Key themes: ESOMAR APAC Conference 2012 – Shanghai

April 30, 2012

Scott Taylor

Scott Taylor

As mentioned in a previous post, myself & Lars Groeger (of Soup & MGSM respectively), presented at the ESOMAR APAC conference in Shanghai.

A conference visit is always worth a blog post to summarise, but rather than take you through each presentation and session, which has been done rather extensively here for day one and here for day two, I thought I’d give you the key themes I saw coming through.

By key themes, I don’t mean the presentation that sparked the most interest, but instead what people are talking about between sessions. What are the big issues here and in the near future based simply on conversations…because let’s face it, nobody is going to officially present “my highly controversial opinion based on little if any research”. Think of this as my combination of people’s opinions, with a great deal of subjectivity added into the mix from me.

Being so in touch with reality, you lose touch with reality

Research is pushing everyone in the direction of “the world is a rainbow” and to market anything effectively, you need to cater to several thousand different sub-groups and segments. And that’s just within China it seems.

It’s almost to the point of pushing tailored marketing, messages and products to the specific individual. Unfortunately, the reality is, no company is willing or able to try and achieve that. Who has the budget or the time?

Isn’t it our job to point out the most effective ways to engage all of these disparate groups in one fell swoop? I think we’re getting too caught up in the interesting and forgetting about the practical. Do we paradoxically need to lose touch with the reality of the individual somewhat, to bring back to the fore the reality of the client’s situation?

As innovative as we might like to seem…we’re not particularly innovative

The strange thing is, everybody realises this and feels hamstrung by it. Why? What exactly is holding us back?

  • More often than not that the large stodgy fish simply swallow the smaller innovative fish and dilute whatever innovation there was in the first place.
  • It’s an incredibly expensive and time-intensive industry to be innovative in…but let’s face it, most industries are, so that’s not much of an excuse.
  • Clients are as much to blame as suppliers. Market research is just not considered to be worth taking a risk over. Compare it to marketing which, whilst still having its fair share of luddites, has so many people wanting the next bright, shiny thing.

Beyond these two key themes. A couple of other points of note:

  • When presenting to a market research audience (or any audience for that matter), do something with your charts other than lift them straight from excel with default colours and all. Everybody knows…
  • When at a conference, be sure to tag along for at least one night out with the conference junkies (you know the ones). But maybe don’t try to keep up with them. They know the good places to go (the Boxing Cat) and, if I were to be blatantly honest, have well-worn company credit cards ;)
  • Presenting with another person is actually rather difficult in all aspects. You need a pretty good understanding between each other. All credit to Lars Groeger for putting up with me.
  • Ultimately, ESOMAR conferences seem like a pretty well run gig, with a lot of clever people attending for the right reasons. I’d recommend them.

By all means, if you were lucky enough to be at the ESOMAR APAC conference and had a different experience (or indeed just want to agree with me), I’d love to hear your thoughts below…

Soup & MGSM present at ESOMAR APAC Conference

April 30, 2012

Scott Taylor

Scott Taylor

As it happens, Dr Lars Groeger (on behalf of MGSM) and I (on behalf of Soup – that’s me on the right just about to bust out the robot) took a quick trip up to Shanghai to present at the ESOMAR APAC conference on a research piece we did late last year. We presented in the “Techno Wave” session on new techniques, because frankly, our research methodology was indeed just that.

I’m not big on tooting my own horn as it were, but it went rather well indeed. We managed to snag (equal) second in the best presentation gongs. We would’ve had to shower gold coins on the audience to top Lee Ryan’s presentation on improvisation. Second comes right after first though, right?

For those interested, the presentation lives here and is positioned equally as a “how-to apply a new research methodology” and a summary of results. As a very quick run through, it looks at the research piece Soup & MGSM ran in which we set up a  complex series of surveys in Facebook then utilised data collected to run social network analysis. All in the name of increasing the understanding the offline conversation flow and measurement. Not the simplest of topics to rip through in 15 minutes, but I’ve not known anyone at a conference to say that the time they’ve been given is enough.

Ultimately, the three themes we addressed in the research were:

Conversations across three social networks

  • Increased understanding of social networks
  • Ability to better visualise conversations (see image)
  • Increase in the accuracy of Word of Mouth measurement across the industry

Though summarising such a complex piece of research in 3 points feels a bit dismissive, as a researcher, you get used to the fact that the more work you do on a project, the less detail you end up going into.

It’s just the way it is…

Enough about me though, what happened at the APAC conference? Or at the very least what did I think of the APAC conference?

Online influence: there’s more to score

March 27, 2012

Sharyn SmithSharyn Smith

Klout, Peer Index and Kred have been given quite a lot of attention lately and for good reason. They make it easy to harvest some online influencers, throw them a “perk” (free product) and generate some buzz. This is a good business, but a recent report asks us to think twice when accepting an “influence score” blindly when planning a campaign. Brian and his team from Altmeter have done a great job stirring up the debate and giving brands a framework to consider when planning an influencer campaign with a new report out this week. They talk about Three Pillars of influence; Reach, Resonance and Relevance. They provide a good framework to start to understand influence, and are probably just as relevant offline as online.

This debate still needs to turn to understanding the actual power of online influence overall, relative to offline influence for many categories. How much budget should go to each? Offline influencers, on average, do over index for online influence but many online influencers are not the best face-to-face (that’s why they spend so much damn time tweeting!).

Some categories just don’t lend themselves as well to authentic online influence. Take dishwashing tablets as an example. Now, don’t get me wrong… I know I can probably search and find some reviews on these things, but offline has the luxury of many external triggers and relevance moments to generate these conversations authentically. Say someone is over for dinner and they are helping you pack the dishwasher; cue conversation about dishwashing tablets and why they choose x over y. A tweet about ‘hey I’m loving my clean dishes with brand x’ just doesn’t seem quite the same to me.

It’s important to understand online better as it’s here to stay as a channel, and so I think more thinking needs to go into online influence measures. But as Keller Fay reports, 90% of the brand-based conversations still happen in the real world and I hope this isn’t going to change any time soon. I kinda like talking to people.
Bookmark and Share

Don’t let your Facebook page become bigger than the brand

December 2, 2011

Jayne Andrews

Sunny (as in the Egg) is my friend. Well, on Facebook anyway. He is also friends with 87,051 people, who skim their newsfeed once or twice a week to check out the egg pun yolks (sorry, couldn’t help myself).

This week I noticed the makers of the Sunny the Egg Facebook page had put together a rather elaborate Facebook promotion – called Sunny’s Gonski . The evil Eqqor (what you might call a bad egg) had hijacked the page and kidnapped Sunny. I call it a promotion – but it wasn’t even that, as it really had no call to action, other than to ‘like’ the page. Which, you most likely had already done, if you were seeing this eggstavagant (okay, last one, I promise) page activity.

A few of us in the office had a giggle about the page. It was kind of cute in a cheesy way. But as someone who has worked on a bit of web and Facebook stuff, it looked like it would have been time consuming to create and probably quite expensive too. Was it worth it?

This got me thinking. Have I ever bought Sunny the Eggs when I do my weekly shop? What brand is Sunny the Egg? I actually have no idea. Why are Sunny the Eggs better or different than other egg? Other than telling jokes, which has no relevance to the factors which affect my purchase decision: price, taste, size, free range.

So, I did a small experiment and actually took a closer look at the egg aisle when I last went in to Coles. Could I even find Sunny? Where was he? Even if I wanted to choose him, he didn’t stand out on the shelf.

We all know by now that ‘likes’ on a Facebook page are no indication of brand loyalty (as they can be stimulated by a one-off promotion). We’ve now started to talk about engagement on Facebook as a better measure. i.e. the number of comments back on status updates. But is this even enough?

If what is happening on the Facebook page doesn’t translate to the shelf, if there is no obvious integration, is there really going to be any discernable effect on sales?

Maybe sales of Sunny have gone up since the Facebook page. But my gut feel tells me that the Facebook Page has now become bigger than the brand. Another example of this (from the UK) is Compare the Meerkat – 785,630 fans, but surely not all of these are insurance purchasers. Who is the brand, by the way? I’m still not sure.

Bookmark and Share

Why brands shouldn’t bother with small talk

November 28, 2011

Kathleen Gunther

Have you noticed it’s the same people who whinge and complain about the rain and the cold on Facebook, are also in shock at the first sign of the heat in summer?

Could it be they just don’t have anything better to say?

Some brands are guilty of saying irrelevant things just for the sake of saying something. Telling me what the weather is like or asking me how my weekend was on Facebook is simply (boring) elevator conversation, if you ask me. I mean, we’re patronised enough by a lot of mass media advertising, so if I have chosen to engage with a brand, I need a reason to care.

I am quite selective with brands I like on Facebook, but a couple I have recently ‘liked’ have certainly lived up to my expectations. The first is Batlow Cider which gives me useful information like where I can purchase the product as the brand grows, the highs and lows of growing the apple harvest to make the cider and how it affects the Batlow community. Plus, it has a strong affiliation with music that I can relate to.

I’ve also ‘fanned’ a couple of my favourite music artists after seeing them live and have been given great content like a preview of a new album, discounts on songs, and competitions engaging fans to contribute to album covers etc.

The lower involvement products do have a harder task to involve and engage; but by keeping the content relevant, having a level of exclusivity, and humanising the people behind the brand to encourage a sense of community, then you will have a far better level of influence with your fans.

As the philosopher Plato is credited saying: “A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something”.

PS: For people living in Sydney – we have an average of a metre of rain (40 inches) each year, but few years are average years. There is no rainy season, and the rain usually goes quickly, but sudden storms can be common, and “showers” means downpours in some places and nothing a few hundred metres away. Learn to live with it.

Bookmark and Share

Don’t be a twit: think before you tweet

November 23, 2011

 Jayne Andrews

I am one of the people who agreed with Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce’s decision to ground the flights a few weeks ago. I have always been against trade unions and striking (may be being a child of the 70s born under Margaret Thatcher influenced me). It is possibly also because I’ve always worked in advertising, so if there was a strike every time we worked overtime, there would be no industry. Anyway, back to the point – I have a few friends that work at Qantas who can’t speak more highly of Mr Joyce and his decisions. Their stories of how he treats his staff certainly have created some positive word of mouth for the brand in my peer group.

But, what was Qantas thinking when it created a Twitter campaign inviting people to tweet in about their Luxury flying experiences? “What is your dream luxury inflight experience  (Be creative!) Answer must include #QantasLuxury.” The prize – a luxury amenity kit and a pair of pyjamas.

Obviously the hashtag began trending across the Twittersphere. But it doesn’t take a genius to anticipate that the tone of the tweets was not exactly in line with what management hoped for.

Just one example of the gags that followed

@the-aaron-smith said: “#qantasluxury is chartering a Greyhound bus and arriving at your destination days before your grounded Qantas flight”

You would think after the drama of the last few weeks, the PR pros at Qantas would be all over such a promotion. Wasn’t it obvious that consumers would love an opportunity to take a dig at the brand? Perhaps Qantas should have asked Ashton Kutcher to be involved in their PR, instead of John Travolta. He can’t fly a plane but he has certainly learnt his lesson on Twitter recently too. And, as for @Mrs Kutcher. I bet she had wished she’d chosen a different moniker when she joined up. The 4.29 million people that follow her will know immediately when those divorce papers are signed.

 
Bookmark and Share

Social media is just the tip of the WOM iceberg

November 16, 2011

Ester Groenendaal

My colleague shared this infographic from WOMMA with the office. Infographics always inspire me; I’m a very visual person and I love stats and numbers, so they’re a great way of visually representing statistics. But that’s not what I wanted to talk about in my blog.

Apart from the fact this infographic is a great summary of what word of mouth is all about and how effective it is, it also reminded me of a fact that we experience every day at Soup, but which, if you believe everything you read about digital marketing, seems hard to believe: Nine in 10 branded conversations happen offline.

People talk about our clients’ campaigns with their friends, family and colleagues. Give them something to share around (a product, for example) and they have even more to talk about. And, of course, they also share things on Facebook or on a blog, but the vast majority of the conversations happen in the real world.

I find it frustrating that there is a disproportionate focus on online media and social media when it comes to word of mouth.

This is not to deny the role the internet plays in marketing and word of mouth. Our Soupers spread the word just like anyone else; through real-world conversations and online conversations like Facebook and blogs.

A great example is one of our recent campaigns where there is an effective online element is for Vita Weat Lunch slices. For this campaign we have a blogger element where we’ve asked bloggers to post a review. The bloggers go above and beyond. Have a look at this post, seriously, it’s amazing. Or this one. Sometimes we launch a Facebook page as part of a Soup campaign where influencers are the first to be engaged. A great example is the Tailwagging Facebook page we just launched together with Novartis Animal Heath Australia for Sentinel, which results in great consumer content.

Of course, our clients (and we too) are very enthusiastic about the online parts of our campaigns, because it’s so visible that people go above and beyond for their brands.

But although it’s not as visible, what’s happening offline is actually much bigger and therefore more influential. I would never suggest ignoring online media, just keep it in perspective and remember we still mostly live in the “real” world, not just a virtual one.

Bookmark and Share

The Maslow of the Mo

November 15, 2011

Sharyn SmithSharyn Smith

You may have noticed lately more than the normal amount of blokes sporting serious soup strainers. Of course, it’s in aid of Movember, a fundraising and awareness campaign for prostate cancer and depression – and men’s health more broadly.

This illustration is a lovely representation of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs as applied to the Mo-Movement.

The beauty of Movember is that its mainstream recognition and popularity is the result of influencer engagement and word of mouth. From its inception in Australia 2003 with 30 “mo-bros” and “sistas” and no funds raised to a global movement with $72m raised last year.
Bookmark and Share

Liking you isn’t enough

November 7, 2011

Emma Chow

Facebook has had a huge effect on the way we communicate and it’s a potentially powerful place for brands to engage with consumers, but to confuse simply being present on Facebook, or even having someone like your page with word of mouth is to misunderstand word of mouth and how it works for brands.

Leading WOM researcher Ed Keller put it really well in this post — brands on Facebook may get millions of likes, but on average, 0.45% are actively engaged fans. For example Coke has 34 million fans, but just 56,000 of them (0.2%) are “engaged”. But offline there are 860 million conversations involving Coke in one month.

Word of mouth is not social media and social media is not word of mouth – we live the majority of our lives offline and this is where the majority of branded conversations happen.
Bookmark and Share

Should all brands tick the Facebook box?

October 27, 2011

Katie Palmer
There is a palpable sense in the industry that brands are all desperate to get themselves on Facebook as they feel that it is a social media ‘box’ that they need to tick on their marketing plans.
It’s a “box” because done well can provide a place for people who want to align themselves with a brand or a product can do so in an environment that they already engage with. By “liking” or commenting on a brands page, not only are they creating content for people within that page, but also providing the “inference of influence” (if I am allowing a brand to be included on my personal page it shows that I recommend it without me having to explicitly say so) for their friends within the social space.
But I also sense brands are not putting a resource value into building a facebook page as a place to genuinely interact and listen to their consumers. Only 5% of all posts on a brand page are answered by brands leaving their followers and contributors frustrated.
Neglecting to utilise the opportunity to connect with consumers can ultimately lead to less engagement with the brand and is the biggest reason so many of these pages feel like ghost towns populated by a junior brand manager asking fans on a Friday afternoon what they’ll be “getting up to on the weekend” but closing down the computer as soon as they hit “send”.
Just like a “site under construction” holding page in the context of the broader internet – unless you’re prepared to maintain your brand presence on Facebook, perhaps it’s best to leave that box unticked.

Bookmark and Share


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.