Date post: | 10-May-2015 |
Category: |
Education |
Upload: | peter-kerkhof |
View: | 580 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Talking to customers: characteristics of effective social media conversations
Peter Kerkhof
@peterkerkhof
2007 1st iPhone 12 million Facebook users Daily 5000 tweets worldwide 4000 tweeps in NL
2011 130 million iPhones Half million new Android
devices daily 62 million iPads 1.7 million tablets in NL 800 million Facebook gebruikers Daily 250 million tweets 1.3 million active tweeps in NL
2007 1st iPhone 12 million Facebook users Daily 5000 tweets worldwide 4000 tweeps in NL
Brands on Twitter
19% of all tweets is brand related
20% of all brand related tweets contains positive or negative sentiment
55% positive, 33% is negative
2011: 10 million brand experiences per day
(Source: Jansen et al., 2009)
The Yelp effect
= +4.5% revenues
Business communication 2.0
Less about advertising
Using editorial content for business purposes
Engaging in public conversations with consumers
The decline of advertising
Advertising: Growing irritation Declining credibility Declining
effectiveness
The decline of advertising
Series1
0.22
0.130.1001
Old estimate 1962-1981 New estimate 1940-1979New estimate 1980-2004
Advertising elasticity: % growth in sales after +1% growth in advertising expenditures Source: Sethuraman, Tellis & Briesch (2011).
Advertising elasticities 1962-1981
The rise of content marketing
“the art of communicating with your customers and prospects without selling. It is non-interruption marketing. Instead of pitching your products or services, you are delivering information that makes your buyer more intelligent. The essence of this content strategy is the belief that if we, as businesses, deliver consistent, ongoing valuable information to buyers, they ultimately reward us with their business and loyalty.”
http://www.junta42.com/resources/what-is-content-marketing.aspx
The rise of content marketing
40 billion dollar, 26% of US marketingbudget (Custom Content Council, 2012)
Content marketing in print
Content marketing on TV
Digital content marketing
Video
Websites
Apps
Online magazines
Blogs
Brand pages in SNS’s
Microblogs
Utilities
E-mail newsletters
Communities
………..
Hennig-Thurau et al. (2010): The Impact of New Media on Customer Relationships, Journal of Service Research, vol. 13(3), pp. 311-330.
Social media
Less control
Empowered consumers: A skeptical crowd Access to information about
product quality from trusted sources
Instant access to own media Instant acces to company
social media sites
Overcoming skepticism & distance
1-to-1 relational communication, with a skeptical audience
Create relevant content & conversations that…….. Help Solve problems Inform Educate Entertain
Establish immediacy & closeness in conversations
Immediacy
Immediacy in business: be fast
Immediacy in psychology /communication: “communication behaviors that enhance closeness to and nonverbal interaction with each other” (Mehrabian, 1971)
Teacher immediacy: the degree of perceived closeness between teacher and student (Gorham, 1988; Christophel, 1989)
Mediated immediacy (O’Sullivan, Hunt & Lippert, 2004)
Mediated immediacy: “communicative cues in mediated channels that can shape perceptions of psychological closeness between interactants” (O’Sullivan, Hunt & Lippert, 2004, p. 471)
Mediated immediacy behaviors: approachability and regard for other approachability: you can approach me
self-disclosure, expressiveness, accessibility, informality, similarity, familiarity, humor, attractiveness, and expertise
regard: I am approaching you personalness, engagement, helpfulness, politeness
Effects of mediated immediacy
Higher course motivation, more teacher liking (O’Sullivan, Hunt & Lippert, 2004, Study 2)
Linguistic immediacy cues exert stronger effects than presentational cues (O’Sullivan, Hunt & Lippert, 2004, Study 3)
More self-disclosure on a health forum, more social trust, more positive outcome expectations (Lee & LaRose, 2011)
Relational maintenance in online PR (Kelleher & Miller, 2006; Kelleher, 2009)
Corporate blogs: Being open to dialog Using invitational language Providing prompt feedback
Leading to higher credibility & trust through …… conversational human voice communicated relational commitment
Conversational human voice
“an engaging and natural style of organizational communication as perceived by an organization’s publics based on interactions between individuals in the organization and individuals in publics” (Kelleher, 2009, p. 177)
Communicated relational commitment
“a type of content of communication in which members of an organization work to express their commitment to building and maintaining a relationship” (Kelleher, 2009, p.176)
Our studies (w. Camiel Beukeboom & Sonja Utz, VU Univ.)
Experimental studies
Online customer care: customer complaint + various responses Study 1
Immediacy low vs. high Apologies vs. redress Control group
Study 2: Immediacy low vs. high Apologies vs. refutation Company size (small vs. Large)
Crisis communication: Study 3: immediacy + content
Immediacy low vs. high Apologies vs. denial
Study 1
Low immediacy “Based on your story, we would like to offer our sincere
apologies for the inconvenience. We would like to get in touch with you about this problem.”
High immediacy “My name is Thomas de Vries. (…) Based on your story, I
would like to offer my sincere apologies for the inconvenience. I would like to personally get in touch with you about this problem.“.
Apologies vs. redress
Control group: no company response
Study 1
Dependent variable: corporate credibility
Mediators: conversational human voice communicated relational commitment underdog effect (Vandello, Goldschmied, & Richards, 2007)
Control group: cognitive responses
Study 1
Communicated relational commitment: (F(1, 118) = 14.45, p < . 001; Mlow immediacy = 3.81, Mhigh
immediacy = 4.61)
Conversational human voice (F(1, 118) = 7.81, p < . 01; Mlow immediacy = 3.63, Mhigh immediacy
= 4.12)
Underdog effect: (F(1, 118) = 4.63, p < . 05; Mlow immediacy = 4.72, Mhigh immediacy
= 4.30) (F(1, 118) = 5.65, p < . 05; Mapology= 4.74, Mredress = 4.28)
Study 1
No other effects of apologies vs. redress
No interaction effects
Indirect effects of immediacy on corporate credibility (bootstrapping)
Study 1
No other effects of apologies vs. redress
No interaction effects
Indirect effects of immediacy on corporate credibility (bootstrapping)
Positive cognitive brand responses
High
imm
edia
cy /a
polo
gies
Low Im
med
iacy
, apo
logi
es
High
imm
edia
cy /r
edre
ss
Low im
med
iacy
/red
ress
No re
spon
se0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Study 2: What if distance is already low?
Include a manipulation of organizational size /closeness “Company A is international market leader in navigation-
and communication systems. Company A has offices on every continent and about 7000 employees worldwide…”.
“Company B is a small family company in navigation- and communication systems. Company B is located in Eindhoven and has about 40 employees at this location…”.
Immediacy high /low; Apology vs. refutation of complaint
DV’s: Brand trust, communicated relational commitment, conversational human voice
Study 2
Conversational human voice & communicated relational commitment Main effects of immediacy Interaction immediacy x company size
Brand trust: Interaction immediacy x company size
Small Large1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Low immedicayHigh immedicacy
Study 3
Bloggers’ comments: low immediacy It took too long
H&M talked to journalists, not to fans
Communication was highly standardized “You know whats funny? that you are just simply pasting
the same response to every comment about this shameful situation you are in. Why dont you post something where you actually admit and explain…”
Corporate tone of voice
No apologies were made
Study 3
Participants read an online news story about the event, followed by one of four responses
Immediacy (low/high) & denial vs. apologies
Denial vs. apologies: Apologies are less often used but are more effective since
they signal taking responsibility more effective in the case of integrity violations
Denial is often used but less effective (Kim, Avery & Lariscy, 2009)
Study design (low immediacy/apology)
Study design (high immediacy/denial)
Study design
Dependent variables: Negative /positive cognitive responses Communicated relational commitment Conversational human voice Attitude towards the response Corporate credibility Crisis responsibility
Study 3: Immediacy effects
Conversational human voice (1-5)
Communicated Relational commitment (1-5)
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Low immediacy
High immediacy
Study 3: Immediacy effects
Personal Corporate0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
% Negative cognitive responses
Study 3: Apologies vs. denial
Credibility (1-7) Responsibility (1-5)
Att. Response (1-5)
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
ApologiesDenial
Predicting corporate credibility
Regression analysis: predicting corporate credibility
Corporate credibility
Prior brand commitment 0.31**Conversational human voice 0.47**Attitude towards the response 0.03nsCommunicated relational commitment -0.06nsNegative cognitive responses 0.11nsPositive cognitive responses 0.13nsCrisis responsibility -0.01ns
R2(adj)=.37***
Conclusion
Effects of immediacy Direct on credibility Indirect through
Communicated relational commitment Conversational human voice
Immediacy helps to narrow the gap between organizations /brands and consumers