If you’re going to use social media, make sure you use it to be social!

As you may have picked up already today, we have released our second report investigating how some of the UK’s leading technology companies are using social media. You can download it here.

For the second year in a row, we found that UK technology companies are missing out on the potential of social media by not being social and failing to use these new channels to engage with their audiences.

Only 31% of brands with a Facebook account used it to engage with users and, of those that used Twitter, only 14% of tweets were replies and retweets. When it came to the companies that had a blog, only 20% received comments and only one company took the trouble to reply to comments received.

In the study, we took the 2010 Deloitte Fast Tech 50 – a list of the UK’s 50 fastest growing technology companies and benchmarked their social media activity.

Facebook for B2B is on the rise

One of the most interesting findings this year was that the use of Facebook amongst B2B companies has skyrocketed in the last 12 months with 70% of B2B companies on the platform compared to just 40% previously. Linkedin was still the most popular network used overall (92%), followed by Twitter (80%). YouTube remained the least popular for the second year running (44%). Despite the increase in adoption, most companies were still only using these channels for ‘push’ marketing techniques with 65% of companies with a Facebook page using it for one way communications and 96% of blogs simply broadcasting article and news content without inviting responses.

B2B v B2C

As might be expected, B2C brands in the study were far more likely to engage with users than B2B companies. Of the B2C companies with a Facebook page, 63% used it to engage with consumers compared to just 22% of B2B companies. And, while the percentage of B2B tweets that were replies was only 7%, B2C rated much higher (35%).

Tech companies were also still failing to effectively integrate social media channels with their website. Only 58% of companies in the study had social media links on their homepage despite over 90% of companies having at least one social media site. Half of companies linked Twitter from their homepage, but only 14% linked to a YouTube page or blog.

It’s no longer whether you use it, it’s how you use it

This matches what we’ve found in the last year when speaking to tech companies about social media PR. Whereas a few years ago much of the conversation was about whether tech brands should be using social media. These days, most companies know that they have to get in on the social media act, but are still unsure how to go about it. I predict we’ll see further maturing over the next year, so when version three of the report comes along, maybe we’ll finally see companies using social to be social.

Download ‘How social are you?‘

Originally posted here.

Facebook’s risky new approach to (forced) sharing

True to form, yesterday Facebook rolled out a whole host of new features at its F8 developer conference. The pick of the bunch was a new timeline (see what mine looks like on the right) and closer integration with music and media services. The latter will now be integrated into the platform through social apps.

A central part of this last development is that anything you do on these services – I’ve installed Spotify and the Guardian so far – will be automatically shared on your Facebook profile and through the new Facebook Ticker. This means every track you listen to, every article you read will be shared. The service is opt-out, so most of what you do will be shared automatically.

Selective v. forced sharing

Selective sharing – where you decide what you want to share with others – is how it has always been on the web and there is a lot to commend about this approach. But for Zuckerberg, it is clearly not enough. And, while social media cheerleaders will happily be pumping every Spotify track and Yahoo News article they read in front of their poor friends/subscribers/fans, I suspect the vast majority of Facebook users will be less enthusiastic.

Forced – or what Zuckerberg calls ‘frictionless’ – sharing will bring about a stream of consciousness, pulling in everything you do on the web.

I think there are a number of key problems with this approach that might come back to bite Zuckerberg in the arse:

  • Information overload – an obvious one here, but the increase in the amount of content will merely add to the sense of information overload. Will Facebook’s algorithms be able to effectively pick out the gems (in your eyes) from the tosh?
  • Privacy – Privacy has often been an issue for Facebook and the reason for this seems to lie in the fact that Zuckerberg’s vision – where everything should be seen by everyone – is at odds with what most users want and also how the site was initially constructed. It’s not hard to see how these latest feature changes make privacy harder and harder to control…
  • Lack of curation – but perhaps the most important issue I have with all this is the lack of curation, the lack of quality control. Some of the stuff I listen to on Spotify is awful. After a few seconds I regret listening to it and move onto something else. But my fans on Facebook won’t necessarily know that. Sharing works best for me when people I am linked up with identify something they think is great and actively make a decision to share it with others. This new forced sharing approach seems to overlook this fundamental process. And that is something that, for me, makes sharing less useful.

Is Facebook losing focus?

I’m almost bored of Facebook announcements. There have been so many over the last few weeks it is easy to lose count.

And, if you believe the reports out today, at the company’s F8 Developer conference on Thursday, we are set to see a barrage of new features and tweaks that will move the goalposts yet again.

On the one hand, it is great to see a company like Facebook innovating. I’ve often thought Facebook was slower than some of its competitors to roll out new features. But, much like London buses, this is clearly not the case anymore!

Facebook seriously risks confusing its users. Constant changes to the user interface will be met with mixed reactions (humans just don’t like change, fact), but changes to the fabric of the social network (e.g. subscribe buttons) could be far more serious.

Some of the most effective online businesses out there are the ones that are so simple to use that everything just seems to ‘make sense’. Facebook doesn’t fall into this camp and by adding complexity to complexity, it stands to alienate even its most loyal user base.

Forced to innovate?

Some will claim that Facebook’s ramped up efforts in recent weeks have been a direct response to the beta launch of Google+ (and future-proofing ahead of the Google’s public launch of the service, expected shortly) and a response to continued growth and development over at Twitter.

The changes at Facebook have been so wide ranging that I don’t think they can all be put down to a competitor response, but some developments have possibly been rolled out sooner than initially intended to start the fight back.

Users, users, users

With nearly a billion users, there is clearly no need to start sounding the warning bells yet. Facebook’s key strength still lies in the fact that it has by far the most users and the most active users of any social network out there.

The danger is that by constantly fiddling with the platform, users become confused about what the platform is for and how they should use it.

Too big to fail? Possibly. Too complicated to be useful? We’ll see…

picture credit

Facebook launches a subscribe button & changes the social game again

I do wonder if the guys at Facebook, Twitter and Google have slept at all in the last few months. Only hours ago, in a blog about Twitter’s new analytics product, I mentioned that we are living through an intriguing battle as the three pretenders to the throne compete for supremacy. And for those of us working in the social media PR space, it is truly fascinating.

So I guess it should come as no surprise to find that, today, Facebook has unveiled another landmark change that could alter the way we all use the social network.

Introducing the subscribe button

At a basic level, Facebook’s new ‘subscribe’ button let’s users follow the public updates of anyone on the network without actually being friends with them. As Facebook states in the blog post announcing the service, in the past, users “couldn’t hear directly from people [they're] interested in but don’t know personally—like journalists, artists and political figures.”

Sound familiar? Yes, that’s right, the subscribe button is essentially the equivalent of the follow button on Twitter; Facebook is moving to a more asynchronous model. And, as with Twitter, the number of people ‘subscribing’ to your feed will be displayed on your profile.

There is additional functionality too. When viewing a friend’s profile, the subscribe button will allow you to set certain preferences which will control the updates you get from that person in your news feed. Settings include ‘all updates’, ‘most updates’ and ‘important updates’.

You can enable the subscribe option here.

Public v. private

When Facebook announced the changes to posting updates last month (the addition of privacy settings and location features), it was clear that it was encouraging users to make more of their posts public. This latest move seems to confirm that.

So on the one hand, this could encourage more people to make more of their posts public, but it could also encourage users to think more carefully about their privacy on the network; an issue that Facebook has struggled with in the past.

What does this mean for brands?

Another important question is whether this will have any effect on the ‘Pages’ feature that Facebook has created for companies or businesses.

The simple answer is no, it won’t.

The subscribe feature won’t be available on Pages and is really designed for individuals such as celebrities, journalists or politicians – individuals that have driven a lot of the success Twitter has achieved in recent years.

Facebook has created a handy little table – see right – that lets you see which feature is most appropriate for what you need.

Overly complex?

However, handy tables aside, I can’t help but think we are being bombarded by new Facebook features at the moment. Only yesterday, Facebook rolled out smart lists (incidentally a really nice feature) and it seems that every time I log onto the service, something has changed.

Of course, the subscribe button is totally optional. Facebook will function in exactly the same way that it always has. And one of my concerns with subscribe and with some of the other features that Facebook has introduced recently is that they risk over complicating the network. One of the reasons I believe Twitter has been so successful is that it is so simple to use. Facebook could potentially do with bearing this in mind.

But if Facebook gets it right and if users start embracing these new features, then it could be a good strategic move for the network. Whatever happens, those of us involved in social media PR will be watching how these changes are used very closely. I wonder what tomorrow will bring…

Finally! Twitter unveils analytics tool

Could this be the moment socially-enabled companies and agencies of all types have been waiting for? Very possibly.

Twitter has finally unveiled an official analytics tool – Twitter Web Analytics.

As I have blogged about on many occasions, an official analytics product from Twitter makes so much sense and surely could/will be a key part of the long-promised corporate or paid for accounts the social network has hinted at on many occasions.

So what has Twitter actually revealed? According to the official blog post:

Today we’re announcing Twitter Web Analytics, a tool that helps website owners understand how much traffic they receive from Twitter and the effectiveness of Twitter integrations on their sites. Twitter Web Analytics was driven by the acquisition of BackType, which we announced in July.

Twitter reveals that the product – which will be rolled out to a select few this week – will incorporate the following features:

  • See how Twitter content is being shared around the web
  • Track the amount of traffic from Twitter to a company’s website – including clicks per tweets
  • Measure the effectiveness of ‘official’ Twitter buttons
  • An API allowing third party analytics tools to incorporate this data

Interestingly, the focus here isn’t on content you share through a Twitter account, it’s on how content on your website has been shared, whether or not you share it through your account. It also provides you with a stream of tweets that reference your content, allowing you to easily reply to or take action based on activity.

The blog post reveals that the rest of us should have access to this feature in the “next few weeks”.

Generally, this is a move that should be welcomed. As a tech PR, I have been hoping for some sort of analytics product for ages. Sure, there have been third party tools that claim to do this to differing levels or success and/or accuracy and there are also various different Google analytics hacks that can help provide certain insights. But an official product that can make the most of the entire Twitter firehose is very exciting.

The product was announced at Techcrunch’s Disrupt conference and the publisher has some interesting detail to add on how Twitter analytics will actually work:

When you log in to your designated account, you’ll see a number of metrics including how many Tweets (this includes Tweets of all kinds), across the network include links to your publisher site as well as the number of clicks. You’ll also be able to see the weekly, daily and monthly number of clicks from any Tweet sent from the site via a Tweet button.

…Twitter will also show you all the Tweets that were sent from the Tweet button on your site, as well as any Tweet that was sent with an inbound link to your site. From the analytics platform you can retweet these Tweets as well as respond to these users.Another extremely useful feature is the ability to see the top links by day, week and month by Tweets and clicks. Users can also add more than one website to a dashboard, and sub-domains as well. Additionally, Twitter will show users what the average number of clicks Tweets received within given time periods and well as the percent of Tweets that were generated using the Tweet button.

You can see the full video of the announcement below.

The social media battle is on?

We’re going through an interesting phase in the whole social media sphere at the moment. The launch of Google+ has put the cat amongst the pigeons with Facebook rolling out a series of ‘anything you can do, I can do better’ features over the last few weeks. And Twitter itself announced some impressive user figures this week too.

We are reaching a point at which these social media giants realise now is the time for them to push for supremacy and, while I believe there is plenty of space for co-habitation, that doesn’t stop these networks from competing for users and column inches.

The fact that Facebook has provided an insight/analytics product for some time is a case in point here. Again, as I have blogged about on several occasions, businesses remain the golden bullet for many social networks when it comes to monetisation. The rumours that Twitter was languishing in no-mans’s land for a time seems to hold some sway. But since Dick Costolo took over late last year, the company seems to have assumed greater commercial, marketing and product savvy.

So is this the start of a greater focus on providing the millions of businesses that use Twitter on a daily basis with greater tools to help them succeed on social media? As a tech PR, I hope so.

 

Originally posted at EML Wildfire Tech PR

Facebook ditches Deals and Places; location isn’t a walk in the park

Facebook seems to be rethinking its approach to location. Following a number of large-scale changes to features on the site last week, it has also announced the closure of two of its relatively young location-based products; Facebook Places and Facebook Deals.

Places was the Foursquare-like product that allowed users to ‘check-in’ to locations and was launched with a great fanfare last year. It always had a slightly uncomfortable position on the site and, as with Foursquare, seemed to lack a clear raison d’etre.

Deals was launched in April on the back of Facebook Places to provide local businesses with an opportunity to tap into the Facebook network by offering location-based discounts and incentives. It was tipped as a ‘Groupon-killer’ by the mainstream tech media.

But it too has now been dissolved.

Not the end…

Many, far wiser than I, have suggested this is a sign Facebook is refocusing its efforts away from location. But I don’t think this is the case, for a number of reasons.

Firstly, location is still a key part of the new features that have arrived in the last week. In fact, location is now more prominent than ever and is (potentially) built into every update a user makes, much like on Twitter.

As mentioned above, the problem with Places was always getting users/giving them a reason to ‘check-in’. This move means it is not necessary for them to remember to do anything, it just happens automatically and that means…

Getting business on board

…that more users will be ‘checking in’ and therefore there will be more location data for businesses to use to push deals. Yes, that’s right, although Facebook Deals is closing, the idea behind it remains. Facebook says:

“We remain committed to building products to help local businesses connect with people, like Ads, Pages, Sponsored Stories, and Check-in Deals. We’ve learned a lot from our test and we’ll continue to evaluate how to best serve local businesses.“

So ‘check-in’ deals will remain and I bet they’ll become a key part of the platform in time.

The opportunity argument

This is because, for me, location still remains the nirvana for social businesses like Facebook. You only need to look at the massive success of Groupon and the relative success of Foursquare (perhaps not in user numbers but when it comes to the commercial deals that have been set up using the platform, demonstrating a clear hunger for this type of functionality) to see there is something there.

And Facebook has a great opportunity to tap into this trend namely because it has the users to make it take-off and also to get businesses weak at the knees with anticipation. Let’s not forget that Facebook itself is still frantically searching for new money-making strands. This could be it.

So I don’t see these moves as a sign of Facebook ignoring location, more that Facebook is readjusting itself for a full on location-based onslaught.

Hold tight.

picture credit

What the UK government could learn about using social media in times of crisis

As I’ve argued twice already in the last few weeks, the UK government attacks on the role social media played in the recent riots is scandalous.

In my mind, the government would do well to focus its attention on looking into the very real and serious problems that caused the riots and, if it does want to look more into social media, should focus on ways the emergency services could use networks like Twitter and Facebook to better inform citizens.

So, following the earthquake in the US yesterday, I was intrigued to see this tweet from the US Department of Homeland Security:

It’s good to see that at least some in positions of power see the potential of social media…

[hat-tip]

Why Facebook’s Skype announcement was a #PR #Fail

Sometimes in PR, no matter what you do, something else just comes out of the blue and sweeps away your opportunity.

That’s what it might feel like for Facebook today. Yesterday the social giant launched a tie up with Skype where it will offer 1:1 video right on the network through its existing chat functionality.

It’s a good innovation and one that I’m sure will be used a lot.

But the problem for Facebook is that Google had, as part of its Google+ announcement, launched a feature called Hangouts, where groups of up to ten could have online video chats together. The Google tool was better, slicker and announced earlier.

Of course, in the grand scheme of things, Facebook shouldn’t be too worried as, at the moment, it’s 600m active users will care much more about this announcement than about Hangouts.

But, I still think Facebook’s embattled PR team failed to approach this announcement in the best way.

An ‘awesome’ mistake

As soon as Google+ launched last week the comparisons with Facebook have been fast and furious. And rightly so. The fact that Facebook’s first post-Google+ announcement saw the network fail in a very obvious way to match Google+ is unfortunate.

Not least because of the way Facebook touted the press conference yesterday. Speaking in Seattle last week, Zuckerberg called it ‘awesome’ which clearly raised expectations to meteoric levels. The announcement certainly wasn’t awesome which has left the media reaction today less than positive.

Maybe I’m being too harsh on Facebook. Clearly, as stated above, this is good news for their users. And the link up with Skype (read: Microsoft) is certainly interesting.

My beef is in the way this was handled. Simple PR rules were broken: don’t overhype, manage your timing and make sure you match up to your competitors.

There’s nothing Facebook can do to influence how and when Google does things, but a good PR department would have the strength and courage of its convictions to speak out when an announcement looks doomed to #fail.

Google+ musings; great product, three years too late?

I’ve been having a play with Google+, the new social network that launched this week.

And, to be honest, there is a lot to like! It’s a really well put together app and, while many of the features and functionality are very similar to those found on Facebook (and Twitter to a lesser extent), they are still executed very well and, in many cases, in a better way than on already existing platforms.

My main issue with Google+ in terms of whether it can succeed, is whether the USP is strong enough. Are there enough plus points to encourage people to move from Facebook and/or Twitter to use Google+ as their main social network? I’m not sure there is.

The only other possibility is that people will use Google+ alongside existing networks but, for me, there seems to be too much overlap to make this likely.

Here are the pros and cons of Google+ as I see it at this (albeit very early) stage:

Strong UI

Google has revamped its entire look and feel this week to coincide with the Google+ launch. This in itself demonstrates the importance the web giant is placing on this new service.  It’s very clean, modern and slick with a lot of HTML5 tricks to simplify the user interface.

It’s also very intuitive. Part of this might be down to the fact it takes much of its functioanlity from existing networks that we are already familiar with, but even so, it is executed very impressively.

The (integrated) power of Google

While Facebook clearly has the user numbers already and Google+ doesn’t, it would be wrong to underestimate the potential power Google has. It is still by far the most dominant force on the web today with the majority of people still starting any browsing session.

If Google+ is pimped out far and wide across the Google network (which I have no doubt it will) then awareness levels could rise pretty quickly.

If Facebook was built today, it would look like this

The concept of ‘circles’ is very, very strong. To my mind, this is social 2.0 in action. The online social framework we have at the moment in networks like Twitter and Facebook is unnatural. Lumping all our friends, contacts etc. doesn’t sit well with how we interact offline.

In ‘real life’, we all have different social circles that we mix in and we behave in different ways with each. We share different information, gossip, thoughts etc. Google+ brings this natural sophistication online in a very clever way.

The key question is whether this USP is enough…

The Facebook (and Twitter) problem

And the reason this might not be enough is that Facebook and Twitter are so much further down the line, it’s going to be difficult for Google to catch up.

Facebook has already hinted at backlash moves to come next week and, with Google+ so heavily based on the Facebook model, it surely won’t be too difficult for Zuckerberg to match anything Google+ throws into the mix.

Venture Beat hints that, because of this, Google’s real target with all this is Twitter, but I’m yet to be convinced.

If only Google had launched this three years ago. What might have been…

Facebook to become the platform from which we run our (online) lives

I’m seeing an increasing amount of noise at the moment discussing the extent to which brands should have a presence on Facebook.

Sysomos had an interesting post recently arguing why websites shouldn’t be replaced by Facebook Pages and on NMA today, Reputation Online Editor Vikki Chowney discusses why brands should take a slightly different viewpoint and see Facebook as more than just an outpost for campaign led activity.

Brands flocking to Facebook

I can see why this is a topical discussion as it seems every day another company is announcing a new Facebook presence, a campaign page or even a whole ecommerce entity on the social network.

We’ve even seen Warner Brothers revealing it is set to offer movies for purchase or rent through its Facebook page.

Increasingly it seems brands are flocking to Facebook and, for me, the reasons are fairly obvious; it’s where the audience is!

Facebook engagement levels are pretty impressive with nearly 30 million users in the UK alone, representing around 46% of the entire population. In addition, 27% of these UK users are in that all important 24 to 35 age bracket.

Facebook as a platform

And so increasingly, I’m beginning to see Facebook more as a platform in itself.  It’s somewhere where you can (or will soon be able to) go to play games, shop, watch films, use IM and check email.

One of the big arguments against this for brands is the ‘loss of control’ element but, as Vikki says: “Yes, you don’t have complete control of your data or your connections on the site (or most other social networks, for that matter), but that’s a reflection of what marketing and PR has evolved to become. A brand no longer holds all the keys or makes all the decisions.”

And, at the end of the day, if the marketing and conversion all happens on Facebook, it that really a massive problem or is it more a vanity thing?

For ASOS, is the fact that it’s target audience are going to be on Facebook a lot more than they are going to be on the ASOS website a problem or an opportunity? I’d suggest the latter.

The key for success for all

As I’ve argued before, Facebook is realising it needs brands as much as they need it in order to extract value out of the network.  So I’d expect more moves by the company itself to encourage brands to increase their use of the site to create more engaging experiences for users.

The talk always focuses on how Google plans to ‘run’ the web with it’s Google OS, but could Facebook soon be the platform on which all web services exist?

picture credit

About

This is my story. I've always been fascinated by the internet. My first passion was music and I studied a music degree at Birmingham University. But once graduated I quickly went back to the web working as a digital marketer. I also ran a web startup for a few years. In the need of a new challenge, I turned to the world of PR and now work as an Account Director at EML Wildfire. My interest is primarily looking at how PR professionals can make the most of the web and digital marketing. This blog contains my thoughts and things I find inspirational.

© 2012 Danny Whatmough - Made by me