Twitter's all the rage right now. In social media and digital marketing circles, Twitter seems to be taking over the world.
I have a different perspective: it's not. For all of Twitter's growth, I believe it has yet to achieve what it needs to achieve to become a viable marketing platform for businesses.
Social and viral media expert Dan Zarella has posted the results of a fascinating study: the numbers and semantics behind getting Twitter followers to ReTweet tweets, thereby amplifying and expanding upon messaging by using Twitter's built-in viral aspects.
Few marketers will be surprised by the fact that a simple call-to-action matters. A lot. Simply adding the phrase "please retweet" just plain works much of the time.
Zarella's semantic analysis of what gets ReTweeted reveals the following:
- Timely content is often ReTweeted
- Freebies are popular
- Tweeting about Twitter is effective
- So are lists
- People like to ReTweet blog posts (he doesn't specify if this refers the original tweeter's own blog, but irregardless - Twitter users are also highly active in the blogosphere.)
Oh, and don't forget to mind your manners. Requesting a Retweent politely and remembering to say "please" ups the ReTweeting odds by nearly a 6X factor.
Brand managers are paid handsome salaries largely to optimise and protect their brands. This means raising the key brand metrics (reach, awareness, favourability, etc) and avoiding brand damage.
In today's multichannel environment I argue that brands need to be monitored, represented and protected online. I wrote an article last week that generated some interesting discussion around whether or not companies should be climbing onboard the Twitter train. Some argue that there's no point ('it isn't big enough' / 'how would you use it?') and others think that it is ripe for engagement.
My own argument can be boiled down to this: even if you don't actively use these sites today, you might as well make sure that you're in a position to use them tomorrow.
This means owning the brand names...
In recent posts, I've discussed Twitter and the ways companies are attempting to use it to drive business.
As much as I think Twitter is one of the more interesting social media platforms out there, I'm admittedly skeptical about its ability to charge fees, especially when it comes to commercial accounts.
Recently we’ve been looking more and more at the online performance of brands, which is increasingly key to success in a multichannel world.
Historically, many FMCG brands have not considered their products as being relevant for the internet, and certainly not in terms of e-commerce. It is understandable. Nobody really visits Google to find a place to buy a Coke.
Nevertheless, the brand owners spend countless millions, and in some cases billions, on multichannel advertising campaigns. Partly because they have to, and partly because they can.
But here’s the truth of the matter: many ad campaigns aren’t delivering what they should be because budgets aren't being invested into digital channels to encourage (and capture) engagement.
All too often the internet (and mobile) is a last-minute thought, when it should be built into a campaign at the outset. More than that, it should now be hardwired into marketing strategies by default.
Recently, an underground rethinking of blogging practice began to hit the headlines; that of Slow Blogging. In a nutshell, this is where blog-posts are generated over a length of time with the aim to display a deep knowledge of the subject matter, rather than churning out quick content at a regular pace.
Displaying a thorough understanding of their services, products and industry can be highly beneficial to the promotional and marketing activities of many businesses, but at what speed should we really be blogging?
We've been talking a lot about Twitter lately. Everybody has. The popular microblogging service continues to grow rapidly in popularity and seems to be making the transition from a first-adopter favorite to a bona fide mainstream property.
But as it does so, the one topic that can't be avoided: Twitter's lack of a business model. Despite the fact that it has raised a lot of money from venture capitalists, at some point the legions of loyal Twitter users will want to see their favorite service fly under its own power. That means that a scalable and sustainable business model must be developed.
Companies, organisations and social media aficionados alike are
discovering that Twitter is a great way to reach wide audiences though
a long term investment in short sharp communication.
After publishing an interview with Dog's Trust about its use of Twitter for raising awareness and fundraising, I've had quite a few contacts from charities and representatives who also use Twitter.
Following the example of PRBlogger's very useful list of UK journalists on Twitter, I've compiled one for charity organisations and others who are using the service to promote some worthy causes.
There are more charities using Twitter than I first thought, but there are a few big names I haven't found Twitter accounts for, NSPCC, Childline, RSPCA are just three that spring to mind.
Social marketing, Web 2.0 - whatever you call it, proponents and gurus of the forms on online marketing that involve consumer-generated media and user participation constantly stress the conversational aspects of marketing in Web 2.0 channels. Some have gone so far as to dub this "conversational marketing."
All those drop-what-you're-doing news bulletins that begin, "The blogosphere is buzzing about..." are so 2005. The latest channel to attract attention is the first one that's literally a conversation: Twitter.
Slews of marketers are jumping into Twitter with both feet to participate: to show off domain knowledge, create promotions on-the-fly, to publicize upcoming events and sales - the possibilities are endless.
But what very few marketers, advertisers and brands are listening to Twitter - they're reiterating the same mistakes they made at the very beginning of Web 2.0.