The Sounding Board

The New Currency of Social Impact

At Fortune’s recent meeting of the minds, Brainstorm Tech 2010, a panel of non-profit and foundation executives urged the technology community to provide not just educational and business-building know-how, but also consider more financial contributions.

The takeaway here is that tech companies need to be balanced when it comes to their corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs. Throwing money at a non-profit that doesn’t have a solid organizational infrastructure and business knowledge might result in squandered resources. Alternatively, dumping a large mindshare of business best practices on a non-profit without some discussion of a level of commitment for financial contributions may lead to a lot of talk about great ideas that ultimately can’t be implemented with existing resources.

So in what capacity can brains and bucks converge for the greater good? One example is a program like the Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund, a giving circle comprised of Silicon Valley tech firms and local business professionals committed to leveraging their network of financial, intellectual and human capital to make a meaningful, measurable impact. I think this is a smart, engaging model because it shows that capacity building can be done through a balance of giving money and giving time, as well as sharing the wealth of knowledge that the area’s entrepreneurs gain in a relativity very short time. The whole project grew organically from like-minded people looking to expand their philanthropic engagement in a smarter way. Sounds like a win-win for both sides and where CSR should continue going for the future of business.

--Pheniece

Tech PR Tactics Continue to Evolve

It seems tech PR tactics are evolving with the times, according to a recent study conducted by PRSourceCode. The study, which interviewed PR professionals in the tech field, asked about topics such as using Twitter to engage reporters, whether print media is dying and the top media outlets and reporters for the field.

Key findings included how PR professionals are increasingly seeing the value in online media. While traditionally pros relied on publications that had the highest circulation number, today they see just as much value in a series of strategic tweets. According to the survey, 68% of PR professionals use Twitter to engage with an online publication and 65% of senior level professionals reach out to publications by commenting on their blogs.

And the results are in for the Holy Grail of publications and reporters in tech-

Top Tech blogs are-
1) TechCrunch
2) GigaOM
3) Engadget
4) Gizmodo
5) Mashable

Most sought after reporters are-
1) Brian Krebs, The Washington Post
2) Don Clark, The Wall Street Journal
3) Stacey Higginbotham, GigaOM
4) Chris Kanarcus, IDG News Service
5) David Pogue, The New York Times

To see the full survey results, including top business and trade online and print publications, visit http://bit.ly/dptfE1

-Kathryn

Tax Dollars Twittered, Not Necessarily Frittered

Talentpalooza Draws in HR Crowd

If you’re like me, then your ears may still be ringing after attending Talentpalooza 2010, a free, one-day virtual talent management forum hosted by our very own client, Plateau Systems. Just last week, the second annual event celebrated all things talent management with nearly 700 registrants, keynoted by IDC analyst, Lisa Rowan, Program Director of HR and Talent Management Services. The agenda consisted of interactive sessions (discussing case studies, best practices and trends for successful talent management initiatives) and networking opportunities, housing conversations both through live forums, as well as on Twitter.

If you weren’t able to listen in, check out www.talentpalooza.net for copies of the presentations, or review the #talent2010 conversations via Twitter @talentpalooza.

Thanks to everyone who participated – we look forward to joining the stage with you again in 2011!

- Mary Evans

Meet the Influencers: Chris Foss, dcTechSource

Can A Real-Time Video Campaign Freshen Up A Brand?

Last week, Old Spice launched a hilarious viral video campaign that seems to go along with their ongoing efforts to infuse the brand with energy and move it away from "this is your grandfather's kind of product."

The premise was actually pretty genius: consumers used social network sites like Twitter and Facebook to ask the Old Spice Guy any question. Selected questions received short, personal video responses that incorporated the signature "smooth answers" from the Old Spice Guy (the videos feature actor Isaiah Mustafa as the manliest man out there today.)


In the space of 48 hours, about 200 new Old Spice video responses were produced. Celebrities and notable media personalities including Ellen DeGeneres, Demi Moore and George Stephanopoulos
sent in their questions and received tailored video responses.

What I love about this campaign is that the videos were written, filmed and posted within minutes and really embodied rapid response via social networking sites in a way I've never seen. The videos instantly went viral and garnered buzz and excitement from fans and media alike. Old Spice's YouTube channel became the most popular page on the site last week, garnering more than 34 million views and counting for the response videos. On Twitter, @OldSpice now has more than 86,000 followers.

Pretty impressive numbers for a campaign with a single camera and close to non-existent wardrobe budget. But while the buzz continues around the videos, the real question becomes can they convert this into actual sales? According to Brandweek via BNET, sales of the Old Spice body wash product dropped in June (the product has been featured in the original TV ads since February). These estimates obviously don't include any sales data that might result from the current viral video campaign. Old Spice maintains they have not officially released sales figures, so only time will tell if the new incarnation of the Old Spice brand resonates with consumers enough to drive them to buy the product.

--Pheniece

Power to the People: Usage, Trust and the Value of Consumer Reviews

PowerReviews and the e-tailing group recently released the 2010 Social Shopping Study, a study of consumers' online shopping habits and their usage and trust of customer reviews. More than 1,000 consumers (50% male/50% female), who buy online at least four times per year, completed the survey.

Not surprisingly given the sponsors, the results show that consumers rely heavily on reviews and expect to see expert and customer reviews in addition to robust product information on an e-commerce site. A few interesting tidbits:

• Consumers consistently read reviews before making a purchasing decision (64% of consumers answered always or most of the time) – and they read lots of reviews (33% claim to spend more than 30 minutes reading reviews)

• About 63% of consumers claim to trust consumer reviews; another 35% find the reviews interesting but aren’t sure if they are unbiased.

• The top three reasons that consumers don’t trust reviews are:

• Not enough reviews: 50%

• Doubt that reviews are written by “real customers” (39%)

• No negative reviews or limited negative reviews (38%)

The thought of opening up a company Website to customer reviews is terrifying to many marketing professionals – but it might be less risky than you think. Bazaarvoice, another provider of online customer review technology, claims most word-of-mouth reviews are positive. In fact, 80% of the reviews posted across all Bazaarvoice clients receive a 4 or 5 star rating out of 5.

Need more good news about reviews? Consumers who interact with online reviews are more likely to convert and spend more online according to Bazzarvoice and the magazine, Internet Retailer.  Just one more reason to give power to the people.

- Katie Hanusik

John<br />You made a good point. Indeed the most import...

John
You made a good point. Indeed the most important world in social media is social. Sometimes, I even think that social media is quite misleading because of the word media which implies one way/broadcast when social media is really peer to peer networking. Social implies people. You can't buy people or if you can, you're not social and it's wrong. Clearly, salaries have to replace media buying in marketing. Behind those salaries, real competent people are growing their network one step at a time as you said, building trust and loyalty; It's sustainable.
Laurent

"Buying" Social Media

Wired’s Eliot Van Buskirk wrote a great post for Epicenter last week about how marketers can rig social media to their advantage. It’s a great read, and I highly encourage you to check it out – but do not use it as a manual for social media marketing. Although ShareThrough’s model (mentioned in the last section on YouTube) seems pretty aboveboard and straightforward as a marketing component, the rest of the services described by Eliot, from paid status updates to selling Twitter friends/followers, should be avoided like the plague, particularly the latter.

What’s so bad about paying for Twitter followers? To crib a bit from Eliot’s article, social media is built on trust and loyalty, which means a heavy emphasis is placed on “organically” growing your network based on those facets. Growing your follower base with one of the services named in the article makes a mockery of social media and turns it into just another advertising platform.

So if you can’t pay to go grow your followers quickly, what can you do? I would ask, what’s wrong with growing your follower base slowly and organically? Don’t you want your corporate Twitter account to be a trusted resource in the community? Or would you rather it just look like some kind of mouthpiece spewing offers and press releases?

Slow, thoughtful growth allows for more meaningful conversation with followers and means that your follower base is full of actual people (potential customers), not other corporate handles, bots or marketers. And besides these benefits, Twitter frowns upon using a paid-for follower service – if you’re caught, your account is suspended.

Social media isn’t Vegas. Don’t try to game it.

--John Terrill

Obligatory LeBron-aggeddon Post: The King Needs a Better PR Firm

Image courtesy of david_shankbone

In the aftermath of the King’s selection of the Miami Heat for the next stop of his basketball tour de force, I thought I would take a step back and examine exactly what happened, with special emphasis on the PR ramifications. Keep in mind, I am a basketball-neutral – I have no allegiance to a particular NBA or NCAA team (I didn’t even know Penn State had a basketball program until after I graduated. Just kidding…kind of) and I’ve observed LeBron James’ career to-date with the objectivity of a interested watcher, not a fan.

Let’s break down exactly what happened, shall we?

TV Special
As SI.com’s Richard Deitsch and many other sports analysts have noted, this was nothing more than reality TV. The only thing separating LeBron’s special from “Breaking Bonaduce” or “Being Bobby Brown” is that he’s never had a substance abuse problem (that we publicly know of) and he plays basketball. The fact that most of the advertising dollars are going to charity is great (fantastic, even), but it doesn’t change the fact that the show came off as heavily self-promotional and that it accomplished the exact same thing as a 15 minute press conference would have, minus the airs.

The Interview
Interview Pro Tip: Never, ever, ever refer to yourself in the third-person, especially during a television show that only exists to promote you. When you’re already known as the King, adding the last bit of verbal grandeur with third-person references is the crap-icing on the garbage-cake. Bad move, LeBron.

The Selection Process
Where to begin? It’s not that King James selected Miami – it’s his career and his choice, ultimately – but rather the manner in which he made the choice. He instantly went from being a well-regarded, coveted sports figure to the NBA’s Antichrist in several major markets (Chicago and New York, most notably…not to mention all of Ohio). I expect LeBron is moving the vast majority of his property out of the Cleveland area to keep it unscathed. Even Cleveland’s majority owner stepped up and hammered the King, making the decision to keep all of the ownership groups in the dark about his destination look even worse than it did before.

I know LeBron has a well-oiled PR machine, and he should. He has a global brand and sponsorship deals, all of which require a heavy attention to detail and a massive level of precision to execute properly. But the TV special? Who in God’s name on his PR team thought that this was a good idea? If the end goal was to raise money for charity, mission accomplished. They probably even raised awareness of his brand.

But if the end goal was for positive press? Holy failure, Batman.

--John Terrill

Thanks to Matt for the Radian6 shout-out! I&#39;m ...

Thanks to Matt for the Radian6 shout-out! I'm always surprised to see how customers/fans/the community at large is talking about a brand v. how the brand thinks they're talking about them. There's often a big difference!

Katie Morse
Community Manager | Radian6
@misskatiemo

Dow Lohnes Makes the Cut

The Hill annually publishes a list of Top Lobbyists that is always a who’s who list of big names on Capital Hill. Developed based more on word of mouth than a scientific formula, Dow Lohnes’ Rick Kessler and Stephen Sayle caught the eye of editors landing themselves on the 2010 list.