A couple of classes ago, we spent a significant amount of time trying to identify influencers for our clients. Glad we did that exercise, but coming across this article (Why Online Influencer Outreach is Overrated and How to Fix It), I wonder if we missed out on advocates, and prematurely went straight to the influencers.

This article draws a distinction between the two simply stating that influencers are those with large audiences and can help drive awareness around an idea whereas advocates are those that truly have passion for an idea and share it for no other reason, thus having ability to drive action. Generally speaking, while awareness is desirable, in an influencing campaign, action is more so and is what actually marks true influence. And let’s be honest here, advocates have more legitimacy than influencers. I mean, you’re more likely to believe Pepsi tastes good because your friend told you rather than because Britney Spears sang about it, right? Anyway, the article goes on to advise that you should start with advocacy and then find an audience (via influencers) to truly promote the kind of action you’d like to see.

Now here’s my two cents: for amplification purposes or to promote some kind of action, yes, my feeling is that an advocate’s role has higher weight because it’s more legitimate and authentic. But, in terms of crisis management or response to negative sentiment, influencers might have higher weight simply because they have larger audiences and news would travel like wild fire through their networks. This being said, the two parties complement one another and are both important when it comes to monitoring social media, so it’s important to see how both fit in to the picture.

Check out these profiles below (sourced from another article by the same publisher) to get an idea of how an advocate differs from an influencer. Click on the image to make it bigger.

Facebook, Twitter, Google – these are all websites that we as users get to enjoy for free. So how do these boys make money, if we’re not paying anything for their services? Advertising, of course! But this no longer refers to internet giants simply selling media space on their online hubs, these guys are selling something a lot more valuable – consumer’s real thoughts and feelings. As TechCrunch puts it in this interesting article, think: “Word of mouth, sponsored. Trusted recommendations, promoted. Reviews from friends, endorsed.”

Again, this is a great example of convergence of media – taking earned media and letting marketers pay to augment the visibility (and overall potential) of this media. For example, say Mary likes Nike’s Facebook page. Nike can then pay Facebook to sponsor this story and boost its visibility on newsfeeds or have it come up in the sidebar, encouraging more of Mary’s friends to take similar actions. This is a lot more valid than simply buying media space on Facebook because consumers are more likely to listen and be interested when they see their friends, or people they know are too.

If we look at all these social media networks, we see the key to monetization is in the data, i.e. everything we as consumers say and do on these websites. To some extent this is used for more effective targeting (see my blog post on Lookalike audiences), but as seen above, we’re shifting more towards this new model of harnessing what’s true and authentic in all the positive actions consumers take towards your brand (earned media) and boosting it with ad dollars (paid media) for the world to see.

To me this means advertising that is more real and relevant in the utilitarian point of view, though the implications behind privacy are a whole other ethical debate.

Earned media is where it’s at because:

1. It’s the most valuable (we all know that word of mouth is the most effective form of advertising)
2. It’s free! No need so spend ad dollars to get your message out because your loyal consumers are doing it for you.

And how do we get earned media? Quite simply, by creating ideas worth sharing.

This being said, its rare that a company would generate a significant share of earned media on its own without some convergence or integration with either paid or owned media.

Here are some examples of marketers doing it right and really leveraging their own media to gain a large share of earned media.

 “I’m sorry” video – In 2009, O.B. tampons went missing from store shelves due to a temporary supply interruption leading to a national outcry. When the tampons eventually came back, O.B. was armed with an apology song accompanied with a cheesy video of a handsome musician serenading the audience on his piano.  Even better, the song could be customized to the viewer – before watching the video the viewer is asked to type their name in and then see it appear all throughout the song (tattooed on the singer’s arm, written across the sky, etc.) in an over the top, but incredibly charming and uplifting video. While the apology video no longer runs, you can see the video below to get a sense of the campaign. Imagine your name in place of “Heather”!

 “Booty Break” interactive website – When L’oreal launched its new line of Vichy products, CelluDestock, it launched it through its “Booty Break” campaign which featured an online interactive website of different men stripping down to their boxers and allowing you to select a man (and watch them shuffle down a line as you evaluate each booty before picking one) and then clicking buttons like “wiggle”, “dance” and “flex” to truly enjoy their bootys! While bootybreak.com is no longer accessible, you can check out the teaser below to get a sense of the concept.

By spending the money upfront to create creative media, both L’oreal and O.B. were able to capture a huge portion of earned media. Both of these are great examples of how to tactically converge owned and earned media to get an attractive return on your marketing initiatives!

Now I’m sure a lot of us have seen Marina Shifrin’s video on Youtube where she quits her job through an interpretive dance on the pretext that her boss cares more about the quantity of views on a video rather than quality of content.  This video has been up for about a week now and its already got over 13 million views. And I can’t help but say that I think it’s brilliant!

A few days after it came out, New Media Animation (the company she was resigning from) responded with a parody version. It was the same song, same style, but the aim of the message seemed to be rather defensive: “We are a great company to work for and we want everyone to know that we are hiring”.

Did they do a good job of responding? Sadly, I’m going to have to say no! And the key issue here is that they really just weren’t listening and while they were quick to respond, I fear that their response was more harmful than it was helpful. If you see the comments in their video, there’s a lot of negativity and way more dislikes than likes.

Marina states off the bat in her video that NMA is a great company to work for and was simply trying to make a point about how to make good videos by focusing on content. Yes, it was still rather embarrassing for NMA, but she did make the point – her content led to 13 million views in a week whereas NMA’s videos rarely make it to a million.

So what would have been a better response from NMA instead of stating they were an awesome company and were now hiring? Maybe something that simply said: “We heard you Marina, you made a good point and we are thankful for you bringing this to our attention”. Their current response seems a lot more personal and lacks class, originality and wit.

Wonder if they even have a crisis response strategy because if they do, it either isn’t a good one or they just did not apply it well here! I’d be worried abour reputation if I was NMA.

A couple of classes ago we were asked to think about “social media objectives” and someone brought up targeting in the sense that a lot of young people are on Facebook (amongst other social media platforms) and that it is therefore easier to “target” them. While it’s a valid point, let’s delve a bit deeper into what targeting through social media really means. When companies are advertising, they want maximum return on their ad dollars, and that really comes through being able to get the right message to the right people, at the right time, or in other words, effective targeting.

Facebook’s advertising feature Lookalike audiences launched in March 2013 is a great example of how a company might be using social media for targeting purposes. Before going into lookalike audiences, let’s quickly go over custom audiences, Facebook’s previous (and still existing) offering. Using this tool, advertisers can upload customer lists (emails, phone numbers or Facebook UIDs) to target these users on Facebook through targeted ads. As Loomer points out, this is perfect targeting, if you want to keep reaching the same people (your current customers) with every ad campaign, but it doesn’t do much to generate new customers, and that’s a huge part of advertising. That’s where lookalike audiences come in.

The lookalike audiences tool allows advertisers to target users with similar characteristics to their custom audience, or according to Facebook: “Lookalike audiences let you reach new people who are likely to be interested in your business because they are similar to a customer list you care about.” 

On the advertising side, this is definitely a great tool to launch your message and make sure it gets seen by the right people. And from the consumer’s point of view, yes, it’s a little bit creepy, but if tools like this mean that I get more relevant (and hopefully useful) advertising my way I’d probably be happier.