WHY HAVE CERTAIN BRANDS FAILED TO FULFIL THEIR POTENTIAL USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA?

UNIVERSITY OF SURREY

SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT

WHY HAVE CERTAIN BRANDS FAILED TO FULFIL
THEIR POTENTIAL USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA?
By

NICK ROBINSON

A project submitted in part-fulfilment of the
requirements for the award of the
BSc (Hons) in Business Management

Supervisor: Dr Sue Halliday

2011

Nick Robinson URN: 6002181

ABSTRACT
This paper assesses why certain brands have failed to successfully establish themselves
within social media, and looks at the best approach for developing a successful social
presence. It questions why brands are reluctant to be social and fully dialogical within
networks that are based around this principal. The paper proposes that brands adopt a
relational approach that differs from that found within CRM and other offline marketing
techniques, and instead revolves around an authentic dialogue between brands and other
users. The idea that attempting to be fully dialogical is central to brands maximising the
effectiveness of social media is explored in detail with the application of Gallaugher and
Ransbotham‟s (2010) „Megaphone, Magnet, and Monitor (3-M)‟ framework, whilst
suggestions on how to encourage dialogue and build relationships are made and explored
through the analysis of case studies. The paper finds that brands should seek to take an
engaging approach to social networking in order to maximise results, actively partaking in
dialogical communication within the online community and attempting to build sustainable
relationships; both are seen to be inherently linked and co-dependent. Further research
suggestions are then made, alongside the acknowledgment that the area of online social
interaction is constantly evolving.

i


CONTENTS
List Of Figures....................................................................................................................... iii
List Of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. iii
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... iii
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 The Rise Of Social......................................................................................................... 1
3.0 A New Approach For Social ......................................................................................... 4
4.0 Building Relationships And Encouraging Dialogical Communications .................... 8
4.1 Monitor: Observing Interactions And The Environment ............................................ 9
4.2 Megaphone: Brand-To-Customer Communication ................................................. 10
4.3 Magnet: Customer-To-Brand Communication ........................................................ 13
5.0 Examples ..................................................................................................................... 15
5.1 A Negative Example: Habitat UK............................................................................ 15
5.1.1 Monitor- Improve Slow Response Times ........................................................ 16
5.1.2 Megaphone- Give Brand Personality .............................................................. 16
5.1.3 Magnet- Learn From The Conversation .......................................................... 16
5.1.4 Monitor- Motivation For Joining ....................................................................... 16
5.1.5 Megaphone- Not Their Conversation .............................................................. 17
5.1.6 Megaphone- Mistakes Are Instant .................................................................. 17
5.2 A Positive Example: Virgin Media........................................................................... 18
5.2.1 Monitor- Proactive Engagement ..................................................................... 18
5.2.2 Magnet- Quick To Reply ................................................................................. 18
5.2.3 Megaphone- Clear Identities ........................................................................... 19
5.2.4 Megaphone, Magnet And Monitor- Empathetic Conversation ......................... 19
5.2.5 Monitor- Increase Monitoring Times................................................................ 20
5.2.6 Magnet- Follow Issues Through To Completion .............................................. 20
6.0 Conclusion And Areas For Future Research ............................................................ 21
Reflective Report ................................................................................................................ 23
References ......................................................................................................................... 25
Appendices ......................................................................................................................... 31
Appendix A: T-Mobile Royal Wedding Spoof ................................................................ 31
Appendix B: Virgin Media And Social Media Presentation Hand Out............................ 32

ii


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: The Continued Rise in the Popularity of Social Media ......................................... 3
Figure 3.2: The Megaphone, Magnet and Monitor (3-M) Framework ..................................... 9
Figure 5.1: A Screenshot of Habitat UK's Twitter Page ....................................................... 17
Figure 5.2: A Screenshot of Virgin Media's Twitter Page ..................................................... 20

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ROI- Return on Investment
CRM- Customer Relationship Management
B2B- Business to Business

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project received significant direction and guidance from Dr Sue Halliday.

iii


1.0 INTRODUCTION
This paper seeks to ascertain key reasons why brands have failed to fully utilise social
networks, and aims to provide helpful advice for managers of these brands who seek to
maximise their use. Firstly, values and principles will be established through an in-depth
breakdown of the foundations that form social networks and drive social media. These
reasons will then be explored in detail, with suggestions for practical implementation, before
the analysis of two contrasting real world examples. These relatively new technologies of
online social networks lack exploration and development, especially surrounding the
presence of brands within online social environments. This paper aims to deliver real world
solutions for brands wishing to maximise their social presence, whilst highlighting areas for
further research and development within a rather unexplored sector.

2.0 THE RISE OF SOCIAL
The popularity of social networking continues to grow with over 24 million people from the
UK actively participating in Facebook alone (see Figure 2.1). Understandably, brands have
seen the opportunity for a new channel, with many building their own presences within these
online communities. Unlike certain traditional web experts who previously concluded that
when brands arrived original participants would move elsewhere, the users seemingly
accepted brands as part of the social experience (Nutley, 2007) seeking to attach them as
part of their online identity (Smith, 2007). It is perhaps due to this unforeseen approval that
brands sought to apply a similar marketing approach to that of other mediums, utilising social
networks as another channel where a traditional approach of one-sided information sharing
could be applied (Smith, 2009). Yet, for many, this approach has seemingly failed to fully
engage with users (Goodman, 2010) and leaves those wishing to connect uninformed; a
recent study by internet firm Auros showed large numbers of brands aren‟t responding to the
majority of complaints and queries they receive on social networks (Cowling, 2011). Despite
this lack of attention, consumers who would previously have been unwillingly subjected to
decisions now have the power to reject a brand‟s chosen direction, as seen through the
negative backlash to Gap‟s logo change (Nash, 2010). Consequently, if the traditional
approach which marketers have relied upon for decades is now ineffective to persuade and
influence consumers, how can brands successfully engage with users and maximise a social
presence? Does this require a drastically new approach or can past techniques simply be
adapted for use within online communities? Before these questions are addressed, it is
necessary to root out the foundations of social networks in order to gain an insight into their
workings. The Oxford Dictionary of English (2010) defines a social network as “a network of
social interactions and personal relationships”, whilst social media can be defined as “the

1


media that is published, created and shared by individuals on the internet, such as blogs,
images, video and more”1 (Strokes, 2009, p. 350). These definitions suggest that at the heart
of social networks is a human desire for relationship and community through which the
creation of social media can strengthen connections and bonds. Potentially, this gives the
opportunity for brands to build stronger relationships with consumers than was ever possible
through traditional methods (Kane et al, 2009). Yet, if the heart of online social activity can
be seen to be both relational and community centred, then activity in which these values are
lacking will supposedly fail to connect with users. Therefore, it is seemingly important that
brands accept the core notions on which online social activities are founded and extensively
apply their values throughout their social media if they are to fully and effectively utilise
social networks.

1
Although older forms of social networks and media such as blogs and forums can be grouped into
this definition, the main focus for this discussion will be around platforms such as Facebook, Twitter
and LinkedIn, where brands are a part of a wider community and not the exclusive central focus.

2


FIGURE 2.1: THE CONTINUED RISE IN THE POPULARITY OF SOCIAL MEDIA (SOURCE: BBC, 2010)

3


3.0 A NEW APPROACH FOR SOCIAL
As true community cannot exist without authentic communication (Evans, 2001) and
relationships require dialogue (Varey and Ballantyne, 2005), it is seemingly vital for brands
to build their approach to social around these foundations. Fully utilising social throughout a
brand means building campaigns around social from the bottom up and not simply attaching
social to campaigns as an afterthought (Briody, 2011). As already discussed, many brands
see social media as simply another place for press releases, blanket messages and other
forms of monological (one way) communications, yet this informative, one directional
approach is only a small part of the communications that brands could be having as part of
online communities (Edelman 2010; Kane et al, 2009; Nash, 2010; Smith, 2009). It is not to
say the media that brands choose to share within networks is unimportant. Quite the
contrary- choosing the right media that will connect with users is a vital part of the
communication process. Yet it is simply the first step in successfully maximising a social
presence. Only attempting, or overdoing, this initial stage may be detrimental to the brand‟s
future presence on the network, and perhaps even resonate negatively across both online
and offline communities, as observed within section 5.1 „A Negative Example: Habitat UK‟.

The current social landscape is reminiscent of a stereotypical party. The majority of the
gathered fit into a certain social group; some party goers form parts of cliques, where
particular individuals hold more social standing than others, whilst some attendees are able
to crossover between friendship groups. Then there is the drunken guest, usually found
spouting garbled messages at people, with no intention of ever listening to their responses.
Other guests simply begin to ignore the drunk, passively listening and ignoring any attempt
at communication. Certain brands are excessively guilty of this within social networks, where
a traditional approach has spilled over, curtailing discussion and leading to uninvolved and
passive listeners (Evans, 2001). There is an arrogance surrounding these brands that
suggests they follow a different set of community rules and need only repeatedly shout their
message to be a part of the network. This stems from the long tradition of monological
communications found within marketing (Varey and Ballantyne, 2005) and needs to be
challenged if the online community is to fully embrace social media‟s connective
opportunities. Brands must develop effective methods for co-existing inside community
through the building of relationships based around an authentic and sincere dialogue. Varey
(2003) sees clear association between these, arguing this sincere dialogue, through which
each party may learn and grow, requires genuine relationship in order to flourish.

4


Yet, brands are used to utilising marketing as a form of control, directing and influencing
through the informational approach (Varey, 2003). This desire for control can seemingly be
traced to the need for quick measurements of the return on investment (ROI) in order to
meet short-term target requirements results. In order to adopt a new ideology, brands need
to be persuaded that a long-term relational approach has beneficial results over a traditional
short-term informational method. This begins with the dismissal of a common misconception;
that social media is simply a new channel (Smith, 2009). Labelling social as a channel
immediately draws the traditional boundaries and boxes which send marketers towards a
traditional approach. Social must be seen as a new environment centred around community
and dialogue, where different and additional rules and theories apply (Kane et al, 2009). As
within traditional media, these methods are not absolute and often differ upon
implementation. Indeed, these rules vary within the different channel platforms found within
social, such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn, but the general environment remains
consistently community centred.

This shift to a long-term approach, based around dialogue and relationship, requires a shift
of focus away from ROI. Brian Solis claims social media is simply not designed to deliver a
measurable return; it delivers relationships and learning on how to become relevant to
customers which cannot be easily quantified (Martin, 2011). Brands must realise this and
see the limitations of the monological communication models, which have made
communications and marketing interactions highly scientific (Varey and Ballantyne, 2005),
and instead focus on a method that can be well applied within the context of social networks
that escapes from the limits of the monological approach and scientises all dimensions of a
social act (Varey and Ballantyne, 2005). Clearly, social networks are based on community,
relationships and conversations. Yet marketing itself is routed in strategic and purposeful
social interaction (Deetz, 1995; Varey, 2002) meaning a return to a relational approach is not
revolutionary but found within marketing‟s very foundations. Varey and Ballantyne (2005)
describe three ways in which marketing is based on interaction. The first of which is
informational, as seen in the majority of communications displayed in traditional media,
where the brand retains control and attempts to influence the consumer through persuasion.

The second is communicational, where the interaction is based around informing and
listening. A communicational approach to marketing can be seen within customer
relationship management (CRM), yet this is seen to be un-human and simply demonstrate
an approach where relationships and thinking processes have been de-centred, and
information simply captured and distributed (Varey and Ballantyne, 2005). Varey (2003) sees
CRM as “limiting and counterproductive” (Varey, 2003, p.274) as relationships are seen to

5


only exist between the data that is stored, with no personal connections drawn to them
(Varey and Ballantyne, 2005). However, Bengtsson (2003) questions whether brand
relationships should indeed be thought of within human relationship theory, as they are
inanimate, lack feelings and offer consumers only highly standardised responses. This
counters Fournier‟s (1998) claims that brands can be seen as a valid partner within
relationships, yet Bengtsson (2003) raises a valid issue which can be directly addressed
through social media. Brands have the opportunity to demonstrate human characteristics,
respond uniquely to individuals and present the people behind the products. Yet, brands
must now decide how far they humanise the brand. Is there a risk of an employee becoming
the only contact consumers have with the brand? If an employee ceases to work for a brand,
will the consumer become disconnected and leave? Does implementing a relational model
mean employees will be encouraged to remain at companies for longer periods and hold
stronger power over management? These are certainly potential issues and areas for future
research, yet this paper sees the potential for brand humanisation as largely positive.

In developing this humanisation, Varey and Ballantyne (2005) discuss a further stage of
interaction where brands and consumers co-determine solutions, building a network of
valuable relationships through which learning and added value can be achieved. This is
referred to as a dialogical approach and is a dramatic step from the informational interaction
that is currently commonplace within traditional media (Varey and Ballantyne, 2005) yet
makes sense within the relational world of social networks. It is characterised by participants
placing equal emphasis on both speaking and active listening, where brands are engaging
with consumers and reassessing positions they have taken (Evans, 2001). The participants
within the conversations are seen to act between, and not simply to, each other (Varey and
Ballantyne, 2005). As Varey and Ballantyne (2005) note, this approach is particularly suited
to certain sectors such as Business to Business (B2B) and service industries, yet particular
brands may struggle to engage with a dialogical approach, especially if they are unwilling to
give up directional control and bring in positive disruption through dialogue (Evans, 2001;
Varey and Ballantyne, 2005). It is accepted that certain customers may not wish to
participate in a dialogue with brands, instead simply wishing to observe conversations
(Schaedel and Clement, 2010) and certain managers may not wish to deal with the positive
chaos that being dialogical will undoubtedly present (Evans, 2001; Varey and Ballantyne,
2005). Addressing issues raised through dialogues may take considerable amounts of time
away from other tasks, and managers may feel this causes more harm than good.

Whilst these are valid concerns, building campaigns from the ground up around social can
help to address these issues (Briody, 2011). Brands should lead the way in commencing

6


dialogues and reach out to consumers, experimentally engaging in listening and learning
from the online community whilst giving up total control in order to gain trust (Evans, 2001;
Varey, 2003; Varey and Ballantyne, 2005). This trust can be achieved through an authentic,
non-coercive and mutually beneficial exchange where all participants are involved in
speaking and active listening (Buber, 1966; Evans, 2001; Varey, 2003). For this authenticity
to exist, both aspects of this communication must be given equal emphasis and respect from
each participant (Evans, 2001). Likewise, brands‟ and consumers‟ trust must run in both
directions, with brands being willing to believe in their communities (Varey and Ballantyne,
2005) and change their viewpoints and beliefs (Evans, 2001). This is what it means to be
dialogical, and failure to adapt to this relational model risks brands being left out of relevant
conversations or being misrepresented within them (Varey and Ballantyne, 2005). Therefore,
developing a dialogical and relational culture is an important base which should be carefully
cultivated throughout all online activities. If brands fail to maintain this trust through authentic
dialogue then it is possible that the community will break down and fragment (Evans, 2001).

Consumers have developed a strong awareness of informational communications making
the challenge for brands in achieving truly authentic dialogical communications even greater;
consumers are wary of communicating with brands as they expect an ulterior motive.
Indeed, in recent research 70% of consumers who had “fanned” a brand on Facebook
expressed that this did not mean their approval for being marketed to (Clark, 2010). Brands
must also acknowledge that whilst technology such as social networks can enhance the
ability to communicate, it can also be seen to fragment dialogue and therefore should be
used as a complement alongside other communication methods; being truly dialogical
means not neglecting the offline community (Evans, 2001). Indeed, beyond simply avoiding
marketplace favouritism, being dialogical is a precondition for acting ethically within business
(Pearson, 1989) and returns buyers and sellers to an equal standing (Varey, 2003).

Yet, Peters (1999) challenges this view, stating that the assumption that there is nothing
wrong within a dialogical approach is a fairy tale. Indeed, he argues problems may never
actually be tackled, with participants simply monologically addressing each other (Peters,
1999) and, as there is no commitment to online communities, can simply drop out whenever
they feel uncomfortable (Evans, 2001). How will brands utilise the data they gather from
“authentic relationships”? Will they betray users and harness it in a Big Brother-esque
manner (Evans, 2001)? These are real concerns, yet there is a need for brands to become
more democratic and less dictatorial (Varey and Ballantyne, 2005), and dialogue within
social networks is a prime opportunity for this change. In order to maximise the effectiveness

7


of dialogical and relational interaction within social networks, this new approach must be built
from the foundations of the brand (Briody, 2011).

4.0 BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS AND ENCOURAGING DIALOGICAL
COMMUNICATIONS
As established, the online conversation clearly requires different areas of focus to an offline
campaign. Yet, how can a brand convert offline ideology into online personality? For the
uninitiated, the internet can be seen as an intimidating place with social networks exhibiting
self-established ground rules which govern the community (Evans, 2001); it has been
suggested that certain brands should not even be on social networks in the first place
(Drapeau, 2008; Paynter, 2010), yet brands who can build relationships and loyalty have the
opportunity to mobilise an army of passionate evangelists. As mentioned previously,
contributing to authentic dialogical conversations and building relationships is at the centre of
all social networks and therefore brands need to respect and revere this, understanding why
users are actually there (Goodman, 2010). Varey (2003) observes that marketing requires
genuine relationship in order to operate dialogically. Compellingly, Aaker et al (2004)
discovered customer relationships with sincere brands followed human friendship
tendencies, where connections were strengthened over time. Therefore building a brand‟s
focus around a dialogical approach, which is sincere and authentic by its very nature, can
potentially build strong and long lasting relationships with customers, providing
transgressions from brands are avoided. Brands who do not follow this relational model
assume they are bigger or better than the community on which social networks are based,
and should not expect users to accept them.

Within social media, a desire for authentic connection can be seen when consumers like or
follow a brand. Although, as already mentioned, users may not feel as if they have approved
the brand to market to them, there is a desire to participate in some way and brands should
seize this opportunity. Some users may be present due to previous promotional activity
which has polluted the authenticity of their connection, yet the fact they remain shows a
certain interest which, if sparked correctly, could be converted into a genuine relationship.
For the first time, brands are exposed to direct customer feedback, and opportunities to
directly gather information from customers. Gallaugher and Ransbotham (2010) demonstrate
these paths well within their „Megaphone, Magnet, and Monitor (3-M)‟ framework (Figure 1).
These paths all contribute to forming relationships and developing dialogue, yet all require
differing approaches in order to maximise. The following sub-sections apply this framework

8


and seek to address how brands can to maximise their dialogical and relational approaches
within each path.

Figure 3.2: THE MEGAPHONE, MAGNET, AND MONITOR (3-M) FRAMEWORK- FIRM AND CUSTOMER
COMMUNICATION PATHS WITH SOCIAL MEDIA (SOURCE: GALLAUGHER AND RANSBOTHAM, 2010,
P.200)

4.1 MONITOR: OBSERVING INTERACTIONS AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Brands should firstly focus on listening to customer-to-customer interactions, alongside
discussions between customers and other brands. There is a lot of information brands can
gather from simply listening to the surrounding conversations that are already on going
(Barwise and Meehan, 2010). Influencers and other users may be reporting issues with
certain products, in which case action can be taken to correct faults quickly. Indeed, if
brands took a step back, stopped talking and listened to the conversations that are already
happening there is potential to gain a lot more information about what customers (and
potential customers) actually really want from the brand (Bayler, 2006), enabling future
engagement, dialogue and relationships through relevant content and the potential halo
effect of positive customer service, if problems proactively found are successfully dealt with.

Being seriously social and consistently monitoring activity is a time consuming activity and
can require high levels of staff commitment. If staff are expected to be highly involved with
social media in addition to their job description, it can mean increased workloads without a
pay rise. Although costly, it is suggested brands need teams dedicated to managing their
social media presence (Kane et al, 2009). Yet what type of people should these teams

9


consist of; should they be sales orientated or support centred? Ideally, the social age will
develop a new specialist who, whilst being at the forefront of developments within social
technology, can capably deal with minor support issues, engage relationally with the
consumer online, share their story, learn from other users and unthreateningly demonstrate
how the brand can offer added value. Realistically, however workers may not have levels of
excellence within each of these specialities. Therefore it is vital that staff within social media
are well connected throughout the organisation and able to discover accurate information
quickly. Research has shown that the majority of Twitter message replies and retweets2
occur within the first hour (Van Grove, 2010a) whilst 95 percent of Facebook status “likes”
occur within 22 hours of the post (Wasserman, 2011). Brands should aim to begin a dialogue
within this time frame in order to maximise impact. Software can help to increase
responsiveness with Social CRM systems becoming popular across businesses (McKay,
2011). Yet even sophisticated software is not enough to monitor, track and understand all
the conversations surrounding a large brand; it removes the emotional significance of the
relationship, scientises it and leads away from a truly dialogical approach so should be
carefully utilised (Varey, 2003; Varey and Ballantyne, 2005). Responding to issues and
conversations becomes a natural next step for brands within the social space.

4.2 MEGAPHONE: BRAND-TO-CUSTOMER COMMUNICATION
Brands should seek to generate engaging original content that connects with users (Walter,
2011) enhancing their brand values, establishing dialogues and building relationships.
Indeed, Bengtsson (2003) confirms that a relationship needs to be beneficial to both parties,
and a large part of this added value derives from the brands posted content. Building
authentic relationships starts within the brand itself and the staff who manage the social
communications. Brands should seek to bring people in who epitomise the brand and are
willing to be highly visible and transparent, enabling them to become influencers within the
social sphere (Klopper, 2010). Brands must ensure that those running their social media
display a personal „face‟, encapsulating brand identity and personality (Lindstrom, 2005),
humanising the corporate persona. Brands should allow people to talk with the employee
and not simply about the brand (Kane et al, 2009); sharing personal stories and asking fun
questions allow both the brand and employee‟s personalities to display through the content
(Walter, 2011). Displaying this „human side‟ within social media can make a brand easier for
consumers to relate to (Klopper, 2010; Van Grove, 2010b) and accept mistakes when they
are made. The immediate nature of the web provides inevitable hazards and means an
inadvertent post could cause a widespread media storm. Before stepping out into social
2
A retweet occurs when a user chooses to re-broadcast a message to their audience.

10


networks, a brand needs to be confident and self-assured in its values and beliefs,
demonstrating a personality that audiences will relate to. A brand‟s social media updaters
are effectively spokespeople to the audiences within each social network, therefore putting
the right people in place to provide suitable updates should be carefully considered
(Ostrowski, 2009).

Personality can be delivered through both conversation and content, yet it needs to be
genuinely and sincerely conceived and truly add value through some relevancy to the
brand‟s values. This sincerity, without transgressions, can help to build long-term
relationships with customers (Aaker et al, 2004). Within products, irrelevant attributes can be
seen to add value to the brand (Albrecht et al, 2011). The same is true within the online
space, yet irrelevant noise should be avoided. Brand characteristics should be present within
irrelevancy and employees within the company should be allowed to demonstrate their
personality. When Blendtec started posting YouTube videos online demonstrating their
blender‟s ability to demolish popular technology products such as the iPhone and eccentric
objects they demonstrated the excellent strength of their blenders, and provided a humorous
personality through the presence of their MD to a product that does not lead itself to warmth.
The humorous irrelevance through demonstration of complementary characteristics also
utilised the success of the iPhone and other Apple products, to gain initial exposure which
has been followed up via relational dialogues with Twitter and Facebook users (Peters,
2008).

Brands should reach out to consumers and increase interactions to build relationships. In an
Edelman (2011) study, only 44% of UK consumers believed companies would do what is
right, the second lowest level of trust within the top ten leading GDP countries. Therefore
utilising social media to increase loyalty and trust should be seen as a worthwhile exercise.
The more a brand is able to sincerely engage with consumers, the more their relationship
will grow (Aaker et al, 2004), and the more loyalty and trust the brand will gain. Dialogue
within social networks follows certain unspoken rules and brands must be aware of these
engagement guidelines before attempting to build relationships (Evans, 2001). Language
used within dialogue should be centred around a „please-thank you‟ culture, where
customers feel individualised and valued (Vaynerchuk, 2011). Focussing on building a
respecting environment and utilising small talk with community members can help build
relations with customers and allow them to develop a stronger rapport with companies
(Pullin, 2010; Vaynerchuk, 2011), especially where the brand clearly identifies people within
the company. Small talk also allows the brand to build a better understanding of their
audience, allowing for potential development and further targeting of future communications.

11


Brands have to now find ways of reaching out beyond their standard demographic; social
networks bring together people from a variety of different countries and cultures. If the brand
has a global presence, then attention to individual markets should be carefully considered in
order to increase relevance and establish a cultural connection; utilising localisation targeting
can reduce culture clash and increase relevance (Walter, 2011). Yet brands should realise
that people who like, follow and listen to their social media may actually never wish to buy
their product (Miller and Washington, 2011). Brands can extend relevance through posting
more visual content; images, videos and other media will likely see a higher response than a
simple text update, especially if the shared media is within the brand‟s personality and
somehow relevant to current affairs. T-Mobile‟s spoof Royal Wedding video is an excellent
example of this (see Appendix A). Although media can instil a huge response from the social
audience, viral should never be considered a strategy but merely a by-product of a
successful relational connection made with the audience.

Brands shouldn‟t be afraid to utilise social media to crowd source opinions on new products
or company developments. Social media can help take empowerment a step further and
allow followers/fans to decide on marketing decisions, as Budweiser did when it allowed fans
to choose which ad would run during the 2010 Superbowl (Brenna, 2010). Empowering
users enables them to own the brand and deepen their connection, whilst encouraging
interaction and spreading the brand‟s media. The results may help to impact directions of
future campaigns and resonate further with consumers (Walter, 2011). Brands should utilise
stats to see when users are most engaged and find the best times and types of content that
are appreciated most (Walter, 2011). However, avoid using automating posts (Walter, 2011)
as content can be easily spotted, especially when consumers who are interested in
beginning a dialogue receive no reply. Social networks are fast moving environment and are
always reacting, therefore having a present knowledge of the current conditions is important
before sharing. It is also important to avoid bombarding audiences with frequent and
repetitive updates (Lowenthal, 2009).

12


4.3 MAGNET: CUSTOMER-TO-BRAND COMMUNICATION
Ideally, if a brand provides the consumer with a good experience, the consumer will utilise
social networks to advocate the brand, at which point there is an opportunity for the brand to
build relationship through dialogical interaction. Edelman (2010) summarises this well by
highlighting the change from a traditional funnel approach, where consumers simply narrow
down brands before coming to a decision. Within the Consumer Decision Journey, a loyalty
loop is introduced post-purchase where it is suggested consumers will advocate the product
if they enjoy it, at which point brands have the opportunity to bond with the consumer, form a
relationship and develop brand loyalty. Indeed, Edelman (2010) states how this brand
outreach and research of other social media posted from trusted friends and colleagues may
take place within the evaluation stage prior to purchase, hence the importance already
afforded to the monitoring of social discussions. Edelman (2010) also points out the potential
for consumers to become adversaries should their experience be negative.

A condition of being dialogical is learning and growing through discussion with all views
(Evans, 2001; Varey, 2003; Varey and Ballantyne, 2005). This means engaging with both
positive and negative responses within social media. Dealing with negative views and
complaints can put off brands from initially getting involved, yet the conversation is going on
around the brand whether it is on social media or not. Through discussion, public opinion
can be formed (Evans, 2001); therefore making sure a brand‟s voice is represented within
discussion should be seen as vital. With a report claiming more than half of users are put off
by negative comments on social networks (Pinkerfield, 2007), responding and dealing with
issues should be a high priority. Being part of the dialogue allows brands to communicate
their view, and receive instantaneous feedback allowing improvement of the product
(Ostrowski, 2009). Sometimes that may just be apologising, which becomes easier if the
brand has successfully humanised their communications (Walter, 2011). Brands should
never be afraid of receiving negative comments and must show courage to build connections
with those who criticise (Evans, 2001). Usually other members of the community will respond
to posts that aren‟t constructive and deal with spammers (Cohen, 2008), whilst genuine
grievances and complaints should be responded to directly and sincerely. Acting dialogically
means brands should not impose themselves onto consumers and insist their methods are
right, but instead journey with them to find a mutual solution (Evans, 2001). This empathetic
response should be done in a timely manner, with staff seeking confirmation of the
resolution. Consequently, it is important that social media teams have close connections with
customer service departments to provide suitable support.

13


Although brands may find it tempting to filter offensive posts there is likely to be far more
impact should all posts be listened to and effectively dealt with. The chance of dialogue
should be seen as an opportunity to positively influence brand loyalty, not a threat to public
credibility. Brands should also be transparent within their use of social media (Walter, 2011)
as within unknown and emerging online environments, honesty and trust are important in
building relationships and maintaining customer loyalty (Nutley, 2004). Any signs of brand
deception are likely to be quickly spotted by the community; this then risks escalation and a
wide loss of trust from consumers, as seen within section 5.1 „A Negative Example: Habitat
UK‟.

14


5.0 EXAMPLES
The following examples were taken from Twitter and highlight the issues raised surrounding
a brand‟s utilisation of social media. Although this should not be considered conclusive of all
social media activity undertaken by the two brands featured, it provides an overview of their
varying approaches. Twitter was chosen over other social networks as it was seen to be the
best environment for potential consumer and brand interaction.

5.1 A NEGATIVE EXAMPLE: HABITAT UK

Although many brands have decided to purely utilise social media as another channel for
information sharing, certain brands have gone a step further and attached their promotional
efforts to features within social networks that are designed to increase dialogue and build
community. This approach can understandably receive negative feedback from the
community and become amplified throughout offline media as was the case with Habitat UK
when their Twitter account was launched in June 2009. Initially, the strategy conceived by
Habitat was to utilise trending topics and hashtags3 for their own promotions. Not only was
there a large backlash to the spam nature of these messages, but the firm also managed to
take a hashtag associated with Iranian elections where Twitter was being used to get
important public information out (Gloria, 2009; Singer, 2009; Tiphereth, 2009). The event
was picked up on by a large number of Twitter users and certain media outlets also ran the
story (Gloria, 2009; Singer, 2009; Tiphereth, 2009). Habitat deleted the offending tweets and
issued a public apology via the firm‟s blog stating that they had not authorised the use of
these methods to gain brand awareness and the responsibility lay with an enthusiastic intern
(Tiphereth, 2009). However, the damage had been done and the story gained hugely
negative publicity. Habitat failed to grasp the foundations of the network and high jacked
dialogues instead of cultivating their own community and conversation, without adding any
value and detracting from the issues being discussed. Although this example is a clearly
extreme, and few brands have had such a negative approach, this basic misunderstanding
of social networks can be found throughout a wide cross-section of brands. Although Habitat

3
Trending topics and hashtags are two features of the Twitter community, used to increase
opportunities for conversation.

15


seems to have learned lessons from the initial faux pas, there are still a number of areas for
improvement. These are established below and applied to a broader context.

5.1.1 MONITOR- IMPROVE SLOW RESPONSE TIMES
Social media is fast moving and conversations are starting every second. Brands are being
talked about on Twitter and they need to listen to what is being said. Brands acting on a
complaint, without a customer even directly contacting them, are likely to improve relations.
If customers are trying to connect with a brand, whether to report a problem, make a
complaint, or just say thanks, it‟s important to acknowledge them even if the issue cannot be
fixed straight away. The average effective response rate to a tweet is an hour (Van Grove,
2010a). If brands don‟t have the staffing power to keep up with a reasonable response rate
then it should consider bringing in additional staff or outsourcing to an agency.

5.1.2 MEGAPHONE- GIVE BRAND PERSONALITY
Although Habitat staff replying to the Twitter feed are being polite and trying to inject
character into posts, there is still a lack of personal touches to tweets, such as initials or sign
offs within posts, and engaging content for interaction. This increases the distance between
customer and brand, taking away a personal feel and meaning customers lack a name when
dealing with any other customer service. This also means there is more anonymity for
employees posting on the account and due care may not be taken.

5.1.3 MAGNET- LEARN FROM THE CONVERSATION
Habitat should take on and converse with users who are posting negative comments. A
simple search on Twitter reveals complaints, and customers attempting to contact Habitat
directly, left unanswered. These should be directly addressed and seen as a positive
opportunity to learn from past errors, build and repair relationships, and improve future
results.

There are a number of key issues that can be learned through Habitat UK‟s mistakes.

5.1.4 MONITOR- MOTIVATION FOR JOINING
Is the brand joining a social network as a way to connect with consumers, build relationships
and learn together through dialogue? Or is it simply to market at another audience, with no
knowledge of the network‟s etiquette. A brand should only be on Twitter as another method
of effectively boosting your communications with stake holders. The harm done to a brand

16


by jumping into a communication method that they do not understand will be far greater than
if they said nothing in the first place; there is no harm in listening and becoming familiar with
the social code of conduct before actively participating; there is plenty a brand can learn
(Barwise and Meehan, 2010).

5.1.5 MEGAPHONE- NOT THEIR CONVERSATION
No one likes their discussion being interrupted by an irrelevant topic. It wouldn‟t be done
within normal conversation so why take it online? A brand should stick to topics they have
something to contribute to, and not feel the need to have an opinion on every trending topic
there is.

5.1.6 MEGAPHONE- MISTAKES ARE INSTANT
As with all things on the internet, mistakes are instantly visible for all to see and should that
mistake be big enough it can be guaranteed that someone will spot it. Brands shouldn‟t be
afraid; spelling mistakes every year or so won‟t be judged too harshly, but due care and
attention should be applied to the content of each post made.

FIGURE 5.1: A SCREENSHOT OF HABITAT UK'S TWITTER PAGE (SOURCE: TWITTER, 2011a)

17


5.2 A POSITIVE EXAMPLE: VIRGIN MEDIA

In contrast to Habitat‟s strategy, Virgin Media have based their approach around
conversations and representing their brand within consumer discussions. Launched in
December 2008, the site is a good example of how certain brands are intentionally utilising
social networks to begin dialogues and build relationships, and attempting to become
dialogical. Further details of this intentionality can be seen within Appendix B, with insight
into their current approach and future strategy. Here are highlights of the things they do well:

5.2.1 MONITOR- PROACTIVE ENGAGEMENT
Virgin doesn‟t wait for Twitter users to communicate with them directly and register
complaints. Their Twitter team and other staff have searches in place on key terms and
hashtags to remain updated on conversations surrounding the brand. Virgin monitor these
conversations carefully, and offer assistance where needed. In implementing a proactive
approach there is an opportunity to turn a negative experience into a positive connection, or
to quickly address problems that have been raised by consumers. Virgin are not simply
sending out information, they are listening and learning; a key aspect of being dialogical
(Evans, 2001; Varey, 2003; Varey and Ballantyne, 2005).

5.2.2 MAGNET- QUICK TO REPLY
All tweets are replied to within a short period of time, usually 24 hours. Although the Twitter
site is not monitored 24/7, the times that the site is checked is clearly displayed within the
description to avoid confusion. A short response time is a good example of active listening;
Virgin are acknowledging to the consumer that the message has been received and

18


understood, and that they will act upon this. Figure 3 clearly shows the quantity of „@‟4
responses Virgin are using.

5.2.3 MEGAPHONE- CLEAR IDENTITIES
Tweets from staff are marked with initials, giving clear identity to those communicating with
the company and a marker for future reference. This allows for easy recognition of staff who
are communicating well, and enables staff to display personality more freely within posts.
There are also clear details of who updates the Twitter feed within their page description.
This personal identity allows for a more relational dialogue and helps to humanise the brand.

5.2.4 MEGAPHONE, MAGNET AND MONITOR- EMPATHETIC CONVERSATION
Staff are relational in their approach to dealing with problems and empathise with
complaints. They also show high levels of gratitude when responding to positive feedback.

5.2.4.1 THEY LISTEN
Sometimes good customer service is just intentionally listening to customer frustration.
Active listening is a key separation from a dialogical and monological approach (Evans,
2001; Varey, 2003; Varey and Ballantyne, 2005). It may not even be the company‟s fault but
listening to the problem and learning from the experience helps reduce future issues.

5.2.4.2 THEY ACT
When a customer needs assistance the team is quick to take the issue offline via a
dedicated email address for Twitter issues. Emails to this address are responded to within a
one hour period during working days.

4
„@‟ signs are used within Twitter to bring a topic to the particular user‟s attention or reply as part of a
conversation.

19


There are always going to be things that can be improved:

5.2.5 MONITOR- INCREASE MONITORING TIMES
In a 24/7 world where the social media conversation does not stop, consumers are wanting
faster replies. For a home service such as Virgin, where usage for the majority of users
would be within evenings and weekends, only monitoring a Twitter service from 8am-4.15pm
is not likely to be ideal. The times at which tweets (particularly complaints) are received
should be monitored and analysed, and this should define when help is online, not a
traditional 9am-5pm approach.

5.2.6 MAGNET- FOLLOW ISSUES THROUGH TO COMPLETION
There have been instances, as reported within The Telegraph (Lunn, 2011), where Virgin
Media have failed to deal with an issue raised through their Twitter account. Integrating
feedback from social networks into traditional complaint procedures has been a issue for
many brands, and there will be instances where communication fails to be acted upon and
no action is taken. Brands should put in place a clear procedure to deal with complaints, with
clear instructions on where various customer issues should be redirected. This will avoid
customers simply being passed from department to department, and no action being taken.

FIGURE 5.2: A SCREENSHOT OF VIRGIN MEDIA'S TWITTER PAGE (SOURCE: TWITTER, 2011b)

20


6.0 CONCLUSION AND AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
The majority of brands take a largely informational approach to social media, routed in past
traditions and techniques that were not designed to incorporate a dialogical response
framework. Where CRM systems are implemented the intrinsically emotional and social
foundation for the relationship is not acknowledged or recognised and becomes scientised
(Varey and Ballantyne, 2005). These approaches are not only dangerous as a brand‟s
communication becomes irrelevant to the environment, but also because the brands who are
in dialogue with consumers have a strong opportunity to authentically influence opinions
through relationship. A brand which is not afraid to give up total control and can utilise social
media to strengthen mutual trust has the potential to build authentic and enduring
relationships through a long-term approach, built around reciprocated, relational
communication and dialogical interaction. Attempting to build one of these elements whilst
neglecting the other is seen as implausible, as both are vitally co-dependent; relationship
without genuine dialogue can be seen to fragment (Evans, 2001) whilst attempting dialogical
existence neglecting relationship forgoes the communicatory authority granted by connected
participants. Through creating a social media presence that encourages interaction and
develops relationships, brands have the opportunity to grow, strengthen and repair loyalty.
However, it is accepted that this is a considerable change for many brands to make; the
transition is likely to take time to implement and could well require a change in culture or, at
the very least, acknowledgement that traditional methods of marketing are unsuited to social
networks. Edelman (2010) notes that pilot schemes provide excellent testing grounds into
the new methods; noting and benchmarking successes and failures, learning for future larger
scale projects. Every brand is likely to have a differing social experience, with varying and
unguaranteed results (Smith, 2009) with some managers reluctant to sacrifice detailed
statistics on ROI.

In addition to these varying results, the effects of influence within social media are still
largely unknown. How best to combine this dialogical and relational approach with the
targeting of influential users, as suggested by Nutley (2007), is an interesting area for future
research. In addition, further research should be conducted on how influence is gained and
grown. For example, it is untrue to state that a dialogical approach is the only way through
which influence can be attained; brands may already hold a great deal of authority and
influence from their offline activity and may be unconsciously influencing online conversation
(Wu et al, 2011). The 6 methods of influence identified by Cialdini (1993) can also be applied
within the online social environment and should be revised for this setting.

21


Whilst it is believed these recommendations have current relevance, the future evolution of
social is likely to further change the landscape and lead to revised and perhaps completely
different suggestions for complete social utilisation. Within the future, offline and online
worlds are likely to be further blurred with augmented reality helping brands to become
increasingly relational and at the centre of the conversation. Smart phones will sit at the
heart of the new social experience and games such as Foursquare and Scvngr will enable
consumers to further immerse themselves within environments and brands. This immersion
should be used by brands to add another dimension to their communications and reward
interactions and loyalty, and is an area that could benefit from further research.

22


REFLECTIVE REPORT
I believe this report deals with an important issue facing businesses today. The recent rise in
social networking has presented a significant opportunity for brands, yet many still fail to
differentiate between traditional and digital approaches, simply seeing social networks as
another channel. I chose this topic from real experience within my Placement Year at
Microsoft where I saw a great deal of confusion surrounding social networking from both
within and outside of the business. A number of staff were unsure how the company should
behave within social media, and how they could effectively utilise it within campaigns.

Although I was aware that building relationships was to be an important part of the project, I
began by approaching the topic of communication as a whole. This was far too broad and
provided little focus for the key issue of why marketers did not communicate well online. I
realised that coming at the problem of maximisation from a company looking into the social
space was ineffective and that the problem should instead be addressed from a social
network looking out. This led me to reflect on what the core values of social networks
actually were and out of this research came the clear realisation that a brands approach to
social media would need to be significantly different from a traditional informational
approach. After discussing the idea with my tutor, I focussed on applying a relational and
dialogical approach to the different paths found within social networks in order to give the
project a specific focus.

I accept that there is not a “one golden rule” when it comes to social media; there are
limitations in the application of this paper in far as to say everyone is an individual and
should be treated as such, whilst the largely immeasurable ROI offers a challenge for
managers who must justify activity. Yet, to enforce a blanket approach is to go against the
foundation of this project, and this too can be seen as a limitation. There is no easy or quick
solution and therefore the advice is somewhat vague and difficult to measure effectively. It is
also difficult to qualify numerous sources for this relatively new field, where the term “expert”
should be viewed cautiously. Researching journals which specifically focussed on social
media brought few results, yet those relevant few provided significant insight. It became
necessary to rely on internet sources, such as Mashable.com, which were chosen due to
their respectability within social media and used to develop issues initially raised within
academic journals. I feel my research skills have developed significantly through my
appraisal of content that had to be undertaken in order to seek out trustworthy and informed
views. Yet, these are indeed simply views, with little solid theory and results to inform.

23


However, discovering the small amount of theory that currently does exist cemented and
strengthened many views that were voiced through online articles, leading me to strongly
believe in the project and its conclusions.

Researching and developing my knowledge in this area has strengthened my passion for
relational communications and heightened my desire to pursue a career surrounding social
media management.

24


WORD COUNT: 7,700

REFERENCES
Aaker, J., Fournier, S., and Brasel, S. (2004) „When Good Brands Do Bad‟. Journal of
Consumer Research; Jun2004, Vol. 31 Issue 1, p1-16, 16p

Albrecht, C., Neumann, M., Haber, T and Bauer, H. (2011) „The relevance of irrelevance in
brand communication‟. Psychology & Marketing; Jan2011, Vol. 28 Issue 1, p1-28, 28p

Barwise, P. and Meehan, S. (2010) „The One Thing You Must Get Right When Building a
Brand‟. Harvard Business Review; Dec2010, Vol. 88 Issue 12, p80-84, 5p

Bayler, M. (2006) „As consumers talk more can they even hear advertisers?‟ New Media
Age; 8/24/2006, p12-12, 1/2p

BBC (2010) The Ups and Downs of Social Networks [online]. Available at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10719042 [Accessed: 03/01/2011]

Bengtsson, A (2003) „Towards a Critique of Brand Relationships‟. Advances in Consumer
Research; 2003, Vol. 30 Issue 1, p154-158, 5p

Brenna, E. (2010) „Budweiser Urges Fans to Vote for Super Bowl Ad Via Facebook‟ [online]
Mashable.com. Available at: http://mashable.com/2010/02/02/budweiser-facebook-super-
bowl/ [Accessed: 15/01/2011]

Briody, K. (2011) „“Make it Social” is a Recipe to Fail‟ [online] SocialMallard.com. Available
at: http://www.socialmallard.com/socialmedia/make-it-social-is-a-recipe-to-fail/ [Accessed:
20/04/2011]

Buber, M. (1966) The Way of Response: Selections from his Writings, Glatzer, N. N. (ed.)
New York, Schocken Books

Cialdini, R (1993) Influence: the Psychology of Persuasion. Rev. ed. New York : Morrow,
c1993.

25


Clark, M. (2010) „Tapping into the Social Community‟ [online] ExactTarget.com. Available at:
http://blog.exacttarget.com/blog/community-growth-and-development/tapping-into-the-social-
community [Accessed: 05/01/2011]

Cohen, L. (2008) „Why Brands ABSOLUTELY DO Belong on Twitter‟ [online] Mashable.com.
Available at: http://mashable.com/2008/12/14/brands-do-twitter/ [Accessed: 16/01/2011]

Cowling, J. (2011) „UK Brands Not Responding to Social Media Queries, Claims Research‟
[online] PRWeek.com. Available at:
http://www.prweek.com/news/bulletin/UKDaily/article/1064706/?DCMP=EMC-CONUKDaily
[Accessed: 08/04/2011]

Deetz, S. (1995) Transforming Communication, Transforming Business: Building
Responsive and responsible Workplaces, Creskill, NJ, Hampton Press

Drapeau, M. (2008) „Do Brands Belong on Twitter?‟ [online] Mashable.com. Available at:
http://mashable.com/2008/12/12/twitter-brands/ [Accessed: 16/01/2011]

Edelman (2011) „Figure 1: Emerging markets dominate as “business trusters”‟ 2011
Edelman Trust Barometer Executive Summary. Available at:
http://edelman.com/trust/2011/uploads/Trust%20Executive%20Summary.PDF [Accessed:
19/04/2011]

Edelman, D (2010) „Branding in the Digital Age‟. Harvard Business Review; Dec2010, Vol.
88 Issue 12, p62-69, 8p

Evans, K (2001) „Dewey and the Dialogical Process; Speaking, Listening, and Today's
Media‟. International Journal of Public Administration; 2001, Vol. 24 Issue 7/8, p771-798,
28p

Fournier, S (1998) „Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in
Consumer Research‟. Journal of Consumer Research; Mar98, Vol. 24 Issue 4, p343-373,
31p

Gallaugher, J. and Ransbotham, S. (2010) „Social Media and Customer Dialog Management
at Starbucks‟. MIS Quarterly Executive; 2010, Vol. 9 Issue 4, p197-212, 16p

26


Gloria, T. (2009) „HabitatUK apologises for Twitter hashtag issue‟ [online]
SocialMediaToday.com. Available at:
http://socialmediatoday.com/index.php?q=SMC/104490 [Accessed: 10/02/2011]

Goodman, C. (2010) „Brands on social networks need to understand why people are there‟.
New Media Age; 5/13/2010, p07-07, 1/2p

Kane, G., Fichman, R., Gallaugher, J., and Glaser, J. (2009) „Community Relations 2.0‟.
Harvard Business Review; Nov2009, Vol. 87 Issue 11, p45-50, 6p

Klopper, C. (2010) „Managing Your Company's Image‟. Manager: British Journal of
Administrative Management; Summer2010, Issue 71, p15-17, 2p

Lindstrom, M. (2005) „Consumers love a brand with a personal 'face'’. Media: Asia's Media &
Marketing Newspaper; 6/17/2005, p23-23, 1/2p

Lowenthal, B. (2009) „Optimal Posting Rate‟. Adweek; 10/19/2009, Vol. 50 Issue 37, p16-16,
1p

Lunn, E. (2011) „Complaints- „I tweeted @RoyalMail and within six minutes my missing
parcel turned up‟' Telegraph Money, 16/04/2011, pY7, 1/2p

Martin, D. (2011) „Brian Solis: Social media ROI is measurable – if ROI is 'return on
ignorance'‟ [online] MyCustomer.com. Available at: http://www.mycustomer.com/topic/social-
crm/brian-solis-social-media-roi-easy-measure-if-we-re-talking-return-ignorance/123381
[Accessed: 01/04/2011]

McKay, L (2011) „Most Vendors Embrace Social CRM‟. CRM Magazine; Jan2011, Vol. 15
Issue 1, p15-15, 2/3p

Miller, R. and Washington, K. (2011) „Chapter 22: Social Marketing‟. Entertainment, Media &
Advertising Market Research Handbook; 2011, Issue 11, p216-220, 5p

Nash, K. (2010) „Friending your customers‟. CIO; 12/1/2010, Vol. 24 Issue 5, p32-41, 7p

Nutley, M. (2004) „Even online, brands still benefit from earning trust‟. New Media Age;
4/22/2004, p16-16, 1/2p

27


Nutley, M. (2007) ‘It's the influencers, not the social media, that brands need to target‟.
Marketing Week; 5/3/2007, Vol. 30 Issue 18, p19-19, 1p

Ostrowski, S. (2009) „Social engagement‟. Smart Business Houston; Oct2009, Vol. 4 Issue
4, p16-16, 1p

Oxford Dictionary of English (2010) New York, NY: Oxford University Press

Paynter, B (2010) „Five Steps to Social Currency‟. Fast Company; May2010, Issue 145, p44-
47, 4p

Pearson, R. (1989) „Business Ethics as Communication Ethics : Public Relations Practice
and the Idea of Dialogue‟. In C. H. Botan and V. Hazleton, Jr. (Eds.), Public Relations
Theory, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, p111-134, 23p

Peters, J. (1999) Speaking into the Air: A history of the idea of communication, Chicago, IL,
University of Chicago Press

Peters, J. (2008) „Social Media Marketing Primer: How Blendtec Got Its Face On‟ [online]
Mashable.com. Available at: http://mashable.com/2008/05/22/social-media-marketing-
primer/ [Accessed: 10/04/2011]

Pinkerfield, H. (2007) „Brands must beware social networks‟ [online] BrandRepublic.com
Available at: http://www.brandrepublic.com/news/672058/Brands-beware-social-networks/
[Accessed: 11/03/2011]

Pullin, P. (2010) „Small Talk, Rapport, and International Communicative Competence‟.
Journal of Business Communication, Oct2010, Vol. 47 Issue 4, p455-476, 22p

Schaedel, U. and Clement, M. (2010) „Managing The Online Crowd: Motivations For
Engagement In User-Generated Content‟. Journal of Media Business Studies; 2010, Vol. 7
Issue 3, p17-36, 20p

28


Singer, D. (2009) „Habitat's moment of Twitter madness‟ [online] BrandRepublic.com.
Available at:
http://community.brandrepublic.com/blogs/newsfromtheherd/archive/2009/06/23/habitat-s-
moment-of-twitter-madness.aspx [Accessed: 02/04/2011]

Smith, T. (2007) „The existential consumption paradox: an exploration of meaning in
marketing‟. Marketing Review; Winter2007, Vol. 7 Issue 4, p325-341, 17p

Smith, T. (2009) „Why Big Brands Struggle With Social Media‟ [online] Mashable.com.
Available at: http://mashable.com/2009/02/20/big-brands-social-media/ [Accessed:
10/11/2010]

Strokes, R. (2009) eMarketing: The Essential Guide to Online Marketing. Cape Town, South
Africa: Quirk eMarketing Ltd.

Tiphereth (2009) „Habitatuk Apologises for Twitter Hashtag Issue‟ [online] DigitalTip.com.au.
Available at: http://www.digitaltip.com.au/index.php/habitatuk-apologises-twitter-hashtag-
issue/ [Accessed on 07/04/2011]

Twitter (2011a) „HabitatUK (habitatuk) on Twitter‟ [online] Twitter.com. Available at:
http://twitter.com/#!/habitatuk [Accessed: 03/05/2011]

Twitter (2011b) „Virgin Media (virginmedia) on Twitter‟ [online] Twitter.com. Available at:
http://twitter.com/#!/virginmedia [Accessed: 15/03/2011]

Van Grove, J (2010a) „Most Tweets Produce Zero Replies or Retweets‟ [online]
Mashable.com. Available at: http://mashable.com/2010/09/29/twitter-replies-retweets/
[Accessed 13/02/2011]

Van Grove, J. (2010b) „40 of the Best Twitter Brands and the People Behind Them‟ [online]
Mashable.com. Available at: http://mashable.com/2009/01/21/best-twitter-brands/ [Accessed
24/01/2011]

Varey, R. (2002) Marketing Communication: Principles and Practice. London: Routledge.

Varey, R. (2003) „A Dialogical Foundation for Marketing.‟ Marketing Review; Summer2003,
Vol. 3 Issue 3, p273-288, 16p

29


Varey, R. and Ballantyne, D. (2005) „Relationship Marketing and the Challenge of Dialogical
Interaction‟ Journal of Relationship Marketing; 2005, Vol. 4 Issue 3/4, p11, 18p

Vaynerchuk, G. (2011) The Thank You Economy. New York: Harper Business

Walter, E. (2011) „10 Tips for Posting on Your Brand‟s Facebook Page‟ [online]
Mashable.com. Available at: http://mashable.com/2011/03/22/tips-brand-facebook-page/
[Accessed 22/03/2011]

Wasserman, T. (2011) „Audi Has the Most Engaged Fans on Facebook‟ [online]
Mashable.com. Available at: http://mashable.com/2011/04/22/audis-facebook-bieber/
[Accessed 22/04/2011]

Wu, S., Hofman, J., Mason, W., Watts, J. (2011) „Who Says What to Whom on Twitter‟
[online] Yahoo! Research. Available at: http://research.yahoo.com/pub/3386 [Accessed
10/04/2011]

30


APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: T-MOBILE ROYAL WEDDING SPOOF

In April 2011, T-Mobile launched a spoof Royal Wedding video, utilising the popularity
surrounding the wedding of Prince William. The video was shared via T-Mobile‟s Twitter and
Facebook pages, and spread rapidly across social networks, amassing over 16 million views
and 43,000 likes on YouTube in under two weeks.

31


APPENDIX B: VIRGIN MEDIA AND SOCIAL MEDIA PRESENTATION HAND OUT
Selected slides demonstrating Virgin Media‟s intentionality of fully utilising social media.

Slide 1

32


Slide 4

Launched Aug 2009
5,000+ posts weekly
Relevant & frequently updated content = Google friendly
Focus is on peer help and customers helping themselves
‘Kudos’ system to recognise power users – recognition drives behaviour
Dedicated customer service resource
E-mail migrations
Firmware testers

33


Slide 6

Used to promote V Festival, Shorts, Pioneers and one off campaigns
Conversations are ‘friend to friend’ and we often can’t see them
Engage with campaigning groups direct, dealing with group operators (who pass info onto
others) – Plymouth capacity upgrades
Senior complaints team staff deal with issues
Room for future expansion of Twitter team model

34


Slide 7

35


Slide 8

Followers:
13,647 customers, media, prospects, celebrities we have direct contact with
Tweets out: news, product launches & updates, sales offers, portal articles,
general education, competitions, acquisition hunting
Tweets in: feedback, questions, complaints, service recovery issues,
compliments and appreciation
Proactive engagement:
VMTwits (staff members – over 400 of them) search for comments on „Virgin
Media‟ and encourage customers to tweet us

36


Slide 9

Average growth now approx 30-50 new follows per day
Jumped by around 200 in one day when Stephen Fry reported a service problem (as
it resulted in other people recognising we were on Twitter)

37


Slide 10

Average 48 tweets per day (tpd) since launch

38


Slide 11

@vfestival - News and exclusive content, even help on where to find the loos!
@vmondemand / @vmmovies - Showcasing our video on demand service
@VMediaShorts / @vmpioneers - Promoting short film competition and entrepreneurship
scheme we sponsor.
@vmbusiness - Primarily a PR feed (promoting products, blogs etc) but also service
recovery

39


Slide 13

Reactive:
Important to take conversation „offline‟ (as usually an account specific enquiry) –
team mailbox (twitter@virginmedia.co.uk)
Most issues resolved same day, all within 5 days
E-mails responded to within the hour (business hours)
Keeping customer updated at every step of way
Empowered to do what is needed internally to resolve
Proactive:
The source of many of our biggest „wow‟ reactions from customers.

40


Slide 14

NPS Scores of ‟10‟ in a complaints function – unusual with a customer already unhappy
Cost to serve – lower goodwill credits
Own words – blogs, media stories, NPS feedback (which we widely use to promote the
Tweam internally)

41


Slide 15

42


Slide 16

43


Slide 17

44


Slide 18

45


Slide 19

46


Slide 20

The conversation:
Taking part means you can get the facts out there and help people who need it
Case management:
A named person empowered to resolve problems gets the results and wows the
customer
Staff Judgment:
Your frontline team know how to deal with your customers
Let them use their discretion on when/how to respond – you learn from your mistakes
(and you will make some)
Internal Feedback Contacts:
Twitter team engage with field, faults, product, marketing, PR and other teams
Instantaneous Feedback:
Ideal „weathervane‟ for product launches – e.g. Netbooks
Fixing problems faster through immediate engagement – e.g. network issue to
Facebook

47


Slide 21

Where do we take social media from here:
How to tackle Facebook customer service
Scaling the Twitter operation
Further integration with other channels
Tighter integration of forums with main website

48

WHY HAVE CERTAIN BRANDS FAILED TO FULFIL THEIR POTENTIAL USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA?

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (15)

Similar to WHY HAVE CERTAIN BRANDS FAILED TO FULFIL THEIR POTENTIAL USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA?

Similar to WHY HAVE CERTAIN BRANDS FAILED TO FULFIL THEIR POTENTIAL USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA? (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

WHY HAVE CERTAIN BRANDS FAILED TO FULFIL THEIR POTENTIAL USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA?