A Return On Investment, or ROI, is a common financial assessment of a project widely used by organizations that considers all the costs and benefits for the entire life of the system. For this post I’ll be taking a look at the ROI of Nike’s 2012 “Find Your Greatness” campaign.
During the 2012 Summer Olympics, Nike were able to outperform their closest rival (and official event sponsor) Adidas in terms of social media engagement thanks to their previously mentioned advertising campaign. The campaign was heavily promoted through their various social media platforms (including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram pages) and aimed to shine a spotlight on everyday athletes in London striving for greatness, as opposed to showcasing professional athletes, as the video below shows.
It was no coincidence that the campaign was launched the same time as the London Olympics and their investment appears to have paid off. According to Socialbakers, a social media monitoring website, Nike was able to dominate Olympic related Twitter activity with 16,020 tweets to Adidas’ 9,295, a 6,725 difference over the duration of the games. Nike were also victorious in terms of Facebook fan growth. They were able to attract 166,718 new Facebook fans, which is more than double the amount of fans Adidas were able to attract over the same period. Despite their core sponsorship deal, Adidas only managed to gain 80,761 new Facebook fans over the same amount of time. This data can be seen in visual form below.
The campaign definitely owes part of its success to the hype and frenzy caused by the Olympic Games, although personally I believe it would have been successful regardless of the timing. The “Find Your Greatness” message is so simple that anyone is able to relate to it and the accommodating videos have proven to be extremely popular with over 9 million combined views. Despite not knowing the exact costs involved in developing the advertising campaign, I feel the Return of Investment is definitely positive for Nike as the intangible gains in their Facebook and Twitter fan bases could possibly lead to increased interest and sales for their organization.
Thanks for reading this week’s post, feel free to leave any comments or feedback and I’ll be happy to return the favour.
Social Media Monitoring is the systematic observation and analysis of social media contributions and dialogues in various avenues such as discussion forums, web logs, micro-blogging and social communities, such as Facebook or Twitter. It serves to gain a quick overview or insight into topics and opinions in the social web. Other than single social media analyses and/or those that are conducted at regular intervals, social media monitoring is carried out continuously. With this in mind, for this post I’m going to perform an analysis of Pepsi, an organization I’ve discussed before, using the social media monitoring tool; SocialMention.
SocialMention is a social media monitoring tool that provides real-time social media search and analysis of a keyword or phrase. When applied to my organization of choice, Pepsi, the website returns with the search results you can see by clicking the link and the statistics below.
The Strength rating determines the likelihood that your search term is being discussed in social media and is calculated by a formula that calculates the total number of phrase mentions in the last 24 hours, divided by total possible mentions. With a 12% rating, this shows that Pepsi is not one of the most popular topics at the time of this post. Perhaps if they were to come up with a new viral advertisement or some newsworthy talking point (such as a new product, announcement or a controversy) then this score would be higher. Sentiment measures the ratio of generally positive to generally negative mentions, so Pepsi seems to be doing well in this regard and it could be due to the positive interaction that Pepsi has with its customers over social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter.
The Passion rating score indicates whether an individual(s) talking about a brand will continue to so repeatedly, so a 9% score could mean that a lot of people that are discussing Pepsi will not do so again with any consistency. Despite being a very low score, this could be seen positively as even if a person only mentions Pepsi on social media once (e.g. I just tried the new brand of Pepsi today!), this could very well inspire others to do the same. While it is good to have a dedicated audience who will constantly be talking about your product, it is also a positive to have many individuals talk about it at least once as they can spread the message to an even larger audience. The Reach score measures the range of influence and is determined by the number of unique authors referencing the keyword divided by the total number of mentions. This essentially means that the remaining 53% of mentions are coming from a repeated source, i.e. the same customers are continuing to mention the product more than once on social media platforms, which is positive as could represent prolonged interest and/or loyalty to the brand.
The only recommendations I could make to Pepsi would be, as previously mentioned, to create some sort of newsworthy talking point that will help increase the likelihood of Pepsi being discussed (could be a new advertising campaign, a commercial, a competition or an unexpected announcement). Pepsi should continue their efforts that allow them to have maintained an extremely high positive to negative mention ratio by continuing to provide customer care via their social media web sites. Pepsi could also try to offer some sort of incentive for customers to continuously mention their brand on social media, perhaps something along the lines of a ‘share this status to have a chance at winning a prize’ competitions on Facebook for example. This could help increase/decrease their unique authors who would only mention Pepsi once or assist these unique authors into becoming regular authors that repeatedly mention the brand.
Thanks for reading this post, feel free to leave a comment and I’ll make sure to comment back.
After the last post about how non-profit institutions are benefitting from Enterprise 2.0, this week I’m going to look at how an organization in the Professional Services Sector could benefit from or enhance their business by using a blog, twitter or wiki.
ThoughtWorks is a software company and a community of passionate, purpose-led individuals who think disruptively to deliver technology to address their clients’ toughest challenges, all while seeking to revolutionize the IT industry and create positive social change. Take a look at this video if you’d like to see a brief example of them in action.
As well as offering innovative software delivery, insightful consulting along with pioneering tools and training, ThoughtWorks also provides an extensive social media presence in the form of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and LinkedIn pages, where they openly encourage their customers to connect and interact with them.
ThoughtWorks’ usage of social media in general applies to several different value levers, particularly in the customer service and marketing and sales areas. Twitter in particular, with its micro-blogging nature and smaller messages, allows a deeper connection to be made between the company and its target audience. With the use of Twitter, ThoughtWorks are able to provide a much more intimate form of customer care by directly communicating via social technology, as seen in an example here. ThoughtWorks also regularly derives their customer’s insights by holding competitions to encourage and reward customer interactions; and by sharing links to any relevant or important blogs, studies, videos and much more forms of content that fit in line with their target demographic
I think it’s quite clear that Twitter is the strongest social media asset in ThoughtWorks’ possession and it seems to be paying off as their page is supported (in terms of followers likes, subscribers, etc.) by a larger number than both their Facebook and YouTube pages combined. Thanks for reading this week’s post, feel free to comment and look out for the next post coming soon.
Over the past weeks I’ve discussed a bit about how business organisations are benefiting from implementing Enterprise 2.0 and the social media policy and legal risks involved , but for today’s post I’ll be looking into benefits of implementing Enterprise 2.0 to an organisation from the Social Sector (in this case, a non-profit organisation).
The National Heart Foundation of Australia is an independent charity established in 1959, whose purpose is to reduce premature death and suffering from heart, stroke and blood vessel disease in Australia. As a charity, the Heart Foundation relies on donation and gifts to continue its lifesaving research and health education work.
According to Mckinsey’s “The Social Economy“, there are nine social-sector value levers that fall into four different areas of how social techonologies can create value across social-sector organisation. I’ll be focusing on the ‘Mobilize Resources’ area and how the Heart Foundation has benefited from the improved ability to fundraise, create and expand volunteer networks and retain existing support by implementing Enterprise 2.0.
The image below was posted to the Heart Foundations Facebook Page earlier in the year to celebrate the fundraising accomplishments in support of the ‘Jump Rope for Heart’ program, which came as a result of a television program ‘The Celebrity Apprentice’, a celebrity endorsement in Stephanie Rice and an awareness campaign spread throughout social media.
With approximately 140,000 total ‘Likes’ between the three Facebook pages included or ‘tagged’ within the post, the Heart Foundation were able to share their fundraising achievement (a total of $120,000 split between the Jump Rope for Heart program and The Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute) with four different audiences (everyone who ‘Liked’ or visits the Stephanie Rice, Celebrity Apprentice Australia, The Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute and Heart Foundation pages) and further raise awareness to their cause all via a single post.
By mentioning the other parties involved, the Heart Foundation has advertised their cause to a greater audience and possibly gained a few new followers and supporters in the process, who may even end up becoming volunteers. And of course by demonstrating evidence of their success, the Heart Foundation is also adequately retaining their existing support.
Other social media platforms such as Twitter and Instagram are also contributing to the expansion of the Heart Foundations volunteer network, as the use of ‘hashtags’ provides a simple and easily accessible avenue for supporters to share their support in the form of tweets and photos.
Thanks for reading this week’s blog, feel free to leave a comment and look forward to more coming soon.
Subway, in case you weren’t aware, is one of the largest single-brand restaurant chains in the world and is famous for their sub sandwiches and for being the ‘healthy’ fast food option. For an organisation as big as they are it is no surprise they have implemented enterprise and social media into their business strategy, although perhaps they should have had a greater awareness of the reputation risks that could occur as a result.
Earlier in the year, an Australian teenager named Matt Corby ordered a ‘footlong’ sub from his local Subway and decided to measure the length of his sandwich, and as you can see from the image above it fell quite short of the advertised mark. He then posted the photo to the official Subway Australia Facebook page, asking them to ‘pls respond’, and the post proceeded to blow up with a large number of ‘Likes’, ‘Shares’ and angry comments from their consumers. The initial response from the person responsible for posting on to the Subway Australia page did not do much to quell the outrage.
“With regards to the size of the bread and calling it a footlong, “SUBWAY FOOTLONG” is a registered trademark as a descriptive name for the sub sold in Subway Restaurants and not intended to be a measurement of length.” they stated, although the post has since been deleted. This was definitely not what the consumers wanted to hear and much attention was brought to past Subway commercials which specifically mentioned the footlong length as a key selling point. More and more photos of non-footlong subs made their way onto social media sites and the uproar continued until, after facing a pair of lawsuits, Subway officials gave a statement to the Chicago Tribune;
“We have redoubled our efforts to ensure consistency and correct length in every sandwich we serve. Our commitment remains steadfast to ensure that every Subway Footlong sandwich is 12 inches at each location worldwide.” Subway eventually realised their mistake, although the impending lawsuits they faced were almost definitely a key factor.
This controversy may not have been entirely avoidable, but it definitely could have been less of a deal than it turned out to be if the employees in charge of the Facebook page had a strict Social Media Policy on how to handle and respond to posts such as Corby’s. The original response could have been more reassuring and perhaps if it was more in line with the statement that Subway eventually released, a lot of the negative attention could have been avoided. Instead Subway took a sizable reputation risk and it took the prospect of several lawsuits for them to finally change their stance.
After learning about the benefits and value an organisation can achieve by implementing Enterprise 2.0, I was curious to see just how exactly these companies were using social technology value levers to increase their brand. A few google searches led to me finding this video:
I was surprised to see Pepsi take such an interesting approach to their marketing and sales strategy. Making its debut at a Beyoncé concert in Antwerp, Belgium, Pepsi has introduced a clever new way to distribute their product while at the same time expanding their social media presence with the Like Machine.
For avid consumers of Pepsi, or Pepsi Max in my case, all you will need in order to get your soft drink fix is to log in to Facebook, via smartphone or the Like Machine’s touch screen interface, and then simply ‘Like’ the page to receive your free can of Pepsi.
The marketing team behind the Like Machine has introduced a new way of giving free samples that benefits both the consumer and Pepsi itself, as in exchange for a can of Pepsi they are receiving a greater source of information about who is consuming their product via their customer’s Facebook pages.
I think Pepsi has come up with something really innovative here and I could definitely see other companies try to replicate or improve on this strategy in the future. There is definitely a great potential to generate and foster sales using this form of social marketing and commerce.
I hope you found this post interesting and managed to gain some new knowledge on how organisations are benefiting from Enterprise 2.0. Feel free to leave a comment and look forward to more posts coming soon.
I used to consider myself a beginner as far as Web 2.0 tools were concerned as I hadn’t really looked into the concept with much detail until a bit of research revealed that many of the web sites and services I used every day all fell under the Web 2.0 umbrella. Today I’d like to share my experiences with two tools that I incorporate into my everyday life at university; Google Docs and Facebook Groups.
In case you didn’t already know, Google Docs is a freeware web-based office suite offered by Google within its Google Drive service. It was also once a storage service but has since been replaced by Drive. It allows users to create and edit documents online while collaborating with other users live in real time.
I only used Google Docs for the first time about a year ago and it has since become a staple component of my group assignments throughout university. It allows each member access to a document at any time, such as an assignment related document, and any changes made are saved automatically.
Aside from the common cloud computing weaknesses such as internet access and security concerns, one downside to Google Docs I found is that there are some formatting issues when importing or exporting content from other documents.
I’m sure that most people are familiar with Facebook, having at least heard of it if not using it themselves on a regular basis, but some may not be aware of the potential the Facebook Groups feature has for group collaborations.
Assuming each of your peers has a Facebook account, the Groups feature allows users a convenient interface to share files and information, as well as allowing easy communication via the group chat function. Documents can be uploaded directly to Facebook, or you can choose to share links to external sources such as Google Docs or a Dropbox folder.
Facebook Groups have been a huge help for me personally as not only are they useful for managing small group assignments, but they can be also used in a larger spectrum with subject specific groups which allow students (and also lecturers) a new avenue to interact and assist each other in their learning.
I hope you enjoyed this post, feel free to leave a comment and look out for more posts coming soon.