The Social Media Leap (ESOMAR, Berlin 2010)

WM3 2010 PART 3 / MIGRATION OF TRADITIONAL TO DIGITAL?

Copyright © ESOMAR 2010 1

THE SOCIAL MEDIA LEAP INTEGRATING SOCIAL MEDIA INTO MARKETING STRATEGY Karen Nelson-Field Gavin Klose

BACKGROUND The concept of six degrees of separation is now three The rate of exponential growth in social media surpasses that of any media to date. Facebook alone, in one year, added over 200 million users (Qualman 2009). As at July 2010, from its humble beginnings only five years ago, it claims 500 million unique users. The numbers of unique users across all online social networks is estimated to climb to a staggering 1.971 billion by 2015 (Nuttney 2010) – that’s close to 30% of the world population in around a decade. By comparison television took 13 years to reach a mere 50 million (Qualman 2009). With numbers of unique visitors to social media sites growing by the millions nearly daily, it is not hard to understand why marketers are enamoured with the idea of social media as a staple in their media mix. From a consumer’s perspective such change is positive. We now live in a totally wireless world and have relative autonomy in terms of how we consume media. We can (24/7) subscribe to magazines online, podcast television content, live stream most radio stations and no longer need to wait until 6pm for the nightly news bulletin – we ‘google’ it. Andrew Green of IPSOS Media calls this change a shift from ‘Prime Time’ to ‘My Time’ (2010). Convenience and available technology are the catalyst to such change; our smartphones are now our lifeblood to news, information, entertainment and social happenings. Now we podcast, stream, blog, vlogg, upload, download, SMS and RSS all from the palm of our hand. In the 1950s we had to make an appointment to watch prescribed programming content. In the wake of such convenience, not surprisingly, concurrent media usage is increasing while time spent consuming different media varies considerably to balance time. For example, the time spent using mobile phones and the frequency of use varies significantly from that of traditional forms of media (television, radio or cinema) where usage is typically for a longer duration but with less frequency (Papper et al, 2004, Block, et al, 2009, Hess 2009). After all we still only have 24 hours in a day and actual time spent consuming media has remained relatively stable (an average of just over eight hours in 1999, 2005 and 2009) (Papper et al, 2005, Hess 2009). Apart from such obvious shifts in the way we consume media, the way in which we interact with it has also changed forever. We are no longer simply receivers; rather we are fascinated publishers, broadcasters, opinion leaders, sharers, researchers, advocators and voters. It is the concept of the connection generation (Pintado 2009) in that we crave interaction and connection to each other, to information, to ideas and experiences. Such interaction and connection could suggest that the concept of six degrees of separation is today only three.



Are we drowning in information? While consumers are embracing all that Web 2.0 represents, opportunities for advertisers are likely abundant as never before. Yet the rapid change in the media landscape also renders challenge in terms of understanding (quickly) how to manage this out of control fragmented platform – even in terms of where to begin in order to maximise its return. There are many misconceptions about how best to use social media, fuelled by the sheer volume of industry one-off think pieces and case studies. There are literally hundreds of social media blogs and online publications published weekly all offering opinion on ‘how to’s’ and ‘best practice’. Many of these are conflicting, none are empirically grounded and most have a vested interest in supporting practitioners’ agendas. The reality is there is very little ‘credible’ (and certainly no generalisable) research on social media (yet), and in particular on associated metrics. This is not overly surprising given we have had 50 years to thoroughly research and understand what television has to offer our advertising dollar - no wonder our heads are all spinning! However the growing scale of the platform is such that, regardless of the associated risk, marketers simply cannot ignore social media. Such sentiment has been echoed by Erik Qualman of socialnomics who says; “we don’t have a choice on whether we DO social media, the question is how WELL do we do it?” (2009). While most have access to thousands of opinion pieces in terms of the ‘most common’ adoption strategies, the predicament for businesses would seem clear; applying a ‘follow the leader’ approach and investing (or essentially sacrificing) dollars from tried and tested methods of communication, is in effect a leap of faith with no guarantee of return on investment which potentially compounds error. For lack of a better measure? Social media measurement is in its infancy; subsequently exactly which metrics should be used to measure effectiveness is a contentious issue. Everyone is talking about ROI, but very few can operationalise it, let alone agree upon best practice. Most argue that offline metrics are in no way appropriate for this new media platform, yet there is little consensus as to exactly what is appropriate. The metrics that are typically used for social media measurement fall broadly into two categories, behavioural and attitudinal metrics. Behavioural metrics are the basic numbers behind a physical consumer response. For example, click through, unique visitors, page views, bookmarks, downloads, followers, friends, fans, viral pass along rate, buzz volume, subscription rates, embeds, tags added, searches and time spent on site. These metrics move beyond traditional online impressions (which is more aligned to offline reach-based metrics such as GRP), to metrics that capture an element of the ‘buy-in’ required from the consumer. Behavioural metrics (unlike basic impressions and GRPs), however, do not account for the number of consumers who simply had the ‘opportunity to see’ an ad or brand mention, but did not respond to that opportunity. Such opportunity presumably still plays an important part in building memory structures related to the brand and therefore is important for successful advertising, and yet such metrics do not capture it. While a few apply behavioural reach-based metrics to measure the impact of social media, many argue that these measures: a) are too simplistic for social media (given our consumption of it is so vastly different from how we consume traditional media); and b) have an indirect relationship with purchase behaviour. And while basic numerical analytics are easier and more cost efficient to gather, the greater majority of practitioners and social media commentators advocate attitudinal metrics. This is echoed in the sentiment of Jim Sterne who says, “Success in social media is not found in how many people got your message; it’s



found in how many people thought your message was remarkable“ (2010). Attitudinal metrics are more qualitative in nature in that they consider consumer response in terms of what the consumer believes and feels towards a brand or product. For example, willingness to recommend, brand attitude, buzz sentiment, awareness, advertising recall and purchase intent are all attitudinal metrics. However most attitude type metrics closely align to what has been called Hierarchy of Effects models (such as AIDA (Lewis 1900) and DAGMAR (Colley 1961)) that assume that consumers move through sequential stages of response from awareness to eventual brand loyalty by persuasion. And, then there is engagement! Commentators argue that reach based metrics like unique visitors and time spent per page mimic the offline metrics of reach and frequency, but fail to encapsulate sentiment, opinion, and affinity with a brand. In the social media literature engagement is used loosely and interchangeably with such terms as ‘experience’, ‘involvement’ and ‘connection’. This is not surprising given there is much conjecture and debate over its definition. Some equate engagement exclusively with behavioural reach (a consumer must be engaged to pass along, tweet, digg, etc.), but then there is debate as to whether this actually means engaged with the brand (Solis 2010) (i.e. beyond simple attitude, rather an implied brand loyalty that leads them to tweet) or engaged with the platform itself (i.e. an engagement with Twitter which leads to the tweet) (Calder et al, 2009). When deciding on metrics for social media, advertisers are often confronted with conflicting arguments for and against the different alternatives. We all know that the rate of growth in social media has far surpassed the rate of credible research output in this area. Particularly in terms of how consumers engage with this new medium and importantly how the use of social media affects advertising’s impact. The problem here lies in the knowledge that many marketers are transferring significant dollars from tried, tested and cost efficient media, to a platform that is yet to be quantified in terms of real efficiency or impact. DRAWING ON TESTED MARKETING KNOWLEDGE At the very core of the social media mantra is the premise that consumers love their brands, and that they need to do so in order for those brands to be successful. For marketers, social media is said to provide the platform to develop such brand connections on a one-to-one level, and most think that this online advocacy is important. So for marketers the big question is, how do we create intimate experiences that imbue loyalty? But are “they” right? Is it necessary for buyers to love their brands? And is social media the device for generating such love? We assume we can't treat Facebook (for example) as another TV channel because it works differently. This seems sensible, albeit currently unsubstantiated. Despite all the talk, social media is greatly under-researched. In the absence of any evidence, we begin with what we do know about how consumers behave. We then seek to apply that to the social media context, rather than rely heavily on ephemeral case studies and industry ‘norms’. While technology may have changed the way we consume media, predictable patterns of buyer behaviour and advertising effects have remained steadfast for decades. This empirical knowledge fundamentally opposes the logic of loyalty theorists who have so far dominated the social media world. It shows that while brand loyalty exists, it does so prosaically, so words like ‘love’ or ‘emotional connection’ and ‘brand relationships’ are way off the mark. Of course this does not mean that we advocate science without art. We know that advertising uses a bit of both, particularly in the online context where



creativity is unbounded. Instead we recommend “applying creativity within a framework of physical laws” (Sharp 2010). 1) There are two areas in which such laws exist that can provide some grounding for examining the social media context. Firstly, there is much evidence on how consumers behave. There are patterns in buying behaviour that have stood the test of time despite many other changes in our world. For instance, we know that any brand’s customer base (even the most successful brand) is made up of a majority of light buyers of that brand who are polygamously loyal to a small group of offerings in the category (Goodhardt et al, 1984). This means that all brands lose some customers to their rivals and that very few customers are solely loyal to a single brand (Barnard and Ehrenberg 1997). And contrary to popular belief, no matter what a marketer does, losing customers to competitors is largely outside of a marketer’s control, (certainly in terms of increasing loyalty through marketing initiatives) (Sharp 2010). So in effect we are loyal switchers rather than brand loyals (Uncles et al, 1995, Ehrenberg et al, 2004). Furthermore loyalty doesn’t vary greatly between big and small brands, the biggest difference between the two is quite simply their size (i.e. their number of customers) (Ehrenberg et al, 1990). The major implication of such findings is that brand growth comes from gaining more buyers (light buyers and non-users), not from attempting to get a few heavy buyers to buy more. Another interesting empirical finding, that contrasts many social media ‘best practice’ recommendations, is the (perhaps confronting) discovery that user profiles of competing brands seldom differ. One of the purported strengths of the social media platform (over its traditional counterparts) is its ability to target specific demographics with pinpoint accuracy, so for marketers who apply segmentation strategies this new media promises to offer significant opportunity. However, unanimous findings (over 15 years, across hundreds of brands and dozens of categories) reveal that competing brands have the same types of customers in terms of their demographics, psychographics, values and attitudes (Hammond et al, 1996, Kennedy and Ehrenberg 2001). So why do we see it as an advantage of social media that it ‘apparently’ encourages consumers to ‘love’ brands and thus to be more loyal? And if competing brands have the same type of customers, then why does it matter if one social media site can deliver (for example) more women between the ages of 18 and 25, than another? As different as the world is now thanks to social media, it is unlikely that such patterns in buying behaviour will be destroyed as a result of social media. We also have much evidence on how advertising works, and this knowledge is also unlikely to be entirely unhinged by the presence of social media. For instance, we know that attitudes towards brands typically reflect our experience with the brand, not the other way around. Consumers know and say more about brands they use, and have less to say or think about brands they don’t (Sharp 2010). Subsequently advertising is most likely to be seen/heard by those who already buy the brand. We know that rather than being a strong, persuasive force, advertising simply nudges the propensity for buyers to buy the promoted brand (Sharp 2010). Recent advances in memory research and neuroscience suggest that the human brain does not commonly use a sequential, rational or logical process to make decisions (including purchase decisions), and instead relies heavily on the sub-conscious during decision-making (Sutherland 1993, Damasio 1994, Schacter 1996, du Plessis 2005). Thus advertising almost never causes radical attitudinal change, but rather it reinforces existing attitudes, reminds switching buyers to buy again, and (when working best) nudges existing propensities to buy the brand (Sutherland 1993, Barnard



and Ehrenberg 1997, Jones 1997, Ehrenberg et al, 1998, Ehrenberg et al, 2002, du Plessis 2005). Advertising that aims at impacting on memory via content that is likable, clever and well branded (distinctive) is therefore likely to me more effective that that which attempts to affect attitudes via content that is aggressive and hard sell in the conventional sense (Alba et al, 1991, du Plessis 1994, Jones 1997, Romaniuk and Hartnett 2010). A brand loses share if a customer cannot find it, and for a brand to be considered it must be easily identified at point of purchase. So advertising in any medium should be distinctive making the brand easier to be thought of in the buying situation, creating mental cues that can trigger thoughts about the promoted brand (Nedungadi 1990, Romaniuk and Hartnett 2010). Distinctiveness, unlike differentiation, is often meaningless (to the consumer anyway) and is often symbols, logos, slogans, jingles and characters - anything that can potentially be used to identify the brand name (Romaniuk and Hartnett 2010). Having content that is distinctive is of vital importance, particularly in the context of social media where the platform itself is highly fragmented, so each exposure might be your one shot at brand identification. In terms of scheduling, advertising has its greatest effect when people are ‘primed to notice it’. Recency principals teach us that advertising is most effective when a consumer is in the market to buy and is close to the purchase occasion (Jones 1995, Ephron 1997, Beaumont 2003, McDonald and Ehrenberg 2003, Taylor et al, 2009). The concept of recency planning suggests a move away from message repetition in order to convince consumers, and towards placing brand reminders in the window of opportunity before category purchase occurs (Ephron and Heath 2001, Newstead et al, 2009). The emphasis of this approach lies in maximising campaign reach, close to the purchase occasion and amongst the category buying audience, and in doing so being as visible as possible as continuously as possible (Ephron 1998). So for social media marketers, platforms that have the ability to get in front of customers close to the purchase occasion will be of greatest benefit. Given our knowledge of how advertising works (as summarised here), why are we so committed to measuring how attitudes change as a result of our social media advertising campaigns? Why do we find it so appealing that social media allows us to advertise to the same group of brand “fans” (who are likely heavy users of the brand) over and over again, rather than seeking out new potential buyers? Or do we think social media is really that different? Different enough to change decades of consumer behaviour and different enough to change the impact that advertising has on a population? We doubt it is that influential. If social media were like any other media platform, practitioners would be best advised to assess their vehicle choices on their ability to reach many people once close to the purchase occasion. The use of social media over other media for the express purpose of increasing brand loyalty by super targeting is likely to be a strategy fraught with danger. PURPOSE OF THIS RESEARCH The purpose of this research is two-fold. First, it aims to document ‘current practice’ in terms of the integration of social media into marketing strategy. We will present findings from over 240 organisations regarding such things as perceived benefits, measurement, resources assigned, what role they see for social media in the future and barriers to integration. We also aim to understand the alignment between executed social media tactics and the organisations’ applied marketing philosophy. We will finally describe patterns in the data that show association between such things as organisation size and product category and the degree of social media adoption. The second objective of this paper is somewhat unusual for



research in this field. We seek to use extant literature (of all forms) to provide a roadmap for social media uptake. Over 1000 industry opinions, books, webinars, articles and reports will guide our recommendations for organisations seeking to incorporate social media into their marketing mix. In relation to this second objective, the existing literature IS our data. Our findings are a range of strategic recommendations for social media practitioners. In criticism of the empirically ungrounded think-pieces that dominate this area of marketing, we draw on existing tested and generalisable knowledge of how buyers behave, how brands grow and how advertising works and combine this with social media insight. So in essence we aim to describe ‘best practice’ based on grounded knowledge. It should be noted that this paper does not answer the BIG research questions such as ‘how effective is social media compared to traditional media?’, ‘what are the synergy effects between traditional media and social media?, and ‘how do we measure effective reach?,’ rather it offers strategic insight based on what we know now from both scholarly and practitioner literatures. Our acknowledgement that social media will morph through different stages over the next few years (Owyang 2009) should also be noted. Technology will likely transform the way consumers interact with social media, which guarantees the arrival (and departure) of individual social media sites. Subsequently, the longevity of this paper is secured by our commitment to bigger picture thinking. The benchmarks provided in this paper are therefore not based on individual level sites and tactics that are likely outdated, rather it considers strategies (based on tested knowledge) that can be applied to various sites now and in the future. METHOD Both primary and secondary data were collected for this research. Primary data were collected in order to address the following research objective: to document the degree to which organisations are integrating social media into marketing strategy. A self-completion web-based survey was administered to advertising practitioners spanning a wide array of business types and size. A total of 243 responses were collected. The questionnaire was designed to capture a wide range of variables typically noted in practitioner literature discussing social media and the organisation. The questions that were included related to: The organisations’ adoption of social media (i.e. importance placed, reactive or planned strategy and the

sense of urgency for doing so); How this adoption aligns to current marketing strategy (i.e. measures used for both social and traditional

media, perceived benefits and importance of customer engagement); How this adoption is resourced (i.e. budget assigned, policy, human resources, barriers and planned

resources), and; Organisational descriptors (i.e. size, sector and number of employees). Secondary data were collected in order to address a second research objective: to map a path for social media uptake based on both scholarly and industry literatures.



The literature contained in this paper has been sourced from both industry and academic publications. Industry resources included proprietary reports, weblogs, online magazines, books and industry databases. Academic resources included both peer-reviewed journal articles and scholarly textbooks. FINDINGS ‘Current practice’ – Quantitative findings This section describes current practice of social media implementation. In total 243 responses were collected, with a relatively even spread of small (38%), medium (31%) and large organisations (31%) (as measured by number of employees),2) across a wide range of sectors. The majority of the respondents were from Australia (89%) with some from the United Kingdom, United States and Asian respondents. We do acknowledge this as a limitation of our research at this point. Current implementation Smaller organisations (64%) place slightly more importance on social media as a current marketing tool than medium (54%) and large (61%) organisations. Similarly (and perhaps not surprising) the Service, Retail, Tourism and Education sectors place a significantly greater degree of importance on social media than sectors such as Manufacturing, Wholesale and Finance. Overall only 23% of all organisations currently place a ‘high’ importance on social media as a marketing tool, while 30% place very little importance at all on social media. Around half of organisations sit somewhere in the middle, they place some or a neutral level of importance on social media in their marketing mixes. What is interesting is that while importance currently placed on social media is relatively moderate, an overwhelming 79% of all organisations think that social media is not a fad, that it is likely to be here to stay and that it will become a key component of their marketing strategy in the future. Smaller organisations not only place more importance on social media over other vehicles, but they also feel a stronger sense of urgency in terms of the implementation of such strategy (small organisations 52% compared with large organisations 42%). So perhaps not surprisingly, half of all small organisations (50% compared with only 30% of larger organisations) reported that they had been quite reactive in terms of what they had implemented so far. In terms of urgency by sector, the sectors that placed high current importance on social media also assigned a high degree of urgency in terms of its implementation (Service, Retail, Tourism and Education). The Health and Manufacturing sectors, however, don’t currently place a great deal of importance on social media, and yet also reported a high sense of urgency in implementing social media into their media mix. Perhaps a very concerning finding is that overall only 9% of all respondents felt that what they had implemented so far had been very much planned. In terms of formal planning for social media, while close to 70% of all respondents have a strategic marketing plan, fewer than half (39%) have incorporated social media into that plan. While small organisations were slightly more likely to have done so (44% as compared with 36% large organisations), overall there were fewer of them that have a strategic marketing plan at all (only 52% of small organisations have a strategic marketing plan as compared with 76% of large organisations). Reasons given as to why social media is not incorporated into formal marketing planning included ‘executives/management are reluctant’, ‘they don’t take it seriously and don’t understand it’, ‘management don’t value social media, don’t have a firm grasp on what it is and what it can do’, ‘social media is too small to be included’ and ‘we are focused on what we know works’. Also on formal planning,



but from a social media policy perspective (rather than solely marketing planning), 60% of all organisations claim not to have a social media policy in place (10% were unsure). Larger organisations, however, were significantly more inclined to have a policy in place (30% compared to 16% in smaller organisations). In terms of an organisation’s quest for social media knowledge, the large majority (69%) claim to be accessing information from the Internet to assist in their knowledge of how to use social media. Fifty-three percent suggested they source their information on social media from colleagues, 41% claim to use their own judgment, while only 18% claim to use scholarly articles. An interesting point here is that 21% of all respondents suggest they don’t access any sources at all to assist in their social media learning. Smaller organisations are much less likely to source information on social media from scholarly articles (4% compared to 21% for large organisations), and are slightly more likely to source information from the Internet (56% as compared with 52%). Another interesting finding from the data is the relationship between the respondents’ personal age and perceptions and their attitudes to social media integration in a media mix. It would seem that age has no impact on the degree of importance placed on including social media in the media mix, nor on respondents’ attitudes towards social media being a fad, nor on the degree to which urgency is assigned to having a social media presence, and not even in relation to where respondents source their information on social media. Current measures There is some disconnect between measures used for traditional marketing and those used for social media. This is evident in the finding that only 32% of all respondents apply the social media metrics they do, because they are aligned to their other marketing strategies. This is perhaps not all that surprising given the raging debate about the appropriateness of offline measures in an online context, but it does raise concern in situations where tried and true measures that are typically used for traditional media, are being set aside for measures that, while perhaps easier to collect, may be less robust. See table 1. TABLE 1 MEASURES USED FOR TRADITIONAL MARKETING AND SOCIAL MEDIA Overall Small Organisations Medium Organisations Large Organisations

Metric

Use for Traditional Marketing

Use for Social Media







% % % % % % % %Brand awareness 66 53 54 44 68 35 58 48Direct traffic to website 64 65 60 44 62 68 61 61Sales 57 33 58 26 46 24 48 24Leads 40 31 62 40 27 19 30 24 Brand recall 33 30 24 18 27 27 39 21Profitability 30 14 22 4 32 11 21 9 Shifts in attitude 25 21 20 16 27 11 30 18Salience/memory measures 22 16 12 6 14 14 21 12Reach based measures 21 38 10 24 24 46 15 30 Purchase intent 17 14 14 8 11 8 18 12

There are differences in the measures used for traditional marketing initiatives and those used for social media initiatives. Small organisations are more likely to use lead generation as a metric, and especially for evaluating their social media campaigns.



Close to a third (30%) of all organisations use profitability as a measure of campaign success where those campaigns involve traditional media, yet only 14% reported use of profitability as a measure for social media campaigns. Similarly, while both small and large organisations are using sales as a primary measure of success for their traditional marketing activities (58% and 48% respectively), fewer than half are using it for measuring social media campaign success. This pattern is consistent for lead generation, and it is the use of lead generation that sets large organisations apart from their smaller counterparts. Only 21% of all organisations use reach based metrics for assessing their traditional marketing efforts, yet 38% are using reach as a measure of success for social media. This is consistent for small and large organisations with reach based measures being applied twice as often in a social media context. Direct traffic to a website is consistently used in both traditional marketing strategy and social media strategy. What is interesting is the use of attitudinal measures. Given that social media is often claimed to be of use in shifting consumers attitudes to engage with a brand (i.e. persuade to purchase), the finding that only 21% of organisations are using change in such measures (and only 14% for purchase intent) to evaluate social media success (less than for traditional marketing), is of some surprise. Of concern is the reported use of salience and brand awareness metrics. In both cases, and across both small and large organisations, these metrics are being used less in the context of social media than in the evaluation of traditional marketing strategy. The likely reason for this (supported by the data) is that metrics such as traffic to a website, online mentions and standard reach metrics are inexpensive and easy to gather. Furthermore, they are easy to understand. Other measures used solely for evaluating social media include engagement (47%) and online mentions (39%). 62% said that engagement was a ‘very’ important component of their social media strategy. The majority described engagement as being about coming to the organisation for information, directly interacting with the organisation, content generation and sharing about the organisation, commenting/rating or contributing feedback and subscribing. See table 2. TABLE 2 ORGANISATIONAL DEFINITION OF ENGAGEMENT Engagement Statement Definitely define it this way % Consumer coming to you for information 63 Consumer directly interacting with people in your organisation 61 Consumer sharing your content with others 58 Consumer generating/distributing their own content about you 52 Consumer commenting/rating or contributing feedback back to you 52 Consumer joining/subscribing to a social media channel about you 49 Consumer coming to you for inspiration 44 Consumer connecting with people like them 43 Consumer coming to you for specials/offers 37 Consumer coming to you for entertainment/escape 32 Consumer clicking on a social media channel 27 Consumer feeling better about themselves 11

Coming to the advertising organisation for information and general ‘shareability’ are high on the list of terms organisations use to define engagement.



Future implementation In terms of general marketing and social media expenditure, 64% of respondents reported that they currently allocate less than 5% of their marketing budget to social media. Only 49%, however, envisage that they will spend less than 5% next year (i.e. there is a trend to spend more in this medium). The biggest shift is anticipated to occur for those who currently spend very little on social media (i.e. 5-10%). Currently, 20% of respondents claim to have a spend of this magnitude, it is expected that this will increase to 34% in the next year, with this change coming from those organisations with virtually no current spend (less than 5%) on social media. This shift comes mainly from small organisations where only 8% report their current spend to be between 5% and 10%, whereas next year 26% anticipate to spend in this range. See table 3. TABLE 3 CURRENT AND ANTICIPATED SPEND (IN NEXT YEAR) % of marketing budget spent on social media All Small Organisations Medium Organisations Large Organisations

Current spend

Anticipated Spend

Current spend

Anticipated Spend

Current spend

Anticipated Spend

Current spend

Anticipated Spend

% % % % % % % %< 5% 64 49 54 36 51 35 48 335-10% 20 34 8 26 22 41 18 30 10-30% 14 12 10 6 8 5 9 12< 30% 2 5 4 10 0 0 0 0

Organisations are anticipating an increase in spend on social media in the next year. In terms of time spent on social media (as part of marketing strategy) the majority of respondents (58%) report it is taking up more time now than it was a year ago, with small organisations reporting more time spent now (62%) than large organisations (45%). Larger organisations are more likely to employ full time staff and external agencies for social media purposes, but still the greater majority report that human resources required for implementing social media are largely being absorbed into existing roles. The biggest reported barriers to ‘better social media adoption’ are a lack of knowledge (24%), a lack of time (19%) and organisational culture (17%). Therefore it is not surprising that research (39%), staff training (36%), additional budgets (34%) and an organisational cultural change (31%) are at the top of the list in terms of things currently being put in place to increase the organisations’ social media presence in the future. Another interesting finding also in regards to barriers to entry was that 46% of all respondents reported that their organisation would need improved technology to maintain a social media strategy. This finding is consistent across small and large organisations. ‘BEST PRACTICE’ - STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTITIONERS Designed for practitioners, this section of the paper describes social media ‘best practice’ based on grounded knowledge from both academic and industry literatures. Over 1000 resources (industry opinions, articles and reports) are summarised to provide these recommendations.



1. Always strive for reach Given our knowledge of consumer behaviour and how brands grow, it follows that advertisers must reach as many consumers as possible to remind them and nudge their brand purchase propensities. A common marketing mistake is investing heavily (whether in absolute dollars or in resources) for low-reach media (Sharp 2010). So given social media is so highly fragmented, a marketer should aim not to get bogged down with the small stuff, but rather to focus on the biggest platforms operating in the social media space. Most commentators agree, there are really only five options for companies looking to establish a strong social media presence: blogs (WordPress), Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and YouTube. These platforms are not only where the biggest supporter bases are but they also have better functionality in terms of their ability to support interesting, customisable and rich content. And not surprisingly when content is ‘king’, the flow on effects (also known as the ice-berg effect) can be exponential. For example, with blog mentions, emails, embedded tweets, search results, re-tweets, not to mention the ‘knock offs’ (see Cadbury Gorilla spoof on YouTube) the passing along of social media content can be extremely large. There are some good examples in World Wide Rave (Meerman-Scott 2009) about small businesses having great content to spread via social media. Perhaps the most topical example of this is the ‘Old Spice Guy’ campaign (Wieden + Kennedy, Portland). In July 2010, American brand Old Spice (Proctor and Gamble) extended their television campaign by interacting via social media (Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Digg and YouTube) and producing 183 customised and shareable videos to extend reach via key influencers. The ‘official’ campaign ran for three days garnering 6.7 million views after 24 hours, ballooning to over 23 million views after 36 hours. Facebook fans of the brand grew by 188%, YouTube subscribers by 227% and an impressive 2,800% growth in Twitter followers (Keath 2010). Another good example is UNIQLO: Lucky Counter campaign (Dentsu, Tokyo) where consumers were asked to tweet products on their website. The more tweets an item received (in a specified time frame), the bigger the discounts. The discounts are then applied to purchases made through the site. See figure 1. Additionally, marketers should apply integrated marketing communications (IMC) in any social media strategy. IMC is about tying platforms together to both maximise modality (i.e. if a brand has both auditory and visual assets) plus provide the ability to build additional reach by reaching different consumers or sub-segments of a brand’s target market. So applied in a social media setting, campaigns where an organisation may need a different creative execution for Twitter and YouTube, the look, the feel and the brand elements should be consistent and present as a seamless brand continuation throughout the customers’ day, strengthening memory association. In terms of the ability to gain additional reach, multiple and linked distribution points that enable ‘shareabilty’ should be a top priority. For example, link Twitter to Facebook so that all Tweets appear in the public updates. But a word of caution, multiple distribution points can be difficult to manage, so best to pick a few at most and work on better content/execution - don’t let the tool take over the purpose (Stelzner 2010). So while the “Big Five” accommodate the largest audience numbers, they also have the greatest functionality in terms of their ability to deliver multimedia content and their ability to tie platforms together. In theory then, they offer the biggest bang for the buck.



FIGURE 1 UNIQLO: LUCKY COUNTER CAMPAIGN

http://www.uniqlo.com/uk/luckycounter/index.html 2. Build and refresh memory cues The importance of building memory cues is long noted as being of vital importance for advertising effectiveness. Not only do memory cues act as mental triggers at the point of purchase, but when they are strong, they will also help to curb any misattributing of the advertising message to a competitor. Building memory cues by developing (or strengthening existing) distinctive assets is a sure path to brand identification and is a tried and tested approach in an offline media context. Social media marketers need to ensure that distinctive assets are strengthened (not weakened) by the limitation of the social media mode. For example, McDonalds’ “Golden Arches” (symbol) and their “I’m lovin’ it” (slogan) are prominently displayed on all social media platforms including Twitter, Facebook, Myspace, Flickr, even the new interactive billboard3) in Piccadilly Circus, London. See figure 2. Another good example of a social media campaign being used to strengthen distinctive assets can be seen below for Mars M&M’s where the characters are prominent and consistent across all platforms. The examples below include a Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and traditional web site execution (where a consumer can ‘become an M&M’ and build their own character profile). Consistency (across all communications) and commitment (across time) are two noted principals in the fostering of memory links (Romaniuk and Hartnett 2010). See figure 3.



FIGURE 2 MCDONALD’S INTERACTIVE BILLBOARD, PICCADILLY CIRCUS, LONDON

http://www.mcdonalds.co.uk/ourworld/piccadilly/piccadilly-sign-london.shtml FIGURE 3 MARS, M&M CHARACTERS

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/mms?ref=ts, http://twitter.com/mmsgreen, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pRdzQ4B52s&feature=related, http://www.m-ms.com/us/becomeanmm/



3. Incorporate recency planning tactics Communicating with category buyers, with at least one advertisement or brand reminder immediately before a consumer is faced with a category purchase opportunity, is an idealistic approach to media planning and aligns with both brand maintenance and brand growth objectives. While aiming to schedule to reach potential buyers close to the purchase occasion is common in a traditional offline media plan, applying recency scheduling tactics in a social media context is only now becoming more typical. One element of recency planning is the desire to be ‘on-air’ continuously. This recommendation results from the knowledge that buying behaviour is near-random, which means while a marketer may intend to schedule for advertising to reach potential consumers when they are close to the purchase occasion, they can never be 100% sure as to when any one individual will be about to buy. Subsequently planning for continuous reach is best. For social media marketers, the advent of the smart phone is therefore highly fortuitous. Very few other media have the opportunity to get as close to the purchase occasion as does social media via such devices. Traditional mobile advertising (i.e. SMS) allowed for an initial attempt in an online setting at applying the recency principle of hitting potential buyers when they are close to purchase. However, SMS as an advertising vehicle has been largely rejected as unwanted interruption. The evolution of personalising media has changed not only the perception of mobile advertising (even a tweet feels like an individual is writing it), but also in terms of ‘useful’ immediacy by means of ‘checking in’. The future of mobile advertising is about location-based messages, also referred to as ‘hyperlocal’. While Foursquare was the founding platform for hyperlocality, many of the bigger platforms are introducing location-based features including Buzzd, Facebook and Twitter. Evidence of the implementation of such recency planning principles in social media are relatively rare and there are very few ‘good’ case studies to demonstrate our point. In about 12 months, when we have smart phone saturation and platforms such as FourSquare hits critical mass, better case studies will be available. 4. Put ‘people’ in the picture – Remember to be ‘social’ A major benefit of social media as compared to more traditional media offerings is that it epitomises creativity. But the social media manager should consider how people can be integrated into the content. The strongest examples of ‘shareability’ come from personalised content, people being a part of the message (or delivery of the message). The key is the content needs to ‘rock’ (and be well branded); people need to want to send it on. It must be fun and fit with the audience style. Marketers (particularly those new to social media) don’t need to reinvent the wheel; there are plenty of case study examples to demonstrate how ‘best’ to extend a social media campaign to incorporate people. Marketers can use these as a benchmark. One such example is the Cadbury 'It's no Picnic' chocolate bar campaign (George Patterson Y&R, Melbourne). Cadbury challenged the public to film themselves (using their own integrated movie editing software) eating a Picnic in the space of a 30 second ad break and finishing with a statement ‘Picnic, it’s no Picnic’ (so not only were the ads well branded, but the product was demonstrated). Twelve hundred videos were uploaded onto the Cadbury site. Not only were they all shared through Facebook and YouTube, but hundreds of the ads were aired on Australian national television and each creator was contacted with the details of the airing channel and time, allowing them to further notify their friends through Facebook and Twitter.



A smaller local example of this is a youth retention campaign by Fusion Innovation Agency for SA Great (South Australian government organisation). The campaign was designed to enable youth to share what they believe is great about South Australia with their own voices. Firstly, they were asked to submit photos of themselves doing something they love in South Australia (e.g. at favourite café, at the zoo, etc.) while wearing a purpose designed Heaps Good t-shirt (available via a dedicated microsite). A selection of the best photos were then chosen to appear in the ‘SA – it’s Heaps Good’ television commercial that referred to their consumer driven website. Soon heapsgoodsa.com.au became the place to find and explore exciting things to do in SA, with user-generated content allowing people to view, love, rate and comment on all the Heaps Good things SA has to offer. The site attracted close to 200,000 visits in a few months. Another example that is a bit more left field is the OfficeMax (office supplies retailer), Elf Yourself viral campaign (Toy, New York). Every Christmas holidays the retailer opens a themed microsite that allows the public to upload their headshot (along with up to three others) onto the bodies of a troupe of festively dressed elves that then dance to Christmas music (uses JibJab’s ‘Starring You’ platform). In its first year this animated streaming (which was launched entirely with viral marketing) received over 36 million hits, had 11 people per second ‘elfing’ themselves and saw a 20% increase in store traffic (Stanley 2007). See figure 4. FIGURE 4 OFFICEMAX: ELF YOURSELF CAMPAIGN

http://www.viralblog.com/events/officemax-relaunches-elf-yourself/ These examples provide numbers of hits, uploads, downloads, commercials made etc… but don’t of course account for the pass along rate, which presumably is an unseen, and very large, advantage of such effective social media campaigns. It is said that for every user generated piece of content there are nine people who will comment/like that content and 90 others that will actually see it. This is known in industry circles as



‘the iceberg effect’. While the ‘iceberg effect’ is yet to be empirically quantified (and we are unsure as to how it applies to other media in terms of efficiencies), case study evidence shows that including people in the picture is extremely positive for the success of a social media campaign. 5. Plan for success Social media should not be treated as a stand-alone communications element, rather it should be planned for and fully integrated with business and marketing goals. This is particularly so given that most organisations are planning to increase resource allocation including infrastructure, time and marketing dollars. But the fact remains, that many (particularly small businesses who are perhaps more vulnerable) are dipping their toe in the water and most are doing so reactively. This is of major concern. While the actual cost of social media in terms of advertising space is low, the relative cost to businesses, from a resource perspective alone, has the potential to be of high cost to an organisation – particularly when business owners themselves (small and medium sized alike) are incorporating it into their own existing role. When considering a social media plan, there are many elements to consider. Firstly, while the focus of this paper is on social media in a marketing communications context, social media is also a vehicle for Human Resources/Recruitment, Corporate Relations, Product Development, Research and Service Delivery. Each of these is very different in terms of the resources required and relative impact of the social medium on the organisation. Subsequently each element should be planned individually (albeit with an integrated approach). In addition to this, the marketer needs to consider the multiple layers of social media planning. Sometimes referred to as ‘The Multi-Hats of Social Media’,4) the layers encompass the elements of generation, participation and observation: Generation = a) the development of cut-through, well-branded, entertaining and shareable content; b)

the development of proactive PR (also crisis management i.e. Dominos); and c) the integration of other channels (i.e. trigger with TVC or radio competition).

Participation = finding and using conversation to generate public goodwill (and reach). Observation = listening for suggestions/improvements (i.e. mystarbucksidea.force.com) and see what

the competitors are up to. Each element of the approach needs to be incorporated into the planning process. 6. Don’t narrowly target A social media strategy that ‘super targets’ is undermined by the knowledge that brands grow by getting more people to buy (rather than the same people to buy more often). Couple this with the well documented knowledge that demographics and attitudes show a weak association with actual product use, and hence are in fact too simplistic for targeting purposes (where predicting brand preference is fundamental) (Winter 1980, Cannon 1984, Assael and Poltrack 1991, Fennell and Allenby 2002, Nelson-Field 2009). What could have a more ‘direct’ relationship with product use than actual product use itself? While the inappropriateness of using demographics for targeting purposes has long been noted, they are still to this day largely the currency by which media is traded. There are a few reasons for this:



a) nearly every existing syndicated media research study collects data on demographics providing a common link between virtually every data bank available;

b) many advertisers don’t have access to true single-source data given its cost prohibitiveness; and c) the social media landscape itself, being relatively new, collects profile data limited largely to

demographics. So in effect a marketer should strive for ‘sophisticated mass targeting’ that targets category buyers (Sharp 2010) as opposed to targeting based on a narrow (typically demographic) buyer definition. Without the use of sophisticated single-source data, the best way to do this in a social media context is target based on interests and connections as opposed to variables such as income, age, education, gender and ethnicity (with the obvious exception of browsing location). 7. Start slow It’s not particularly trendy to challenge social media, however an organisation that is looking to implement social media into its strategy should take a step back, be sceptical, dedicate adequate but incremental resources (adequate in terms of relativity to the size of the organisation, incremental in terms of dollars not sacrificed from other successful marketing exercises) and start with pilots to test the likely return. Until researchers understand the full impact of social media (particularly relative to other, larger, less fragmented media), this approach ensures a steady and planned move forward. And remember nil absolute media dollars does not mean nil absolute investment. Consider the ‘real’ cost of the social media agenda by calculating such things as man-hours, technology costs, training costs, external creative fees, downtime, brand heath effects and analytics, plus the cost of the reduced reach (when sacrificing dollars from traditional platforms) minus the return (however that is measured). Above all, all organisations looking to include social media in their strategies should remember that this is still a young (and largely untested) industry sector, and sometimes things won’t work. So keep things manageable, decide where resources are best spent, rather than participating everywhere. 8. Monitor competitor activity This would seem an obvious recommendation but many organisations are so entrenched in managing their own social media platform that they forget to consider competitor activity. Monitoring competitor activity offers significant market intelligence in terms of a competitor’s service delivery practice (including customer satisfaction), emerging products, organisational changes, client movements, competitor efficiencies, web functionality and social media share of voice. In addition such information will likely help to win over senior executive support, where such executives perhaps struggle to understand the benefits of social media. Some basic tools that can be used to do this include Google alerts with competitors’ names, real-time searching on Twitter and Facebook search engines and becoming fans and subscribers of competitor sites and blogs (Kimbarovsky 2009).



9. Enable your employees Unlike traditional media platforms, that typically see organisational input stopping at the generation of a brand message, social media requires commitment from the organisation in terms of participation and observation (as previously mentioned). Social media is a 24/7 and 365 day commitment, with investment required on a long-term basis. Subsequently, what resources are assigned should not be taken lightly and should be constantly reviewed. Once a commitment is made, an organisation should build a vibrant talent pool by enabling some internal social media champions. However ‘young digital junkies’ should not be assigned to this task just because they show greater interest or seem social media savvy. Watch out for those who simply want their ’15 megabytes of fame’! Social media champions are directly responsible for public interaction, and as such should be of high quality and should understand your business’ goals and the fundamentals of how brands grow in order to be effective in this task. Additionally, it is vital that an organisation develop policies and protocols with employees. A social media policy is the blueprint for ‘rules of engagement’. It should provide guidelines for how the brand should always be presented (i.e. branding, message); what is appropriate and not appropriate language/tone of dialog, expected response times, how negative word of mouth should be handled and who is responsible for which components of the response (i.e. who is responsible for monitoring comments, directing questions to the right people, reporting trends, uploading photos). A social media policy will aid in organisational cultural change when it comes to social media integration, and will also likely assist in executive ‘buy-in’. One should also consider the cost of not being prepared (resourcing/policy) for negative feedback. Social media (i.e. Twitter and Facebook) is like a free ‘helpdesk, suggestions box’, a phone line where each conversation is broadcast publicly on a speaker megaphone attached to a van and driven around random neighbourhoods globally. When things do go wrong (which undoubtedly they will) and organisation needs to have enough resources and policies in place to listen and positively engage with unhappy customers or prank calls. A good (bad) example of this is the retailer Best Buys (www.facebook.com/bestbuy). On the surface it appears a well-featured Facebook Page with 1,192,402 likes and a great share product selector application, but apparently poor actual and social media service outweigh the positive experiences of users and results in a spreading of far more negative views than positive ones. Additionally, in the absence of adequate social media monitoring and response, in a 24 hour time frame the site (as viewed on the 7th September 2010) had been hijacked by competitor retailers’ posts, an anti-racism political campaign video and two solicitation posts of a sexual nature. CONCLUDING REMARKS AND FUTURE RESEARCH It would seem that organisations are largely ill prepared for the social media revolution. This is particularly the case for small to medium organisations that are not only being more reactive in terms of implementing social media activity, but they are also spending greater proportions of their marketing budget on social media than larger organisations. They also expect social media to become more important in their marketing mix in the future and yet have undertaken no real planning for this. Additionally, and perhaps most alarmingly, there is not only a disconnect between success measures used for traditional marketing and those used for social media, but knowledge gained to assist social media implementation is largely sourced from un-quantified means. Subsequently this paper not only documents ‘current practice’ (i.e. how organisations are adopting social media), but it also makes recommendations for ‘best practice’ for adopting social media into marketing strategy. These recommendations are based on tested knowledge and should be



applied at least in the short term, until credible and generalisable research (that may or may not disprove this thinking) can be published. Future research here at the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute (University of South Australia) includes some of the big questions such as; ‘Social Media Engagement (in terms of surrounding context) and its Relationship with Ad Likability’, ‘How Big is the Tip of the Iceberg?; quantifying the pass-along rate in social media’. Also questions including ‘What makes something shareable?’, ‘Brand Recall across Social Media Platforms’ and ‘Understanding the Facebook Fan; are they light or heavy users of the brand?’ On social media implementation, one respondent in the quantitative survey discussed in this paper summarised; “It’s a big juicy learning curve, and we are ravenous”. This epitomises current thinking, as there is no mistaking the fact that social media is here to stay and it WILL revolutionise the way we market. We just need to understand HOW we do so efficiently. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Special thanks to all who have contributed to this paper: Shane Burford (University SA), Erica Riebe (University SA), and Lisa Kennewell (Fusion). FOOTNOTES 1. These frameworks are described in How Brands Grow (Sharp 2010). This book draws on a large collection of

empirical research across many years, countries, product categories and researchers. The discussion here dramatically simplifies the extent of this knowledge and discusses only the implications of it for a social media setting.

2. Small organisations were defined as fewer than 50 employees. Medium organisations were defined as between 50 and 500 employees. Large organisations were defined as more than 500 employees. These ranges were selected to be consistent with previous studies on social media and the organisation.

3. The billboard has huge flow on effects including 1.1 million estimated actual views plus YouTube personal videos plus photo sharing on Flickr and facebook. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjVYVQOOJA8&NR=1&feature=fvwp

4. The Multi Hats of Social Media; Gavin Klose, Fusion, South Australia 2010. RESOURCES Alba, J.W., J.W. Hutchinson, and J.G. Lynch. 1991. Memory and Decision Making. Edited by H. Kassarjian and T. Robertson, Handbook of Consumer Theory and Research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Assael, H., and D.F. Poltrack. 1991. "Using Single Source Data to Select Tv Programs Based on Purchasing Behavior." Journal of Advertising Research 31, no. August/September: 9-17. Barnard, N., and A. Ehrenberg. 1997. "Advertising: Strongly Persuasive or Nudging?" Journal of Advertising Research 37, no. January/February: 21-28. Beaumont, L. 2003. "5 Steps to Effective Frequency." Admap December, no. 445. Block, M.P., D.E. Schultz, and BIGResearch. 2009. Media Generations: Media Allocation in a Consumer Controlled Marketplace. Worthington, OH: Prosper Publishing. Calder;, B., E. Malthouse;, and U. Schaedel. 2009. "An Experimental Study of the Relationship between Online Engagement and Advertising Effectiveness." Journal of Interactive Advertising, no. 23: 321 - 31. Cannon, H.M. 1984. "The 'Naive' Approach to Demographic Media Selection." Journal Of Advertising Research 24, no. 3: 21-25.



Damasio, A.R. 1994. Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: Putnam. du Plessis, E. 2005. The Advertised Mind: Ground-Breaking Insights into How Our Brains Respond to Advertising. Great Britain: Milward Brown and Kogan Page Limited. ———. 1994. "Recognition Versus Recall." Journal of Advertising Research 34, no. 3: 75-91. Ehrenberg, A.S.C., N. Barnard, R. Kennedy, and H. Bloom. 2002. "Brand Advertising as Creative Publicity." Journal of Advertising Research 42, no. 4: 7-18. Ehrenberg, A.S.C., N. Barnard, and J. Scriven. 1998. "Advertising Is Publicity Not Persuasion." no. Issue: 1-21.4 Ehrenberg, A.S.C., G. Goodhardt, and T.P. Barwise. 1990. "Double Jeopardy Revisited." Journal of Marketing 54, no. 3: 82-91. Ehrenberg, A.S.C., M.D. Uncles, and G.G. Goodhardt. 2004. "Understanding Brand Performance Measures: Using Dirichlet Benchmarks." Journal of Business Research 57, no. 12. Ephron, E. 1997. "Media Planning: Recency Planning." Admap February. ———. "Recency Planning." www.ephrononmedia.com. Ephron, E., and M. Heath. 2001. "Once May Not Be Enough, but It's the Best We Can Do." Admap November. Fennell, G., and G. Allenby, M. 2002. "Allenby and Fennel Respond." Marketing Research: Back Talk 14, no. 2: 42. Goodhardt, G.J., A.S.C. Ehrenberg, and C. Chatfield. 1984. "The Dirichlet: A Comprehensive Model of Buying Behaviour." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 147, no. 5: 621-55. Green, A. 2010. From Prime Time to My Time: Audience Measurement in the Digital Age: WARC. Hammond, K., A.S.C. Ehrenberg, and G.J. Goodhardt. 1996. "Market Segmentation for Competitive Brands." European Journal of Marketing 30, no. 12: 39-49. Hess, M. 2009."Video Consumer Mapping Study." Muncie, Indiana.: Ballstate University Sequent Partners. Jones, J.P. 1995. "Does Advertising Produce Sales Today or Sales Tomorrow?" Journal of Marketing Communications 1, no. 1: 1-11. ———. 1997. "Is Advertising Still Salesmanship?" Journal of Advertising Research, no. May-June: 9-15. Keath, J. 2010. Behind the Curtain of Old Spice’s Viral Video Mega Hit. Available from: http://socialfresh.com/old-spice-viral-videos/ [Accessed 21 July 2010]. Kennedy, R., and A. Ehrenberg. 2001. "Competing Retailers Generally Have the Same Sorts of Shoppers." Journal of Marketing Communications 7, no. 1: 19-26. Kimbarovsky, R. 2009. 10 Small Business Social Media Marketing Tips. Mashable [Online]. Available from: http://mashable.com/2009/10/28/small-business-marketing/]. McDonald, C., and A.S.C. Ehrenberg. 2003. "What Happens When Brands Gain or Lose Share?: Customer Acquisition or Increased Loyalty?", no. Issue: 1-2.31 Meerman-Scott, D. 2009. World Wide Rave: Creating Triggers That Get Millions of People to Spread Your Ideas and Share Your Stories. NJ: Wiley. Nedungadi, P. 1990. "Recall and Consumer Consideration Sets: Influencing Choice without Altering Brand Evaluations." Journal of Consumer Research 17, no. 3: 263-76. Nelson-Field, K. 2009. "Different? Or Much of the Same? A Descriptive Study of the Demographic and Product Usage Profiles of Media Audiences, with Implications for Targeting Strategy." PhD Thesis, University of South Australia. Newstead, K., J. Taylor, R. Kennedy, and B. Sharp. 2009. "The Long-Term Sales Effects of Advertising: Lessons from Single Source." Journal of Advertising Research 49, no. 2: 207-10. Nuttney, A. 2010. "The Social Networking Market Opportunity." Business Insights.



Papper, R.A., M.E. Holmes, and M.N. Popovich. 2004. "Middletown Media Studies: Media Multitasking... And How Much People Really Use the Media." The International Digital & Media Arts Association Journal 1, no. 1: 9-50. Pintado, I. 2009. Connection Generation; How Connection Determines Our Place in Society and Business: Iggy Pintado. Qualman, E. 2009. Socialnomics: How Social Media Transforms the Way We Live and Do Business: Wiley, John & Sons, Incorporated. Romaniuk, J., and N. Hartnett. 2010. "Understanding, Identifying and Building Distinctive Brand Assets." Schacter, D.L. 1996. Searching for Memory: The Brain, the Mind and the Past. First ed. New York: BasicBooks. Sharp, B. 2010. How Brands Grow. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Solis, B. 2010. Engage; the Complete Guide for Brands and Businesses to Build, Cultivate and Measure Success in the New Web: Wiley. Stanley, T.I. 2007. Eat That, Subservient Chicken: Officemax Elfyourself Site Draws 36 Million. Available from: http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=114562 [Accessed January 29, 2007]. Stelzner, M. 2010. How Big Brands Employ Social Media Marketing. Available from: http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/interview-andy-sernovitz/ [Accessed August 26]. Sterne, J. 2010. Social Media Metrics: How to Measure and Optimize Your Marketing Investment: John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey. Sutherland, M. 1993. Advertising and the Mind of the Consumer - What Works, What Doesn't and Why. St. Leonards: Allen & Unwin. Taylor, J., R. Kennedy, and B. Sharp. 2009. "Making Generalizations About Advertising's Convex Sales Response Function: Is Once Really Enough?" Journal of Advertising Research 49, no. 2: 198-200. Uncles, M., A. Ehrenberg, and K. Hammond. 1995. "Patterns of Buyer Behavior: Regularities, Models, and Extensions." Marketing Science 14, no. 3, Part 2 of 2: G61-G70. Winter, F. 1980. "Matching Target Markets to Media Audiences." Journal 0f Advertising Research 20, no. 1: 61-66.



BIBLIOGRAPHY Online Resources Peer Reviewed Journals adage.com Journal of Interactive Advertising admapmagazine.com Journal of Interactive Marketing blog.sysomos.com Marketing Managementbrandweek.com Marketing Research businesshorizons.com.au Strategic Communication Managementbusinessweek.com Wharton Research Scholars Journal convinceandconvert.com digitalbrandexpressions.com econsultancy.com entrepreneur.com exacttarget.com marketingmag.com.au mashable.com mediapost.com mediaweek.com.au mumbrella.com.au prsa.org (Public Relations Tactics) socialmediaexaminer.com socialmediaexplorer.com WARC.com THE AUTHORS Karen Nelson-Field is a Research Associate, Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science, University of South Australia, Australia. Gavin Klose is Director, Fusion, Australia.

Date post:	20-Mar-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	fusion
View:	215 times
Download:	1 times

The Social Media Leap (ESOMAR, Berlin 2010)

Documents