Credeti că este ușor să folosești social media ?

Uite că un pic de planificare nu strică, dacă vrei și ai nevoie de social media. Digital Marketing Forum 2013 mi-a dat posibilitatea să mă uit cu atenție spre diverse metode și propuneri relevante despre cum să folosești social media. Trebuie să ai un plan serios, care înseamnă actiuni tactice, măsurare, dozare și planificare. Să nu inventăm roata, ci să descoperim cea mai bună roată. Ca de exemplu un Social Media Plan for Events. De la Marketo.

The Ultimate Social Media Event Marketing Checklist from Marketo

Naked truth despre social media...un comentariu

Zoso sustine ca prin acest clip niste australieni spun ca     hiperbolizarea social media ne-a luat mintile. Si ca trebuie proiectat prin Romania, acolo unde se reunesc cei care sustin ca social media rulz! Zic eu: "Vedeti cum ideile bune sunt tarate in noroi cu un simplu clip ?! Uite in ce hal s-a ajuns..:).....Cu adevarat uitam ca atunci cind vorbim de social media vorbim de cei care au calculatoare, au acces la Internet, au stiinta si educatia de a le folosi, sunt in target...etc...Cati din lumea asta sunt, 200 de milioane ? Despre ce masa de consumatori vorbim ? Am mai zis si eu asta, uneorim, dar putina lume asculta, ca suntem prea social-media-centristi. Este buricu' pamantului, chestia asta. In realitate, cind cobori in strada, in mediul social, social media nu exista aproape de loc. A ramas acolo in infrastructura hardware si cam atat. Nu o vezi. In schimbi vezi alte instrumente de comunicare. Cu alte cuvinte, sa nu hiperbolizam social media, sa nu o diminuam, dar sa ne vedem de treaba: toate instrumentele se amesteca in proportia potrivita, cu continut potrivit, la timpul potrivit, si totul se serveste la frapiera. Meniu complet, nu entry menus."

Accident rutier si social media

O intamplare recenta ne arata o fateta a importantei social media in Romania, dar ne spune si lucruri semnificative despre cum functioneaza societatea romaneasca. Relatarea povestii in blogul lui Cristian Manafu, aici: http://bit.ly/mQs8iN

1) Un om are un blog; 2) Semnaleaza in blog o fapta penala; 3) Persoana vatamata are activitate in online; 3) Prin Twitter este anuntata fapta penala; 4) O persoana cunoscuta in online preia semnalarea; 5) Prin relatii transmite informatia la un post tv; 5) Acesta preia informatia si ii asigura coverage; 6) Autorul faptei penale este identificat.

Eu cred ca la intamplare au fost de fata trecatori. Intr-o tara civilizata, era suficient, de pe margine, sa dai telefon la 112 sa comunici numarul de inmatriculare. Oricum autoritatile cam in 24 de ore identifica persoana. Am avut parte de 3 astfel de intamplari, in familie, cu accidente usoare care ne-au afectat pe mine si copii mei. Intotdeauna autoritatea astepta 24 de ore ca faptasul sa se “predea”. Nu am inteles de ce sau poate am inteles gresit.

Calculati urmatoarele probabilitati si relatia dintre ele: cati romani sunt activi in online (cati romani sunt angrenati in aceasta activitate ? cati romani au acces la Internet ?), cati au si cunostintele potrivite (cati cunosc o persoana care sa fie activata pentru a sustine cauza), cate dintre cunostintele potrivite au acces la un post TV ? si veti vedea ca dl. Craciun, in mod nefericit afectat de intamplare, a avut noroc sa se poata ajunge la identificarea suspectului/suspectei. Daca acesta a fost parcursul.

Poate ca mai potrivit are fi sa ne dorim o tara in care, cat mai multe persoane sa aiba acces la justitie si la a li se face dreptate, fara sa aiba parte de n coincidente fericite.

Este bine ca s-a intamplat si asa, dar de ce trebuie sa suplineasca aceste coincidente inclusiv activitatea in online, buna functionare a justitiei, a facerii dreptatii ? Sunt milioane de oameni in Romania ce nu pot si nu au cum sa foloseasca acest sistem alternativ. Cat va mai dura asta ?

PS: Din ce am mai citit in presa in ultimii ani, probabil ca ati ramas cu aceeasi impresie, toate intamplarile nefericite-accidente rutiere, cu fuga de la locul accidentului, ajung la condamnare cu suspendare (mortale, raniri usoare). De ce romanii fug de la locul accidentului, in majoritate ? De ce nu isi asista victima si de ce nu isi asuma fapta ? Si asta este gandul care te intristeaza. In Turcia daca esti prins cu detector de radar esti arestat, daca ai facut un accident cu victime, esti arestat, daca in SUA esti prins baut, esti arestat 24 de ore, cel putin. Romanii ? Sunt o veselie de popor…fara de lege…Sau ma insel ?

Playing engagement with social media and revisiting Noelle-Neumann

Dear Zuzana, dear all,

I am sceptic, critical, rationalist type. And I see relativity in a lot of things around us. What means "engaging"? If it is an action of communicating with audiences, in multiple and diverse ways, giving and receiving feedback, in this way a corporation will not keep the pace. Because addressing thousands of individuals, listening to them on a one by one basis, this is disruptive. No corporation will have, but will pretend, such a disruptive communication approach as no corporation has the ressources to do this. So if by engaging we mean "engaging", this would mean splitting the communication corporation to fit the segmentation of the real population. So if engaging is at the level of numbers, gender, race, education, residence, this would not be engaging. Example, could you engage with your neigbours ? With how many, and could you do it simultaneously ?

For the reasons explained before: yes, if the corporations are mad enough to really engage, this could pose a risk to them. What we see is that corporations pretend that they are engaged with social media, but are they really engaged ? Do we have a methodology agreed to benchmark engagement with social media ?

I also would point to the fact that real communication and real engagement is not possible. No real communication is possible because this would mean that the corporation, step by step, listening to their customers, would aim to modify the product/service to satisfy the consumer, to the very end that it would not be economic to produce it ? Because always a consumer would require, let's presume, a cheap Ferrari ! Engaging is mostly about listenning to consumers, taking feedback and adapting services and products? Could this happen? I think no. Corporations want to sell us many things we do not need. Today you buy a TV set that tomorrow is old. Although yo can keep a TV set for 4-5 years, as fast you have buyed one, the next one is on OOH.

In real terms, engaging would mean the lost of the identity of a corporation. Nowadays corporations are pretending that they are truly engaged, play small games of engagement, and yes, we all are astonished afterwards. But did they corporations changed the product? Did a tobbaco company closed its doors/capacity for its production is damaging the health? Etc....etc....There is large scale play about engagement and corporations.

My case is that the real point of social media, is that it breaks the silence spiral described by Noelle-Neumann: people which are afraid to speak in their inner circle, because they tend to conform to social norms, break-out in Facebook, Twitter, make their group of friends and speak out. Social media is not new. Yahoo! Groups are old age (discussion groups they have acquired in the 90's), discussion lists at the beginning of the Internet existed, messenger is another example (for how many years this service exists?), mobile phone is an instrument of social media (conferencing via phone is available in GSM from the beginning, or real-time chatting through GSM platform). Social media are forums, which are with us for many years around. What is new is the importance we give to them today. 

But I wouldn't make of social media the god above all. Be cautious when a corporation pretends is engaged with social media. Is it indeed ? How it did affect the product or the service it provides ? And is accountable and transparent to explain how listening to customers made the product better and in which way? Or is it a spinnning exercise whose end we cannot have the time and ressources to check and fail in the end to be convinced: "Whoa, that big corporation listened to us customers!". Today a corporation barely recognizes that it has problems, see Toyota case. The attracting power of wishful thinking is sometimes blinding us.