Should brands join existing social networks or create their own

With all this hype around social networks I'm beginning to wonder whether any of it is actually of value. Companies who have got involved in social networks have gone one of two ways either invested in creating their own social network or join an existing one.

With the first option there are associated risks. As companies who have taken this route have reported to have invested over a million dollars in building their own sites but have not managed to recover their costs.
"Thirty-five percent of the [corporate] online communities studied have less than 100 members; less than 25% have more than 1,000 members - despite the fact that close to 60% of these businesses have spent over $1 million on their community projects." ( Wall Street Journal 2008)

This seems pretty pitiful when you look at the membership of facebook, bebo, myspace, linked in, twitter etc. Though to be honest they shouldn't really be measuring in members, especially not initially. It is very difficult to become the next big thing overnight. Especially if you have a niche following. They should be more focused in encouraging quality engagements with users and offering them added value.

A brand must have enough appeal amongst its consumers to enable them to create a destination site solely focused around their brand and products. If consumers are not interested in the latest product developments or have a vested interest in engaging with the brand then the site is doomed to fail and are best joining an existing site or focusing on more traditional marketing techniques.

Dell has made a great destination site, mentioned in my post the other day. Due to the nature of the technology market, visitors are interested in the product, want to know about the latest products coming out. They also have a vested interest in interacting with the company as their comments are taken on board and feedback to the company to improve their offerings.

Fuji have taken a different approach due to the nature of their industry. They have chosen to create a site, Z-spot, surrounding their new product, Fujifilm FinePix Z20fd. The site isn't heavily branded however, it only has one banner ad half way down the page that you can click through to the Fujifilm product website. The main focus of the site is to promote their new 'Z Spot' events and nationwide competitions with the strategy of associating the camera with music, live events and social experiences. A fresh way of thinking in my view and one that may be more widely accepted by youths as it is not a direct sell, instead the brand has found a way of connecting with consumers on their terms and offering them extra value in terms of festivals. The idea being that they upload their pictures from the even onto the website, increasing stickiness and making the link between the events and the functional use of the camera. I learnt about it from crunchgear for those of you who wish to find out more.

Though a good idea, it is yet to be seen how impactive it will be on Fuji's image and sales as the camera isn't very visible of the page. Even the name isn't clear on the banner due to the badly pixelated image. Being an image expert, surely they should have at least got this right?!

The other option for brands is to join an existing social network, such as many brands have done on facebook, some being more successful than others. O2 have used it quite well promoting 02 university events and competitions. Though not all companies have done this successfully. Cadbury's did have a few pages dedicated to their different chocolate bars and included adverts on the site but failed to create any real engagement with consumers, with hardly any wall posts, unsuprising as they made no effort to encourage any. Needless to say these ages can no longer be found.

Click here to follow the debate on facebook by various online marketers and enthusiasts.

Brands investing in their own social network communities

During my usual morning scan of posts out there in the blog land I came across a good article by Brad Hinton also discussing social networks who pointed me off to Dell's online community it has set up called IdeaStorm to provide a platform to interact with their consumers and offer the chance for feedback on their products.

So I went and had a look and was pleasantly surprised. It appears to be a success. You get the feeling that as the forum has been developed and managed directly by Dell that your opinion can be heard and your views could make a difference. It is quite an empowering feeling. There is an option next to the posts to either 'promote' or 'demote' it depending on whether you value the subject, a bit like 'digging it' I should imagine and like threads on other social sites you can post replies and develop discussions about the topic. Some of which I found quite amusing, such as .

I hope Dell uses it constructively to direct feedback into the design and development stages to improve its customer focus and monitor any negative views which they may be able to address either by getting involved in the discussion, changing their behaviour/ products or developing relevant PR campaigns to manage the problem. Don't put the Dell logo upside down on the Mini Inspiron

All in all I think its a great idea and think more companies should follow suit. Developing their own rather than relying on pre constructed social networking sites is pricier but I think it gives a more professional and caring perception rather than just doing it to be seen to be doing it.

Brands interacting on social networks

Primarily social networks are made by people for the people. They're a place where members can make new connections and interact with each other about common interests. From my experience they are generally really friendly and welcoming environments presumably as everyone has the same motive. To exchange ideas, share knowledge and advice and also get a sense of belonging in a close community. This obviously becomes harder as network sites grow in members though threads are a good way to keep the feeling of a small community.

Brands need to take into account this type of environment when they look to get in line with the social network trend. Any attempts to use them as just another advertising space to sell their services direct to people will almost certainly be met with a hostile response as they are not respecting the site or the members who use it.

Instead of being a corporate mouthpiece for the brand, marketers need to think about using more personal tactics. They are more likely to be accepted if they come as individuals with their own contributions to the discussions.

Most networks like new members to introduce themselves to the group and reveal a bit about themselves. This is because users value transparency and are looking to build valuable long term relationships rather than be hit by various impersonal sales pitches.

Spam as its referred to, is negatively received by the majority if users yet brands still insist on posting them. Surely this is bound to have a negative effect on their image. Though as long as people are still curious enough to click on the links, they are still likely to exist but I think e-marketing should hope to take the long term view more seriously using the principles of relationship marketing, building a reputation of original thinking and expertise in problem solving through as they partake in these forums.

Social networks, contrary to popular belief, are here to stay. User generated content has taken off and shows no sign of slowing down. Consumers are liberated and are not likely to hand back control to brands easily any time soon so it is time for brands to wise up and play by consumers' rules and become TRULY consumer orientated.

My million spaces.com

The online world has gone a little bit mad. All morning I've been browsing the net and asked to sign in, sign up and make a profile no less than 8 times.

All I wanted to do was engage in a little light entertainment and comment on a stupid video I'd seem on stupidvideos.com but found I had to sign up, enter my details, create a profile, invite my friends, load my videos, upload pictures,Is there a site out there offering content that doesn't ask you first to sign up enter your details and create a profile. It all seems very time consuming. Is there a reason why we can't have one login, one username, one password and one profile that can be used for everything.

Its great that companies have woken up to the opportunities of data capturing and social networks but it does seem to have become a bit ridiculous. Has everyone just jumped on the band wagon? It will be interesting to see how long these last.

Will there be a user backlash in the wake, where people get sick of trying to keep up with all their networks, passwords and blogs and call for one universal network? or do we like these small niches where we can decompartmentalise our life and interests. I suppose it relates to the postmodernism whereby consumers enjoy being playful with their identity and roles in society.

It does raise a scary thought though. One that brings us back to initial worries of communicating over an annoymous interface. People we talk to aren't necessary who we think they are so therefore are these networks that we set up resting on lies? Perhaps for the minority but lets not get too paranoid.

open vs closed networks

The new trend for social networks is to go niche, a way of new challengers carving themselves a place in the market. So from a marketing point of view its no surprise.

What's interesting is why we as users are so keen to close down the possibilities of such a great open space, surely defeating the point of the internet in the first place.

I can't decide whether its a good or bad thing to have closed networks. Maybe if we had more open or universal ones we could communicate on different sites without having to sign up and create new profiles all the time. It does seem to slow down the process and deter people from using more than a few different sites.

Ever time I fill in a registration form I get more conscious how much personal information I'm putting out there and whether it can be manipulated for someone else's' benefit. Maybe this is a good thing though as it makes us more careful, as privacy is always going to be an issue.

On the plus side of closed networks and possibly why the trend is moving towards niche network sites is because people want to feel they belong and having a closed group of people with similar interests creates a sense of community and a group identity that we want to associate ourselves with.

Speculation over facebook's drop in popularity I would have thought to be due to its decision to open up to the general public, eliminating its exclusivity to students which I think had damaged its cool factor and has increased the take up of applications due to the different type of people who participate on these networks.

The whole of society works on the basis of the in and out groups. Those who are in have power and superiority over those they don't let in but they have to let enough people in for it to be seen as a desirable and well known group. Therefore I think trends will always switch between open and closed areas to keep the balance right.

Social networks being used as a push medium by marketers

There has been a lot of hype surrounding social networking sites and their value to marketers. They were thought to revolutionise how brands interacted with their customers and increase engagement.

However, this theory relies firstly on brands being able to provide engaging content and a reason to not only take an initial interest in their brand but to interact with them on a regular basis to build some form of relationship. As I assume this was the initial thought to how marketers could use these networks; as a way of opening up two way dialogue with their customers and prospects.

But in order for this to happen brands surely need to encourage such communication and act on comments received by consumers or 'fans' of the brand as they are referred to as on facebook. At the minute users' comments either in independently formed groups or branded profiles go unacknowledged missing valuable opportunities to build rapport with them, reward them or at least make them feel valued.

Simply pushing out promotional information to them does not seem like a way of using the added benefits of these sites as an interactive media as opposed to an extension of their traditional campaign.

They should surely be using these sites to do something different, more risky, more personable and more on their audiences' level. Communicating as a 'friend'.

Though this inevitably brings up another set of issues; whether consumers are willing to accept brands as their friends or whether this is crossing the boundaries of the consumer/company relationship.

How much do consumers actually want to interact with brands anyway? Do they feel they have much to say or any motivation to say it. It is my view that they would be more willing to if the action had an incentive, either in terms of a monetary reward in the form of a discount or freebie or a more social form in keeping with the medium e.g. feeling valued by the brand or being able to use it as a type of social currency aka the cool factor of having a dialogue with a cool brand. this though would depend on the type of brand to a large extent.

Is there a future for facebook?

Robert Horler, the managing director of Diffiniti, a
Facebook-style intimate nudge claimed that Facebook's days are numbered: "It's true that people are currently flocking to Facebook, but if you asked me if, this time next
year, the favourite social networking site is going to be Facebook, then I'd say, probably not."
( Campaign 15-Jun-07).

Well he was wrong about the timing, being a year on and Facebook still going strong yet there are dublilations whether its popularity is showing signs of weakness. Many people complain about the number of application requests they receive, yet tehy are probably the same people who then send them once they have given in to the pressures of boredom and added them in desperate need of knowing which hollyoaks character they are most alike, seeking satisfaction when you discover your most like Louise, the cool fashionable one that all the lads fancy, well untill she did a stint in prson and turned abit psycho.

Then there's the whole loss of exclusivity. At one time facebook used to be a cool 'fratt house' style community designed solely for students where they felt a sense of belonging to something specially provided for them. However as high demand led to the allowance of non-student members it has led to some cringe worthy friend requests from mums, cousins, antie's older work collegues. No longer can you post drunken pictures up on your profile without worrying that current/future employers or even worse parents will find them.

On the plus side however it has allowed new social habits to emerge and more casual relationships to develop. No longer do people swap numbers when meeting someone new under the pretense that they'll stay in direct contact. Now simply 'have you got facebook?' is suffice to keep in touch.

So I suppose if we're willing to enter into dialogue with people we've only just met through behind the screen of social networking then it should be possible for brands to do the same. At the minute an communication recieved is via an impersonal new bulliten style comment on a group page. When will an organisation be brave enough to attempt to tackle one to one conversations? or in face book terms 'wall to wall'.

Is this even possible?