There’s no doubt that all businesses should explore conversing with stakeholders via the social media ‘channel’. The ability to engage people across all aspects of the marketing mix means that there is often a role for SoMe (advocacy, research, reputation management, seeding content etc.)

 

In addition, if you’re not sat at the table, it is likely that you’ll end up as ‘the lunch’. For example, BP’s failure to ‘engage’ recently brought Leroy Stick to the fore.

 

At Euro RSCG London, we are huge believers in the role of SoMe as part of an overall communications approach, but there are instances where businesses may be better staying out of the conversation.

 

The first and most obvious is where the consequences of interacting or even over-hearing conversations could be catastrophic for legislative reasons. Prescription brands have to tread carefully – overheard symptom conversations can be classified as ‘adverse events’ and need reporting. It’s no surprise that health brands are still testing the water in this area.

 

Secondly, whilst many people view social as ‘free’ media – it does require a commitment of resources. SoMe like any relationship takes work and care, so if businesses are not prepared to commit time, energy and money – then better not to get involved.

 

Thirdly, like most things – we’d never advise executing in any area (including SoMe) without a defined strategy. So businesses shouldn’t create that ‘mandatory Facebook page’ until they know how it forms part of an overall communications plan. Better to stay out of the conversation until you’re clear on the role it serves.

 

Dear Russ,

You’ve hit the nail on the head in two respects: no brand should consider creating an official Facebook page (or starting any social media work, for that matter) until it understands clearly what it is trying to achieve and has the resources to do so.

 

But that is not an argument for avoiding social media, it’s an argument for securing resource and defining strategy.

 

In fact, this argument is not about social media at all. You can make the same point about a brand launching into a new market or a company making a major acquisition. When Kraft bought Cadbury, for example, it defined what it wanted and made sure it had the resources it needed to get it.  

 

For Kraft, acquiring Cadbury was a necessity; the start point. So the argument was turned on its head: not, ‘if we don’t have the strategy and resources, we can’t do it’, but ‘we are going to do it, so we’d better have those in place’.

 

This is the argument that brand owners have to hear about social media. Why? Because people are already talking about you. If you are not engaged, you put your brand at risk. Investors and customers will increasingly see a lack of engagement as culpability when things go wrong. You need to think strategy and resource. And the idea that it’s better to remain in the dark and not know what’s being said about you or your product – particularly for health brands that operate in an often sensitive and highly legislated environment – surely cannot be right. To argue for caution would be understandable, not avoidance.

 

Dear Peter,

You assert that prescription health brands should engage in SoMe because ‘a lack of engagement could be seen as culpability’. It’s a little too easy to make assertions like this when it’s not your licence that could be revoked or you that could end up in prison. I quote from ABPI guidelines “Failure to report or delay in reporting adverse reactions may result in regulatory, criminal and/or civil action against the company and responsible employees.”

 

But clearly this debate isn’t solely about regulations – it’s about the use of the medium – and the problem here is that you seem to be suggesting SoMe is onesize- fits-all.

 

You’re right that brand owners have to understand that SoMe will happen around their brand if not engaged in it. Sometimes this will be uncomfortable – and require transparency, speed and resource in equal measure (as we’ve discovered with our unique twitter powered agency website).

 

But whilst SoMe is great, it is not a panacea. Not all conversations should be public (social). Money matters, personal health, careers may not be areas where consumers want to engage ‘socially’.

 

Ultimately, brands have to have an idea and defined approach to SoMe if they engage – and one that’s right for their category. This engagement isn’t something that can be acquired easily – it’s more deep-rooted than that, and it has to be driven from the very top of the company.

 

 

“It does require a commitment of resources. Social media, like any relationship, takes work and care, so if businesses are not prepared to commit time, energy and money – then better not to get involved”

Dear Russ,

No marketing activity is risk-free. But healthcare brands are experimenting and finding that social media can deliver results, even under the strict regulatory conditions you describe.

 

In most sectors, you’d argue one of the best reasons for a brand to monitor and engage with customers is precisely to discover problems with products and services. This helps to build trust with customers and authorities, to drive innovation, and to spot new business opportunities.

 

Social media uniquely gives a brand access to real conversations taking place in a natural environment. It also allows a brand to engage directly with those customers that have issues, or ideas for improvements. And this can make a huge difference during a crisis, particularly as the boundaries between social and traditional media erode.

 

For example, take the recent deep freeze we’ve experienced in the UK: travel brands including airlines and airport operators have used channels like Twitter to help customers understand what’s happening. The mainstream media, following the situation using the same channels, placed under the spotlight the way these brands communicated with customers.

 

At Fishburn Hedges, we advise clients on handling similar situations. Getting it wrong can be very damaging to a brand, while getting it right can generate goodwill that is tangible. The problem is it takes time to build social network connections. That’s why avoiding social media altogether will increasingly be viewed as a risk, as brands are powerless, amid a crisis, to contain it or respond effectively. And it’s now clear this can happen in the full glare of public, media and regulatory scrutiny.

 

But we don’t see social media as a set of channels to use merely out of necessity. The potential positive brand and commercial benefits are enormous too.

It’s clear that whilst this is a truly exciting time for marketing communications and brands, and that social media can be an immensely powerful tool when used well (Home Depot, Starbucks, Vodafone etc), it is still very much a channel that requires care in strategy and implementation.

 

There cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach and we cannot simply bludgeon our way into the customers’ social environment. We only have to look at the number of poorly ‘liked’ brand Facebook pages and You Tube channels to see evidence of this.

 

Recent ground-breaking action by the OFT regarding disclosure relating to paid for promotions also highlights how companies beyond healthcare, will be regulated (rightly) in order to protect the interests of the consumer.

 

In order to use SoMe effectively, at Euro RSCG we ensure that we give careful consideration to the following:

Understand where SoMe can add value across the marketing mix and how it can deliver against defined business objectives.

Discern what category regulations might apply or what role SoMe might have in the category

Ensure buy in from all levels within the business

Make sure brands and brand owners are prepared to connect and collaborate with consumers rather than ‘command and control’

 

Finally, and most importantly, don’t get involved unless you are prepared to engage, empathise and ensure that your company or agency can commit the time and resources to build and manage important and meaningful relationships.

 

 

“People are already talking about you. If you are not engaged, you put your brand at risk. The idea that it’s better to remain in the dark and not know what’s being said about you cannot be right. To argue for caution would be understandable, not avoidance”

You and I broadly agree on the need to understand social media before getting involved, but I cannot agree with the conclusion that some brands should avoid it altogether.

 

Nobody can honestly say the challenge of social media has been resolved. On an almost weekly basis, you can witness some of the world’s largest brands getting it wrong. Learning the ropes is critical. Regulations are changing fast, and brands need to be advised about how to work within the rules.

 

But a recent survey of global CMOs by Omnicom showed they are expecting two things in 2011: experimentation with new technologies; and leadership from their agencies.

 

We cannot sit by while our clients are talked about on social media and advise them it’s OK not to engage. It will look less and less advisable over the next few years to sit on the sidelines - the sooner you engage, the sooner you will benefit.

 

We need to find ways to experiment – that’s why Fishburn Hedges has launched FH Beta, a new innovation unit. It gives us the chance to perfect those methods that we’ve already proven to work and test new technologies such as location-based services.

 

I cannot agree that the risks associated with social media make it advisable to stay away. The risks mean you need to work more collaboratively with your customers - with your audience - than ever before. But agencies need to be advising brands how to do this well. Not to sit back and watch.