Archive for the ‘Facebook’ Category

It used to be that you could get away with just a website. Then you needed way to collect email addresses so that people could subscribe to it. Then those forward-looking social media pros started saying that RSS was the future of communications, then Twitter. Whatever the medium, its always been about making it easy for your audience to get updates from your website.

With that in mind, I set up a Facebook Page for BlogCampaigning. All it will really do is pull in posts from here, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t become a Fan.

-Parker

Just like Carlsberg describes itself as “probably the best beer in the world,” I’m pretty sure that Thirsty Thursday is probably the best PR meet-up in Toronto. Maybe I’m just saying that because I recently turned 28, and I think I’ve entered my Carlsberg years.

Or maybe I’m just in the middle of my Thirsty Thursday years, and that means you probably are too. If you come out to Pauper’s Pub (372 Bloor Street West) on April 15, we can debate the whole thing.

From the official invite:

Spring is here and so is the latest edition of Thirsty Thursday!

Hot on the heels of our Talk Is Thirsty event last month, we’re back at our usual venue of Pauper’s Pub. Join us for a few extra-casual beers as we talk about billable hours, best practices for media relations and how glad we are that we didn’t go to med school.

Feel free to show up with friends, or by yourself. Chris Clarke will be at Pauper’s “holding down the fort” around 5:30 pm, while the rest of us will show up around 6:00.

RSVP to the event on Facebook so we know how many people to expect and join the Thirsty Thursday Group on Facebook so you won’t be left out of our May event (its going to be awesome).

-Parker

PS: We need a logo for Thirsty Thursday – anyone want to give it a shot?

The Obama presidential campaign was one of the most successful social media campaigns to date. Last month I went to see Rahaf Harfoush speak about her time spent in the “trenches” as a member of Obama’s new media team. She gave a good overview of how a variety of online tools and applications were used to rally supporters, build awareness and raise funds. Rahaf emphasized one important theme which was featured in every online initiative. It was simple: aim to turn online activity into offline action. It’s one thing to rally online support for something or someone, or have a huge number of fans, followers or friends, but it’s a lot harder to turn that momentum into something meaningful offline.

The Obama camp did a great job of this. MyBO (my.barackobama.com) was launched early in the primaries to unite communities and supporters already active online. The site grew to over 2 million profiles and 35,000 volunteer groups. This activity translated into 200,000 offline events and over 35 million dollars raised by personal fundraising pages alone. The new media team also used a number of other social applications including YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn and Twitter to build support and provide fans with shareable content. This helped get Obama’s message out and also directed traffic to MyBO, where fans could be converted to volunteers. High levels of engagement with supporters led to millions of dollars of small donations. By building strong online communities, divided by region, Obama’s team could spring into action offline whenever and wherever they needed to.

Other successful campaigns have also benefited by keeping this rule in mind:

Dunkin’ Donuts uses its Facebook page to bring fans together to share pictures and videos of themselves expressing their love for DD. It also uses Dunkin’ Run, a site where customers alert their friends and co-workers when they are about to make a “run” and invite them to submit items to their order. This activity has created a sense of community online and also increased DD’s in-store sales.

BlendTec made a series of inexpensive “Will it Blend?” videos, which are housed on its YouTube channel. The videos generated hundreds of thousands of views and led to a 700% increase in sales.

Starbucks launched its My Starbucks Ideas site where members can share ideas, give suggestions, vote and chat. The aim was to tie Starbucks fans closer to the brand and allow them help “shape the future of Starbucks”. By also adding an “Ideas In Action” section, contributors can see the suggestions that earned the most votes and which ones will be called to action offline.

Canada Dry Mott’s recently launched a Facebook page and Twitter account to energize fans and followers around their goal of making the Caesar Canada’s official drink. Not only are they becoming more engaged with their community, but they also have a clear goal of 50,000 signatures before they can take their petition to Parliament Hill. This campaign is still young, but looks like it may develop a strong following.

In your next online campaign or initiative, remember to ask yourself how it will translate towards your online goals.

Do you have any other examples of campaigns that have succeeded by employing this strategy?

What an innovative idea – MAVERICK Public Relations is offering aspiring young PR pros a chance to win an internship.

According to the blog of Julie Ruscioelli (Maverick PR President and founder), ” the lucky winner of the first MAVERICK Idol will be granted an eight-week paid internship at the award-winning PR firm during the summer of 2009.”

The contest will take the form of two rounds, giving the participants a total of seven minutes to show that they’ve got the MAVERICK stuff.  From the news release, it sounds like they’re encouraging the applicants to be as creative as possible.

I think this is a great idea for a number of reasons. First of all, it is much more of a real-life experience than a job interview. Being in PR means giving a lot of presentations and having to sell your idea. With a format like this, MAVERICK is more likely to find an intern with the workplace skills they’re looking for (and, as sometimes happens with internships, result in a full-time job later on). It also gives the aspiring intern a great chance to practice their presentation skills. Scotty Mac, who works at MAVERICK and is no doubt one of the brains behind this idea, adds that the presentations will only be in front of the MAVERICK judges, rather than in front of all the other applicants as well.

For more information and the full contest rules, check out the MAVERICK Idol event on Facebook

-Parker

PS: what’s the deal with PR firms and their insistence on capitalizing their names? NATIONAL? SHIFT? MAVERICK?

That’s right, folks. CNW Group now has a Facebook page where you can show your love for Canada’s number one newswire or sign up to hear about upcoming events, like our Breakfast with the Media series.

I didn’t have much to do with this, but I know that CNW Group’s all-star Communications Coordinators Jessica Sine and Amanda Laird have great plans for it.

In the meantime, do you have any other great examples of brands/companies using Facebook pages?

-Parker

(as usual, this and all other posts on BlogCampaigning reflect the opinions of the author, and are not necessarily those of CNW Group)

The whole world uses Facebook, yet the social network still hasn’t found a way to properly monetize on that potential (or just hasn’t revealed these plans yet). Sure, they’ve got the ads but while Darren Barefoot was successfully guided to a cool band they were trying to sell me a fake Rolex the other day.

Facebook is probably not so desperate that they are going to try and earn their lunch money advertising fake watches from China, but this still left a bit of a bad aftertasete. Globally, counterfeit watches are estimated to cost the Swiss watch industry alone more than $600 million per year. I doubt Facebook wants to be known as a platform for this massive black market – it’s certainly not reputation enhancing.

-Jens

Inspired by Buzz Canuck’s recent post, we’ve also added ourselves to Blog Networks on Facebook. It is early days, so I’m not sure what the point of this little experiment will be, but join us and and see what happens.

Click here to join!

-Parker

Writes Techcrunch:

Facebook is starting to pursue social networks that have copied their design or features by suing German site StudiVZ. The Financial Times has reported that Facebook filed a suit in California against the German company for what it claims is an infringement of Facebook’s “look, feel, features and services”.

StudiVZ claims to have 10 million active members, and is the largest social network in the German-speaking world, covering Germany, Belgium, Austria and Switzerland. The network is actually comprised of three different sites, each one a separate social network aimed at different segments of the market. StudiVZ.net is the classic site for college-aged students, SchuelerVZ.net is for high school students and MeinVZ.net is for older adults (these three networks were very hard to decipher in German when I attempted to sign up).

As the German blog Netzwertig points out what Facebook basically admits with this is that studiVZ is the main hurdle for their expansion into the German market. Networking effects prevent studiVZ users from switching to the American competition and rumoured talks about a possible take over apparently didn’t lead to any result.

Netzwertig goes on to explain that after Facebook’s growth in the US, Great Britain and Scandinavia, regions where the service virally spread in an instant, slowed down it needs to exploit new markets. Consequently Facebook can’t ignore a tightly populated, affluent country like Germany.

Nevertheless: The launch in Germany was pretty half-assed, a minimum was spend on the localisation (which accordingly lacked quality) and marketing. The idea that new members turned up automatically didn’t work out. So now it’s time for plan B – sue the competition out of existence.

Netzwertig speculates that the chances of studiVZ still existing as an independent network in one year are marginal now that Facebook identified it as its nemesis. Eventually the outcome of this whole venture also very much depends on studiVZ’s current owners, the Holtzbrinck-Verlag, which acquired the service for 100 million Euros in 2007 but couldn’t capitalise on it yet.

Personally I think that there’s a reason that Mashable included studiVZ in their top 10 international Facebook clones list, pointing out that

StudiVZ is nearly identical to Facebook in terms of features, functionality, and interface.

As Anthony Barba explains studiVZ internally was even referred to as “project Fakebook”, a fact that was revealed later when error messages used the phrase “fakebook”.

The only reason I ever signed up for studiVZ was to stalk people I went to high school with (just as pretty much everyone else I know) – something I regretted immediately. Not only because I came across some characters of the past I’d rather forget, but also because of the absolute god awful functionality of this sorry, parochial excuse of a social network: Innovative developments towards a more comfortable service are virtually non-existent and I can’t connect with my English speaking friends abroad.

In short: The technology is just as sophisticated as one of the founder’s excuses:

One can’t confuse the platforms with each other. “The colours are different: studiVZ is red, Facebook is blue”

-Jens

Despite all the hype around Facebook these days (it seems that The Globe and Mail carries at least two stories on it per day), TechCrunch reminds us that MySpace is still way, way ahead in the America market.

Their market share is declining, but still sits above 70%, and that’s nothing to sneeze it.

TechCrunch’s Duncan Riley suggests that “if Facebook is worth $15 billion, on traffic ratios alone MySpace would be worth $67.67 billion.”

-Parker

Todd Zeigler and the Bivings Report led me to an interesting post by Sanford Dickert on his Political Gastronomica site about “the seeming lack of impact social networks have truly had on the 2008 elections so far” (as Zeigler puts it).Discussing the question: Will social networks impact the 2008 presidential election, Dickert writes:

I was asked this question last year by my friend from Wired, after I finished with another campaign, and I can STILL heartily say – even with techpresident’s MySpace, Facebook and YouTube counters – I believe that social networks will still NOT impact the coming 2008 election. “Wha?”, I hear my poli-tech friends gasp. “Didn’t you read the study that shows Facebook numbers are an indicator of relative success of drawing voters?” “Weren’t you at the Facebook Political Summit ?” “Aren’t you impressed by / using the new Facebook tools?” “Aren’t you impressed by the incredible reach of all of the candidates and their supporters through MySpace, facebook, flickr, YouTube?”. No. And why not? I think they are missing an essential ingredient: simple, human contact.

Dickert finally concludes:

When I go to the local mall, county fair, outdoor market – I can often see the ardent supporters of candidates “tabling” in the flow of traffic – holding their campaign literature, sign at the edge of the table, looking for eyes that are ready to learn more about the person running for State Senate, Congress or even President. You and your friends are there, giving each other moral support as the throngs of people walk by – nary paying attention to you, until a person walks up and says, “So….tell me about Senator X.”Where are the Virtual Tablers?This is where the campaigns can use their volunteers and give them the power to reach across their own networks and chat up people when they are interested in learning more about the candidate. But, it is not easy to go and “speak” to someone in Facebook since all of the communications are not interrupt-driven (as a face-to-face might be), they are addressed whenever the receiver wants to. How do you get people to accept the interrupts? Usually, that is the sense of presence – of human contact. Once that magic ingredient is “captured” and enabled, then I could see social networks truly engaging people.

Dickert might make a relevant point, to a certain extent, but we still feel that this is not the last word.

Our point is that claiming social networks will NOT impact the coming 2008 election because they do not have the ability to – as Dickert puts it – “chat up” people limits many factors about these networks that really might have the ability to impact the election.

Take a site like “One Million Against Hillary Clinton” (Facebook), that encourages people to go viral and recruit friends and neighbours to join them in the fight to stop Hillary Clinton. A sight like this might not have a direct impact on people’s voting behaviour. But when it makes CNN because of its viral marketing ability, it has certainly had an impact on the new agenda.

Also, take the “Vote Different” video on YouTube that attacks Hillary Clinton. This video has been viewed by over 3.8 million people. Saying that this video has not had an impact on the election is like saying that ads in general have no impact on elections.

Other notable examples for communities that have the potential to exercise influence on the voting process: moveon.org or getup.org.au. Both caused quite some stir in the political establishments of the respective countries they are active in.

It also seems that Sanford somehow equates human contact with an invasion of privacy and can’t seem to accept the fact that people are now able to escape the mall stands and make their own informed choices. This eventually gives the impression that he has an outdated model of the voter respectively of campaigning which sees the voter as somehow without agency. In the internet now this invasion of privacy just isn’t possible anymore (except for spam) but the voters are the ones in charge. And we better get used to it – if we need to resort to interrupting peoples’ lives as a major way to attract voters then we should really worry about our other campaigning techniques and what went wrong with them.

Also on a more basic level the question is: How do we measure impact?
Larry M. Bartels (1993, p. 267), once said that the state of research in the “media effects” area is “one of the most notable embarrassments of modern social science”. Over time theorists have gone from claiming that the media have had a strong, almost hypodermic effect that can shape opinions and beliefs, to suggesting that the media have only a minimal effect on citizens because they can not deliver political messages with any predictable effect.

On the other hand theories about agenda setting testify to the power media can have over the community. But then again: Social networks can set their own agendas and influence political discourses.

Eventually we don’t think that we have come to a stage where we in the “social network effects” area can exclude a hypothesis stating that social networks CAN or WILL impact the coming 2008 election. The reason: We ultimately do not yet have a clear enough understanding of how we can measure the impact of social networks.

Berelson (in Diamond & Bates 1984, p. 347) once said, musing about his own findings in the “media effects” area over the years, that: “some kinds of communication on some kinds of issues, brought to the attention of some kinds of people under some kinds of conditions, have some kinds of effects” (in Diamond & Bates 1984, p. 347).

So, in Berelson’s words, our understanding for now is: that social networks on some kind of issues, brought to attention of some kinds of people under some kinds of conditions, may have some kinds of effects – also on the coming 2008 election.

Espen & Jens