Those involved in social media – myself included – naturally view it as being of major significance. However, viewing it that way doesnt necessarily make it so. And in some quarters there is tacit scepticism surrounding the extent of that significance.

So I thought it worthwhile to throw out some questions (see below) and to collect views beyond the social media blockades. If you have suggestions about other topics that we might collectively explore, please leave a comment or let me know by other means.

They are simple but important questions – and I’d appreciate your thoughts.

Question 1:

Question 2:

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I’ll update results along the way in future posts.

Image: CJohns – Fotolia.com

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

On the morning of Jan 6, the New York Times New York edition ran an article claiming that the world’s 3rd largest fashion chain had intentionally and systematically damaged and dumped unsold stock outside its 34th street outlet.

In a city where the economic crisis remains a painful daily reality to many Americans, a third of the population is poor (according to the New York Times) and temperatures are particularly harsh, a story about corporate greed, senseless waste and neglect of the poor and homeless will always galvanise opinion. It also sells newspapers.

Not surprisingly, the story spread swiftly through the social media networks, picked up by bloggers and online news services looking for content. The story began to generate its own heat, and by the end of the day H&M was in the midst of a social media-fuelled public relations crisis.

But H&M are no strangers to social media. Actively developed networks on Facebook and multiple twitter accounts mean that H&M have more than 1.4 million individual Facebook fans – each with their own network of friends – and around 22,000 Twitter followers globally.

To put this into perspective, H&M’s primary audience dwarfs the New York Times daily circulation. Notionally, H&M’s Facebook page has a larger population than Dallas. Whichever way you cut it, H&M have some serious social media clout at their disposal.

But its not just about the numbers. Its also about the relationship. In times of crisis, it is this relationship of trust between the brand and its fans that gives brands with social networks enormous opportunities. It allows senior personnel to talk directly with the brand’s loyal customers, to discuss and address their concerns, and to put H&M’s case rationally, intelligently and without fear of media distortion. They can humanize the issue and engage customer support in a way that was unimaginable in a web 1.0 world.

As the issue gained momentum and the term “H&M” became Twitter’s number 2 trending topic, H&M were well placed to tap into their vast network of established relationships, arm their brand advocates with correct, timely and regular information, present H&M’s story honestly and openly and enlist their fans assistance to help champion their side of the story.

But that’s not what happened.

Things started off well enough. When the issue found its way to H&M’s Facebook page, the response was swift and direct…

“H&M is committed to taking responsibility for how our operations affect both people and the environment. Our policy is to donate any damaged usable garments to charity. We’re currently investigating an incident in a NY store that is not representative of our policy. We will follow with more information as soon as we are able. H&M’s US sales operation donates thousands of garments each year through Gifts In Kind Int’l.”

This post pre-empted the concerns of H&M’s fans, reinforcing the values of the brand, defining and limiting the scope of the issue to one isolated store and acknowledging H&M’s obligation to keep their loyal fans informed. Armed with this expectation, H&M’s highly valued, socially connected brand loyal customers waited in the midst of increasingly negative sentiment for “more information”. And waited. And waited.

They waited for H&M to do what is expected of a brand that actively develops its social networks – to engage in honest dialogue with their fans and communicate openly about issues that affect their relationship with the brand. Unfortunately, this was to be the last post that directly addressed the issue for nearly 22 hours. Despite the brand’s formidable social media resources, meaningful dialogue between H&M and their fans stalled.

It seemed that somewhere inside H&M the social media team seats were quietly removed from the table as H&M switched to the old PR terrain of guarded wording and indirect communication.

After the initial holding statement above, H&M made three related posts. They also posted 3 marketing promotional posts like “Want to be featured on an H&M t-shirt? Visit hm.com/blackbook for your chance” that stood out starkly amongst the growing number of posts from outraged fans and sent a message about priority to those waiting for more information. Meanwhile, the issue continued to gather momentum.

The next post, which appeared 3 hours after the initial post directed visitors to a “statement” on the CSR section of H&M’s website…

“H&M is committed to taking responsibility for how our operations affect people and the environment. Visit www.hm.com/csr for an updated statement. Please contact H&M via www.hm.com/csr to specifically address this situation.

This standard statement was then posted repeatedly as a brand response to some of the increasing number of negative comments appearing throughout the day.
One fan picked up on this curious practice…

“You know whats funny? that you are just simply pasting the same response to every comment about this shameful situation you are in. Why dont you post something where you actually admit and explain…

Instead of providing a genuine update – if only to let fans know that they had not been forgotten and that the investigation was continuing – the statement on hm.com.csr (below) was so general that it left some readers wondering if the “statement” was actually a response to the clothing destruction issue or a generic press release about H&M’s community initiatives.

H&M donates clothes to charity
“H&M is committed to taking responsibility for how our operations affect people and the environment. We donate garments that do not meet our quality requirements to organisations such as UNHCR, Caritas, the Red Cross and Helping Hands. When possible, we also donate faulty garments that have been returned to our stores. However, we do not donate clothes that do not meet our safety requirements, chemical restrictions or are damaged. We have agreements with reputable aid organisations in most of our sales countries. In total, more than 500,000 pieces of H&M garments were donated during 2009.”

Readers were left to extract the relevant information – presumably that the clothes in question must have somehow been damaged, unsafe or somehow chemically compromised.

If this was the intended message then there was a problem.

During the course of the day, a spokesperson for H&M contacted the New York Times. Toward the end of the day, the NYT City Room released an updated story containing quotes which seemed at odds with the distributed statement.

According to the New York Times, “H & M promised on Wednesday that it would stop the practice of destroying new, unworn clothing that it could not sell at its store in Herald Square…, and would instead donate the garments to charities”. “It will not happen again,” said Nicole Christie, a spokeswoman for H & M in New York. “We are committed 100 percent to make sure this practice is not happening anywhere else”.

Whilst the condition of the damaged clothing wasn’t all that clear, what was becoming clear was that whilst H&M were discussing the issue with journalists, information was not being passed to their loyal fans – who were left to discover this recent development for themselves. As a result, the issue surged again that night as awareness of the NYT update grew and fans became increasingly frustrated with H&M ’s apparent unwillingness to engage directly with them.

H&M’s next post did nothing to ease this frustration. H&M changed its blanket response slightly – instructing Facebook fans to “Please e-mail info.us@hm.com for questions or comments concerning our H&M stores in NY”. Cynical Facebook fans viewed this as an attempt to take the conversation out of the public eye. One fan asked why comments and questions were not being dealt with openly on the Facebook page. Senior H&M personnel had still not sought to engage directly with fans within the Facebook environment.

But someone else did. In the void created by H&M’s continued silence, H&M staff took up the cause. Many responses provided information that H&M arguably should have been providing officially. Others, whilst well intended, did little to help the situation. This may have been avoided if H&M had been prepared to engage with its fans.

28 hours after Tim Lynch’s post first brought the article to the attention of the Fan Page admin, the long awaited outcome of the “investigation” was posted…

“We have examined the situation surrounding the garments found outside of our 34th Street store. It is important to note that these garments were already damaged, and did not meet our safety standards or had been used for in-store display. Going forward, we are reevaluating what we categorize as “damaged” garments and we continue to be committed to donating as many of these items as possible to aid organizations. H&M annually donates hundreds of thousands of garments to charity and aid organizations, and will continue to do so. For a list of organizations and more information regarding our corporate social responsibility, please visit www.hm.com/csr.”

H&M fans processed this response with a skepticism borne of more than two days without meaningful information…

“I Dont Believe That For A Min…..If it took u this long to come up with an excuse, U should have made it MUCH better than the one u have given us. If u think anyone will believe that, then they are just as dumb as your company

It’s hard to trust that “reevaluating what we catagorize as “damaged”" doesn’t just mean, “In the future we will try not to let members of the public find all the clothes we throw out.” Former staff members from various stores across the country have confirmed it was standard to cut up and throw out garments.

I think everyone should speak their voice by removing themselves as a fan.

H&M appeared in the media later the same day, providing their detailed response to the issues raised by the New York Times to Fashion Week Daily. Whilst drawing largely from content previously released, this was the most detailed response to date. However, H&M did not post the same detail provided to Fashion Weekly to its waiting Facebook fans. Instead, H&M provided a non-specific post with a link to the Fashion Week article…“H&M responds at fashionweekdaily.com/news/fullstory.sps?inewsid=6644822.”

Thereafter H&M responded periodically with “ H&M responded at fashionweekdaily.com/news/fullstory.sps?inewsid=6644822” to negative posts related to the issue.

Facebook fans aren’t the only ones left wondering what happened. With such a formidable social resource at its disposal, one can only wonder what motivated H&M to inform the press but not its fans, why senior H&M personnel chose not to communicate directly and frequently with its facebook fans and why 1.4 million loyal customers were treated as a liability to be managed instead of an asset to be engaged.

Image: © microimages – Fotolia.com NHAP3AZMGRAU.

Recently I stumbled upon Seth Godin’s typically erudite definition of brand value. According to Seth…”a brand’s value is merely the sum total of how much extra people will pay, or how often they choose, the expectations, memories, stories and relationships of one brand over the alternatives.” Hmmm.

It struck me that expectation and relationship are particularly relevant to those charged with managing and enhancing a brand’s digital presence. As each is a full post in itself, this post deals with the notion of expectation.

The digital environment is remarkably caustic – it can strip away the wishful thinking of brand managers or board members in an instant. It can efficiently remove years of expensive branding from the surface of your product in seconds. As such your digital presence can provide a brutally honest reflection of the real nature of your brand – and the online experience that it provides can have a considerable impact.

How considerable? According to the findings of the 2009 Razorfish Digital Brand Experience Report, 65% of consumers in the study reported that they have had a digital experience change their opinion about a brand. 97% of them report that experience influencing whether or not they purchased a product or service from that brand”.

This is not necessarily bad news

Depending upon your perspective this can be good or bad news. Done correctly, your digital presence can extend the relevance of a brand and ultimately engage a whole new segment of prospective customers.

However, the blade cuts both ways. Provide an experience which is inconsistent with how the customer would expect your brand to behave and you may end up with the customer using a blog post, a tweet, or a negative post on a review site to rally support and define your brand for you.

Employing new methods to engage customers is only part of the picture. All too often it’s the basics that let a brand down. The choices you make about seemingly benign web content can send powerful messages about your brand and what it really stands for.

It can be what you don’t say that counts…

For example, absence of meaningful brand credentials (a favourite of brands that dominate their home jurisdictions) can be taken as arrogance. Similarly, failure to provide sufficiently detailed product information can be viewed as closed and defensive. Limited or outmoded contact methods say a great deal about how approachable, helpful and customer-centric a brand really is.

If you don’t think that these things affect the way your brand is perceived, ponder this…

1. 41% decided not to make a planned purchase because they couldn’t readily find a piece of information about the product or service. (JupiterResearch, September 2007)
2. Online businesses lose as many as 6% of consumers due to a lack of online product information. (Allurent, January 2008)
3. 94% of UK shoppers leave sites with inadequate customer service. (Econsultancy, July 2009)

The features, options and content that you include say a lot about the nature of the relationship between your brand and its customers. With this in mind it is good practice to regularly review the components of your digital presence individually and collectively to see if your brand values are truly reflected.

If your brand is meant to be helpful do your offer features and options that are consistent with that position? If friendly and responsive, do you actually provide genuine feedback options to allow customers to tell you what they think. If your brand is truly innovative, prove it with examples and blog posts about your latest innovations instead of just telling your customers.

It always pays to remember that it is often what goes unsaid which speaks loudest about a brand and its true values. It is important to be aware of the messages that you send.

As consumers we are supposed to be getting smarter – or at least more rational.

To help with this evolution, the internet offers an endless array of comparison and peer review sites designed to help you locate the ultimate house, camera, insurance policy or nanny – all with a few mouse clicks. These sites are intended to remove emotive brand triggers and bring consumers back to the empirical fold.

Purists hold this as the ideal model because it provides an empiric, non branded comparison environment which places the emphasis on features and price. In doing so, in theory anyway, it reduces or removes the less tangible emotive qualities that give branded products a level of dominance that sometimes outweighs the product’s tangible features. These emotive factors are frequently dismissed as noise.

There’s no doubt that this style of rational purchasing behaviour is very popular. In fact, according to BIG Research, 89% of consumers making in-store purchases in key retail categories have conducted online research prior to purchase. This would lead you to think that we can all look forward to becoming far more sensible consumers.

However, it may be that our own method of reasoning may work against us.

Earlier this year, accomplished author and Wired journo Jonah Lehrer reviewed a paper by Leonard Lee, Dan Ariely, and On Amir published in the Journal of Consumer Research which suggests that consumers who use their emotional reasoning are actually more consistent in their decision-making.

As Lehrer relates; “It is possible consumers would be much happier with choices based more on their emotional reaction. For example, if one buys a house and relies on very cognitive attributes such as resale value, one may not be as happy actually living in it, as opposed to a person who attends to his or her emotional reaction to the house prior to purchasing it.

Indeed, our results suggest that the heart can very well serve as a more reliable compass to greater long-term happiness than pure reason… subjects who relied more on their emotional system made a more consistent set of decisions.”

He goes on to say that “The scientists (Lee, Ariely and Amir) speculate that the internet leads consumers to engage in more rational deliberation, since there are fewer affective cues…and yet, this sort of thinking might also lead to consumer inconsistency.”

The irony, as Lehrer observes is that it may actually turn out that the more we try to be rational, the more we come to rely on our less tangible natures.