might come along as boring. For Boomers brands like Swiffer, Keurig and Under Gear can be surprising again, the study reads. On this point I would have loved to get a clearer picture of how the argumentation
3. Optimism and (corporate) social ethics are important for Boomers
Are these values becoming more and more important, the more people experience in life? Is this because you think more about life, the older you get? The study states that brands that incorporate optimism and social responsibility in their messaging score 12-13 points higher for Boomers than for the Gen Xers.
Buying brands people always want to make a statement about their personality. Some to bolster their identity, some to define their personality – some to show off. Brands play a massive role in the process of self-definition in our global value system. If Boomers purchase products we used to think that trust and reliability plays a big role in the purchase process. The study now illustrates that the messages the “In” brands spread out, don’t necessarily reach the Boomers that are more aligned with the brands of the past, and might be embracing optimistic messaging than just running after the “latest and greatest” of the younger generation. For me it also makes clear that the value system of brands needs to be reviewed.
Some day sago, I have written about the changing atmosphere since social media monitoring companies are moving into the CRM sector. Andrew Hunt discusses the issue if “Sales is killing Social Media?” and explains how B2B sales is changing from both sides: Customer are at least “spectators” according to a Forrester study. The question is when companies are changing their sales process to a “listen and engage” model for the old “speak and push” format, where he refers to an interesting insight from OgilvyOne about the future of selling.
A recent Penn State research claims that updates on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and other real-time content sites could be worth more than 30 million USD a day, or nearly 10.9 billion dollars a year, to advertisers. The study was based on separating duplicate searches from unique search terms. Then, the research determined the value of the real-time search terms by using Google Adwords Traffic Estimator.
Start the day with a smile and don’t invest in the wrong portfolio… Nice commercial from Invesco.