After much speculation, Facebook’s Instant Articles are here. Instant Articles gives publishers the opportunity to post their content direct to Facebook, in a move that some are proclaiming as ‘selling their soul’ to the social giant. The concern, given Facebook’s history of changing the ground rules, is that while the initial offering from Facebook on Instant Articles is good, the other shoe will eventually drop once the process has become embedded and publishers are reliant on the new practice. Like Darth Vader, the expectation is that Facebook will alter the deal, and once it’s become a key part of publishers’ overall strategy, they’ll be left with no choice but to simply pray that Facebook doesn’t alter it any further.
How does it work?
Instant Articles translates publisher content via HTML and RSS into good looking, easy to consume content, available direct on Facebook. There’s also a range of additional publishing options exclusive to the new platform to boost the presentation of content in the News Feed, things like auto-play video and interactive maps, all of which will function smoothly within Facebook’s mobile news feed. It’s worth noting that Instant Articles are only available via the mobile app right now – trying to access the same content on your desktop PC will take you to the normal, mobile web version of the article (though Facebook specifically notes ‘for the moment’ as a qualifier on this).
Instant Article posts load much faster than normal links, which is one of the major pain points Facebook is seeking to resolve with this option. The average mobile load time for an external link from Facebook is around eight seconds. Now, that seems like nothing, right? Eight seconds isn’t long to wait for an article to come up, but on a wider scale, when you consider how many people are using Facebook each day, that time is significant. Facebook has 936 million daily active users, if each of those users opens just one link per session, that eight seconds load time equates to more than two million total hours that people around the world are waiting, each day, for posts to load – time those people could be spending doing other things. Like reading more content on Facebook. From that perspective alone, Facebook’s move has a significant pay-off, even if they maintain the current ad revenue split, which, at present, looks pretty appealing for publishers.
How do publishers make money?
One of the biggest concerns about publishers posting first-run content direct to Facebook was that they’d be surrendering their own audience in favour of Facebook’s. If people no longer need to visit your site to view content, that’s going to result in less traffic, and by extension, less opportunity to monetize your audience. Facebook’s worked to alleviate this by offering publishers the ability to display their own ads within their Instant Articles, with all revenues from any such ads going back to the publishers. Facebook will then fill any unsold ad spots, and will take a 30 per cent cut from any revenues generated by those ads, with the rest going back to the publishers.
Facebook has also worked with comScore to ensure Instant Article views within Facebook’s app will count as traffic for the original publisher, not Facebook. So while publishers are ceding control to The Social Network, they’re getting a pretty good deal on advertising and losing nothing in audience stats. Facebook will also provide performance data on Instant Articles, better enabling publishers to work out what’s resonating best with their Facebook audience and make improvements.
Sounds like a pretty good deal, right? And considering many publishers are already significantly reliant on Facebook referral traffic anyway, partnering with the network via Instant Articles makes sense, as it’s likely (despite Facebook saying this is not the case) that Facebook’s algorithm will give preferential treatment to Instant Articles over other posting options. Though that, too, is where publishers hesitate in shaking Facebook’s outstretched hand and look down at the feet to see if their standing on the trap door.
What’s The Issue with Instant Articles?
The problem with Facebook’s new option is not what Instant Articles are now, but what they may become. Major players posting direct to Facebook is a fundamental shift in the publishing process. While, right now, the deal looks good, and it seems as though Facebook has done a lot of negotiating with their launch partners to ensure the deal beneficial for all, as with the many changes to the News Feed algorithm, Facebook has the right to change the game whenever it sees fit.
If publishers don’t sign up to Instant Articles, will that see eventually their content de-emphasised by the algorithm, making it harder to reach potential audience on the platform? If Instant Articles are given preferential placement in the News Feed, will that further reduce the reach of all other content as there’ll be less News Feed real estate remaining as a result? If Instant Articles are a big hit, and publishers become reliant on that as a new source of revenue, will Facebook re-configure the advertising split, leaving publishers with no choice but to take the hit and give over more money to the social giant?
Obviously, there’s no way of knowing how it will play out, but it’s generally agreed that building a reliance on ‘rented land’, in social networks or any other platform of which you don’t control the back-end, isn’t sustainable practice in the long-term. But maybe Facebook is, as they say, only seeking to improve user experience. Maybe eliminating that load time results in more people spending more time visiting other areas of Facebook or direct posted articles further enhance Facebook’s status as a key source of information, increasing time spent on platform, and thus, opportunities for Facebook to serve ads, and that, in itself, is enough reason for Facebook to maintain the system as is. It seems unlikely, in the long term. The initial deal being offered seems a little too good to be what it will in its final configuration. But it sure is appealing. You can imagine many publishers would be willing to sign-up to get better reach to Facebook’s 1.4 billion users.
Instant Articles is definitely an interesting development, and one everyone in the content, media and publishing space will want to keep a close eye on.
The new battleground of combined social and search is going to become a significant storyline in the world of social media marketing this year. Last week, we saw the first examples of what tweets might look like in Google search results as part of Twitter’s new deal with the search giant. It’s now being reported that Facebook is testing a newsearch feature – not quite on the same path, but more significant than it may, initially, seem.
Facebook is testing out a new functionality for iOS users which enables people to search for links while composing a status update, in-app. Just like adding a picture, the function would enable users to click on a link icon, then do a keyword search for articles related to that topic in order to share that content with your update.
At a glance, this seems relatively minor, adding in links is no major upgrade, it’s just streamlining that process – and really, it may be slightly restrictive, most people like to be able to share the exact links to the exact posts they want, and searching via this method might not necessarily help you locate the right content any more efficiently than searching outside of the app and cutting and pasting the link yourself. But then again, it might. And considering the massive amount of mobile sharing Facebook hosts, this process could prove hugely popular, effectively cutting Google out of the equation and keeping users on Facebook longer. And what’s more, it would also grant Facebook more control over more information, in the form of search data, which it could use to entice more publishers to its publisher platform. And that might just be the start.
Mo’ Data, Mo’ Options
So, let’s say this becomes a popular practice, that people are finding the links they want via this search process, Facebook learns your favourite websites and can better provide contextual searches, based on your previous sharing behaviour. That being the case, couldn’t Facebook then use that in building its case for publishers to post first-run content direct to Facebook? What if, as part of their pitch, they could say that “people use this new in-app search functionality 35% of the time, and we control the search results they get – we could ensure your content appears high in those results, significantly increasing the chances that users will link to your posts, thereby increasing your overall audience.” That’s interesting, right? What, too, does that increase in searches on Facebook do for Google traffic and Google’s share of audience? We know that Facebook leads social referral traffic by a significant margin (and that’s not even counting dark social shares) – if this addition were to catch on, it could be a significant concern for The Big G’s hold on search traffic.
Obviously, these are extrapolations, we have no idea how this is going to go till we see it in the wild and we get some stats on how users view this addition. But it could be something. It could be more significant than it may seem, at this early stage.
Back in early 2014, I came across a content discovery tool called BuzzSumo. Steve Rayson, who regularly writes for Social Media Today, had referenced BuzzSumo data in one of his posts, so I clicked through, checked it out – and honestly, I was awed by the many varied applications I could immediately use this data for.
In basic form, BuzzSumo shows you the social share stats for any URL, website or topic. In itself, this is pretty helpful, but one of the more impressive elements of BuzzSumo is the developers’ awareness of how this data will be used, and what data will be useful. As such, over time they’ve added a range of additional features: you can filter the results by language or region; you can narrow the listing down to content type – infographics, videos, interviews; they added the ability to search for influencers on any given topic, reports to compare domains or examine backlinks, by URL or domain. As more new functions have been added, I’ve found myself using and recommending the app ever more frequently.
If you’ve not taken the time to check out BuzzSumo, you should, it really is a great app. And now they’ve got another addition – Steve recently got in touch to give me a look at their latest feature.
BuzzSumo’s latest trick is monitoring trending content. The new feature enables you to set up a dashboard of trending or most shared content based on whatever keywords and topics you’d like to keep tabs on.
In this example, the dashboard is set to show the most shared content under the topic of ‘social media’ over the last 24 hours. You can see the keywords I’ve used to track this in the listing just above the posts:
The dashboard is tracking the terms ‘social media’, ‘LinkedIn’, ‘Facebook’, etc. Any topic that mentions those terms is included in this dashboard, which is sorted by most shared to least. There’s a range of additional filters you can apply to the results – you can include results from the last 24 hours, or the last 2 hours, and anything in between. You can also narrow the listing down by country and by either ‘Most Shared’ or ‘Trending Now’.
If you choose ‘Trending Now’, the results will be listed based on each item’s trending score, which measures the velocity of shares within a specified time period. This is a great way to stay on top of the content attracting the most interest in specific niches or based on your target keywords – you can also include hashtags in your search terms to capture all relevant discussion.
What’s more, you can share your dashboards with anyone – logged out users can view the content, so you could make a dashboard capturing all mentions of, say, an event and the BuzzSumo trending log will form a comprehensive overview of the most discussed and trending content related to it – this one, for example, is looking at the UK General Election campaign:
Now, if you’re mind’s not already floating off with the various possibilities of this new function, here are a few ways in which the feature could be useful:
- Content curation – The most obvious benefit of this new functionality is for content curation. Being able to identify the most popular and trending content, based on your specified keywords – in your specific region – is great insight into what’s resonating, and what’s likely to be of relevance to your audience. Not only does this enable you to stay on top of developing discussion points and issues in your niche, it can also act as a guide when considering what to share with your community to keep them up to date
- Content creation – So, if you have a trending dashboard set up and you can see that a certain issue is running hot, and you have your own perspective to add to the discussion, that’s probably a good cue for you to get writing. Adding your personal insight to a trending issue can go a long way towards reinforcing your position as a leader in your field – having the list of trending topics, right there in front of you, could save you a heap of time in searching and locating relevant content by other methods
- Insight – Not only are you getting valuable insight into what content is trending, BuzzSumo’s listings also show you where that content is reaching an audience. You can see below the preview images for each post that there’s also a listing of how many shares each story has generated on the five major social platforms. This effectively highlights the platforms you need to be active on in order to reach the audience discussing those topics – locating and tapping into those conversations could prove extremely valuable, as, targeted with your specific keywords, it’s leading you directly to your where your target audience is at. There’s obviously a bit more to it than just logging on and jumping into a trending conversation, but it’s a guide, an indicator of where to look. And maybe it’ll show you opportunities you’d not have previously considered
These are the three main uses for the trending dashboard from a straight marketing and research perspective. But as noted in the event example above, there are a heap more ways you could consider using this. There’s also an RSS feature that you can use to stay informed with the most up-to-date info on trending topics in your industry – and the terms you use to create the board are defined by you, so you can make it as specific or broad-matched as you like.
As noted previously, I’ve been pretty impressed by BuzzSumo’s progression – their features always add a new level of depth, and they’ve really thought through the functionality and user-friendliness of the process when putting together these features. Trending topics again adds another level, and there’s a wide range of possible applications and uses for this option. No doubt you’re already considering using it for your own purposes, beyond what I’ve noted here. If you aren’t using BuzzSumo, you definitely check it out, and if you are, you’ll no doubt love the new feature – another solid addition from the BuzzSumo team.
I read an interview with author Arnold Zable recently in which he discussed his work in championing causes through his writing, notably asylum seekers. Zable talked about the power of storytelling in such efforts, saying that ‘story is a very beautiful way to lead people somewhere else’. Zable noted that more than statistics and facts, telling the real story, revealing the true, human experience behind issues is the only real way to cut through and make people take notice.
Zable’s words definitely rang true to me – we’re constantly berated by numbers and figures behind issues like asylum seekers or climate change, to the point where their effectiveness is diminished. But a real story, of how a mother fled a war-torn land to save her children, that brings the issue home in a far more visceral and powerful way. You feel it, you respond to it. While data and figures are important, logical cues, the power of storytelling should not – and cannot – be underestimated.
The Rise of the Brand Journalist
This got me to thinking about how we’re discussing storytelling in content marketing. There’s a big focus on story at the moment, because emotional triggers are what drive social sharing. The ever increasing amount of people using social media leads to an equally increasing amount of brands looking to utilise social channels to reach their audience, and the best way to do that, to compel people to like and share your brand message, is through content. Storytelling has always been the strongest way to deliver a resonant message, but now, with the audience having more control than ever over their media inputs, compelling content is crucial. Shareable content. You need to give people a reason to like your brand, a reason to want to talk about your business or business message. People aren’t on social to be advertised to, they want to be part of something bigger than themselves, they want to join in on the wider conversation. The more your content can form a part of that discussion, the more successful your brand will be at maximising social channels.
One thing I have noted, in seeing the growing emphasis on content and storytelling in marketing, is that the term ‘brand journalism’ has also grown in step. The pervading view is that all brands are now publishers in the modern digital landscape – the audience needs a reason to align with you, so you need to tell stories, and online platforms provide you with the means to do just that. This has seen an increasing number of businesses look to producing their own stories, their own angles on relevant discussions, and that, effectively, is brand journalism. But every time I see this term I question whether a brand journalist is what you really want.
The Power of Story
Definitely, journalists are accomplished writers who are able to communicate the facts of the story, and many of them are, at heart, storytellers who are passionate about finding the core of a piece and building an experience for the reader. But a lot of journalism, too, is facts and figures.
For instance, this was a piece in an Australian newspaper recently, looking at the tragic disappearance of Dane Kowalski:
This is solid news journalism, all the facts are there, all the detail. But compare that to this single post from a friend of Dane’s, who’d been doing all he could to locate him:
In two sentences, this post has captured far more emotion, delivered far more resonance, because this is something this person is living. The pain is raw, real – the story is more than a piece in the news section. Every story is – there’s more to a news item than the who, what, when and where – the why is the real story. The people living it are the real connectors. You can read over a set of facts like:
Yet none of those figures are as compelling as an actual story:
Nothing comes from no where. In every story, in everyone’s life, in every event, there’s a passion, a human heart at it’s core. That story is what people relate to, what people identify with, and ultimately, what people respond to. Given that, in many cases it may not be ‘brand journalists’ that you need, but ‘brand storytellers’, people who can uncover the true purpose and passion behind what you do.
A Human Story
Of course, many, if not most, journalists are driven by a passion to tell human stories, to share that core truth of a story in order to let the audience develop an informed opinion on the subject. But it always stands out to me when I see the term used. And a lot of the content that does get shared via social networks is facts and figures based, so it’s not to say that a news-style approach doesn’t work either, but I guess the point here is in understanding what gets shared, why people share content – it’s in understanding what stories resonate with audiences. Those are the real stories, the human side. A news story might be about a man’s company going bust, but that didn’t just happen. There’s a long trail of events that lead to that business collapsing, a story behind those details that would allow the reader to build a better understanding and emotional connection with the material – and this type of investigative journalism, based in true storytelling, is what’s most beneficial to building better discussion and understanding. Because people make judgements based on what they read. If they only have the basic details, their opinions will be established on those. But if they have all the information, then they can absorb it and make a judgement based on the whole picture.
The TV show Catfish is a great example – someone will be scamming someone else online by pretending to be someone they’re not – and it’s easy for us, as the viewers, to side with the victim, because they are the ones being lied to. But more often than not, the perpetrators themselves are just sad, or lonely, or lost and when you hear their side of the story, the right and wrong of the situation isn’t so clear. They’re all people, they all do things for their own reasons. Those reasons are powerful and add real insight. Those are the stories we need to share.
Not everyone wants to read the detail, not everyone will appreciate the story, but it’s important to understand what resonates, what style of storytelling works to reach people’s emotional triggers and subsequently generates discussion and community. Facts and figures and important, but why are they important? What do those numbers actually mean for the real people involved? Great storytelling reveals this, great journalism reveals this, but you need to recognise what you’re actually aiming for when establishing a content plan and working with writers and writing staff.
I wrote a piece recently questioning whether the rise of social media has been a positive or negative for our overall levels of political engagement. The idea for that post came from the general level of ambivalence to a recent election in my home state, and how that same sense of lessened political impact seemed to be pervading through social networks and online conversations. The question, really, was about whether giving the audience more specific control over their news inputs would mean we they would actively tune-out content that was of little interest, and whether political news would suffer as a result.
My findings in that investigation were that social media is not necessarily lessening political engagement, but that political parties do need to consider where and how the audience is interacting in order to keep them engaged and maximise the potential of their messaging. In large part, it seems many political organisations have not advanced their communications and outreach strategies in-line with the social media communications shift, and as such, they’re not reaching their audiences as effectively – a concern that will exacerbate as the next generation of digital natives move into more politically and socially aware phases of their lives. Failing to reach them on the platforms where they are most active will lead to political failure – the numbers do indicate that political campaigns that had received traction in social media were significantly more impactful and ensured wider awareness of local political issues.
In order to extend this further, I decided to investigate political and news engagement based on Google search trends – the news stories people are seeking to learn more about via online search. While not definitive, Google search patterns can provide a indicative measure of the public ‘pulse’, the issues of most relevance to any given region. By looking at what we’re searching for, I hoped to get an idea of what issues were gaining the traction amongst Australian internet users and build an understanding of what that means for how we communicate and engage with digitally savvy audiences. What I found was both obvious and enlightening, in equal measure.
What People Want to Know
To start with, I wanted to get an idea of internet news trends, of the stories have gained the most traction over time. My suspicion was that by looking through the most popular Google searches, year-on-year, I’d find that we are, indeed, far less politically engaged or news driven overall, as I suspected the charts would be increasingly filled with searches for Justin Bieber and One Direction as time went on. That wasn’t the case – the above chart looks at the most popular Google queries globally. I shaded each topic in a colour – blue for tech, pink for entertainment, orange for news and current affairs and green for sport. As you can see, if anything, people are searching for news content more than ever in the last few years, which suggests the interest in news and current affairs is still strong, or at least on par with gossip and entertainment.
What I also found interesting was that tech queries on Google went way up in the mid-to-late 2000’s, dominating search in 2006-07, but have died down since. Now, given the growth of social media since then, I don’t think this suggests people have become any less engaged in tech – I think it’s more likely that this exemplifies a change in search behaviour. These days, you’re much less likely to go to Google to search for ‘Facebook’ because everyone knows where to find it. Everyone accesses it through apps or links – social media and apps are definitely more prevalent now than they were in 2007, but the way we come to them has changed. That behavioural shift is indicative of the larger trend of how search is being used – it’s hard to say people are searching for news content more frequently in 2014, despite these numbers, because the way people come across news content online has totally changed.
In any event, looking at global trends only forms part of the overall picture – news stories that are relevant to people in Australia might be totally irrelevant on a global scale. Breaking down the search to a regional level would provide more indicative insight into how politically engaged Australians are.
First, I looked up the trending Google searches for Australia over the last four years. What was most interesting about this is how few local news stories made the cut – the mentions of ‘RFS’ and ‘AEC’ in 2013 are related to bushfires and elections, and the mention of ‘MyGov’ in 2014 is news related, but the rest is dominated by entertainment. This suggests that maybe we’re not seeking more information on important local issues, but then maybe, I thought, generic search is probably not the most indicative measure of news engagement. I switched the analysis to searches conducted in Google News instead – the news stories Australians have been seeking more information on in that same time period.
Again, not much local content in that list – I highlighted the local stories specifically to better exemplify the data. As you can see, we searched for ‘Julia Gillard’ and ‘Qantas’ in 2011, ‘Mysogynist’ is related to Gillard also in 2012, and we have the ‘Melbourne earthquake’, but outside of that it’s all world news. The most searched for news content by Australians is rarely even about Australia – which is concerning, considering the impact local news issues have on our day-to-day lives. The question is, are we paying more attention to global news to the detriment of local issues?
The Currency of Clicks
Here’s the thing: there’s been much angst in recent times about the negative affect online media is having on journalism, and the quality of journalism in general. Just recently, Edelman published a study on modern media consumption and part of their findings were that 75% of journalists now feel more pressure to think about their story’s potential to get shared on social platforms. Whether you like it or not, the media economy is now driven by the currency of clicks – the website that gets more traffic, makes more money, and those signals, the stories that are generating clicks, are now being used to decide what stories get covered and what gets more attention. You see this every night in the evening news, there’s far more entertainment and gossip type stories making it into the news feed because that’s the content that’s generating clicks online. News outlets want to provide the audiences with what they want, therefore more of this content, of arguably lesser news-relevance, is being reported.
In considering this, and looking at the Google search data, what I think we’re seeing is the effect of a more connected global community. Social networks have provided us with unprecedented access to the global conversation – just last week, I tuned in and watched a building fire in Brooklyn being streamed live via Periscope. The connection is immediate, we’re more connected to the wider world than ever before, but as a result, our attention may be being dominated by global stories, while local issues fade into the background. To clarify this further, I sought to match up Australia’s news search habits with those of other nations to see whether we, as a smaller news nation, are seeing less local content than others.
A Question of Relevance
Using Google Trends, I looked up the most searched terms in Google News – Australia for the past 6 years. As you can see, the local issues (pink) were still not largely prevalent, with world news dominating in 2014.
I then compared that to the US:
Local news searches in pink.
Now, it makes sense, to a degree, that there would be more local news stories searched in the US, as many of these stories are of international relevance. But have a look at the political discussion in America. Politics features prominently, a lot more prominently than it does in the Australian topics.
In the UK, political issues also feature, though their news searches are dominated by sport, particularly in the latter years. But even when it is sport, that’s still local discussion, something largely absent from Australia’s news searches. For comparison, I charted the mentions of local news from each region:
Comparatively, the volume of local news searches in Australia is well down on the US and UK, especially when you add-in local sport as an extension of local news content. What this suggests is that we are, in fact, becoming more global in our approach to news – which is undoubtedly a good thing, greater global awareness leads to increased understanding overall. But our newfound connectedness with the global conversation may mean we’re becoming less engaged with the not-so-shiny, less attractive, more boring local news content. But those local issues need our attention and interest.
Relevance vs Popularity
So let’s say this is indicative, that we’re losing the local audience on the news and current affairs issues of significant relevance to them and their day-to-day lives. What then? What can we do to address the regional news attention deficit? The stories that people are clicking on and searching for are the ones they’re interested in, that engage them, so how can we make local politics or societal concerns more popular? This is a question that all political groups need to be considering – in no way should issues be made more divisive or sexy through artificial means, but there is a legitimate concern that local issues are going to receive less and less attention over time, and that’s incredibly bad news for the advancement and improvement of our immediate surroundings. Political groups need to be working to integrate social media and social media communications into their overall mix, into reaching their audiences where they increasingly are. Many are doing this, there’s a whole range of politicians who are actively engaged on social platforms, but there’s a definitive need for politicians to be using social media to connect with their audiences and increase awareness of issues. If the public loses interest in politics, we lose in general – we need our elected officials and leaders to be representing the views and interests of the wider community, and to be relating their messages back to the people in the methods and means they are most engaging with.
While only one part of the puzzle, the Google trends shown here indicate local news engagement is slipping. There’s no definitive answer as to how to combat this, but it’s a question all communicators should be considering – if global news items are dominating attention, how do we tell stories that raise attention and awareness among our audiences? How do we ensure important local issues remain at the height of public interest?
After months of speculation, Twitter video has arrived. Users of Twitter’s mobile app can now quickly and easily shoot-and-share video clips to be sent along with their tweets. And it’s pretty great – the functionality’s very similar to that of Vine (also owned by Twitter), though the maximum clip length has been extended to 30 seconds. You just compose your tweet, click on the camera option and switch it to video, hold down the video icon to film, then you’re done. It’s easy, seamless and will be a massive boost for brands and regular users alike. But, of course, that functionality isn’t startlingly new – you’ve always been able to record video in another app, like Vine, and share that video via tweet, right? While that is true, the immediacy and ease of use of having video functionality in-built takes video on Twitter to another level – here are three reasons why Twitter video will go big time.
1. Video infinitely enhances personal connection. Gary Vaynerchuck touched upon this in a recent post – as we’ve all seen from the massive growth of video on Facebook, video content is powerful. We also know that people are on social media to be social – social platforms are personal platforms, places from which people can voice their opinions and share their thoughts on everything from global issues to their favourite biscuits. Sharing your voice enables you to be heard, and that capability is extremely powerful, particularly when it comes to how that voice is acknowledged. Listening and responding to those voices is a key element in building brand loyalty and advocates – if people are using social to be heard, the brands that win are those that are hearing them and responding to those signals.
While it’s best practice, and common courtesy, to acknowledge users who’ve shared your content or commented on your tweets, sometimes those acknowledgements can come across as robotic or non-genuine. Sometimes, even if they’re totally genuine, it’s unavoidable that your message will seem cut-and-pasted – I’ll often respond to people who’ve shared my posts with ‘Thanks for sharing my post, Ben, much appreciated’ – and that’s a genuine sentiment, and I always try to include the users’ actual name to show that this isn’t just a repeated tweet, but there’s only so many variations you can do on that message. But now I have Twitter video – what if I made an individual video personally acknowledging that person for sharing my content. And maybe my doing it is no big deal, I’m not a big name celebrity, but what if Jay Baer did it? Your CEO, maybe? What about Beyonce?
The power of an individual video message is significant – that sort of interaction can turn a person into a fan for life. And now, with that video capability in-built and readily accessible, it takes literally only a few more seconds of effort to make a stronger connection through video recognition. Click reply, press the video camera, create a message, send. Simple, fast, powerful.
2. Immediate and fast access to video will make it easier to contextualize with ‘how-to’ and ‘walk-through’s. Have you ever seen the Lowe’s ‘Fix in Six’ videos posted to Vine? In short, quick clips, people were able to produce amazingly helpful – and popular – ‘how-to’ content – and now you can do the same, but with longer clip duration. This aspect will reinforce Twitter’s capacity as THE customer service platform. Brands and helpdesk assistants no longer need to restrict their advice to 140 characters – a challenge at the best of times. Now you can take a quick clip, right there, in-app, and show the person on the other end of the line how to do something.
Even better, it’s often equally, if not more, difficult for users to explain their issues within Twitter’s character limit. Now you can just get them to film the issue and tweet the video through. This will avoid confusion over what’s being discussed, where the actual issue lies. Again, the immediacy of being able to press one button and create a video of the problem is significantly different to taking a video in another app and sharing that way. Having the functionality right there, within the platform that people are already using, will change how video is used in this application. Problems will be resolved faster, responses will be more in-depth and helpful. The change will be significant for the brands that utilise this functionality to best effect.
3. Twitter video will bring more users to Twitter and keep them there longer. Tech investor Jason Calacanis wrote a piece about Twitter video in early January which looked at the platform’s capacity to capitalise on the rising popularity of video content. In Calacanis’ post, he made a very relevant point about how celebrities use Twitter – he noted that many celebrities and influencers are highly active on Twitter, but not many have their own YouTube or Vine channels, so they’re not actively posting a high amount of video content. He also noted that Facebook has been trying for years to get celebrities and influencers more active on their platform, as evidenced by the creation of Facebook Mentions, an app targeted specifically at celebrities (which, co-incidentally, just got an upgrade). Twitter already has those big names on-board – providing them with the ability to easily share videos with their huge follower bases (and once they see how their fans respond to that video content) will lead to more of them posting more video content, which, in-turn, will lead to more people coming to Twitter to view it.
What’s more, Twitter video’s can only be shared through embedding or posting links back to the original tweet, there’s no easy way to extract the video and re-post it on YouTube or direct to Facebook. When those celebrities do post clips, that content will, of course, be shared across other platforms, and the way that content is accessed through other channels is by providing, or linking back to, the original tweet, which, again, generates greater exposure for Twitter. This is in-line with Twitter’s view that it reaches a significantly larger audience than it’s actual user-base through ‘logged-out’ users, people who are exposed to Twitter content but are not on the platform. As it moves to better monetize this element, growing that exposure can only be a good thing. It may also prove to be a huge thing in the long run.
Overall, Twitter video is not a massive shift – the ability to post and share video via tweet is, essentially, nothing new. But the integration of video into your Twitter stream, having the option right there, a click away as you compose your message, changes the equation significantly. There are so many opportunities, so many simple and effective ways to use this new process. If you’re not thinking about using Twitter videos, you should be. Because have no doubt, other brands are thinking on it. Even minor innovations can be the difference between a 7/10 and a 10/10 customer experience.
Here’s a question: are plaudits for advertising and marketing campaigns awarded under a similar scale of merit as we apply to film and literature? Should they be?
Miranda Ward posted an interesting piece on mUmBRELLA recently which looked at the effectiveness of Metro Trains’ much awarded ‘Dumb Ways to Die’ campaign. While no one can debate the virality of the campaign and its success, in terms of gaining attention, Ward’s piece puts a spotlight on the actual effectiveness of the campaign, as matched against its core objectives, and putting those results into hard numbers is slightly more elusive. That’s not to say it wasn’t successful, but there’s no clear argument to suggest it was either, despite it being the “most awarded campaign in the history of Cannes (with 28 Lions, including five Grands Prix)” (source).
This reminded me of the Oreo’s ‘Dunk in the Dark’ tweet from the 2013 Super Bowl, which was a topic of discussion recently in the lead-up to its 2015 equivalent. It’s a similar situation – ‘Dunk in the Dark’ was also very creative and garnered a heap of attention and awards, but in terms of actual effectiveness, in getting more people to buy more biscuits, the correlation isn’t clear. That gap, between awarding great work, as opposed to awarding effectiveness, reminded me a little of the way we praise movies and film – the films that earn the most money tend to also be among those most hated by critics (i.e. Transformers 3). Film awards, meanwhile, go to more creative and innovative works that, for the most part, don’t produce the same financial results. But then again, that’s not really the point of making a film – an advertisement does have a definitive objective.
What this debate highlights is that there may not be a perfect way to judge such pursuits. It’s art vs. science – we all want to support creativity and innovation, but in doing so, we may, at times, lose some balance with overall effectiveness. Really, the awards for advertising and marketing should go to the campaign that gained the most attention whilst also producing the best results, in alignment with the campaign objectives – the more concrete those results, the better. But ad reach has always been somewhat subjective – tying exact results to metrics like ‘reach’ isn’t an exact science. So what do we do? I want to see better ads, I can see from the numbers that ‘Dumb Ways to Die’ has successfully gained attention – that type of creative work should be encouraged. But if I can’t link it back to definitive figures…
This is a debate that’ll always exist – awareness is something that’s tough to quantify, but the onus is on brands to produce work that’s both engaging and in-line with overall mission. In that sense, Dumb Ways to Die has succeeded, but would it have been more effective if they went for a TAC-style, hard-hitting campaign? It likely wouldn’t have got the reach, and it wouldn’t have got the awards, but it might have been better at delivering the actual message and raising awareness. Maybe. But the question, really, is around how we award advertising and marketing effectiveness, how we align the metrics we can account for back to the overall goals. This is getting easier, or at least, we’re getting access to more comprehensive data based on conversion tracking and data analytics, but it’s still some way off.
And the real question that stems from this is ‘are we establishing the right expectations for marketers and advertisers by awarding works not anchored to objective results?’ The important thing is for marketers to analyse their own campaigns and build an understanding of what they’re trying to achieve. Getting attention is one thing, but keeping it is another – you might be able to get more click-throughs by posting a video of your cat, but is that then leading to more people buying your handmade soaps? If it is, that’s what you should be doing, but amidst the emphasis on Followers and Likes and Pins and re-grams, it’s important to understand how that behaviour relates to the actual results you’re seeking to achieve. This is made more difficult when Facebook strangles organic reach and puts increased emphasis on brands getting more likes. More likes means more reach, and more people looking at your content – and those likes also increase the chance of your content appearing in more news feeds next time you post. The trick is in balancing the imperative need for attention with the fundamental requirement for audience action. There’s no perfect way to measure this, but it’s worth considering the balance when thinking on how you can ‘go viral’.
We were discussing the upcoming Super Bowl and newsjacking in a Twitter chat recently when Diana Wolff said this:
And she’s right, that tweet’s been discussed and lauded and referred to ad-nauseum in the two years since it was sent. And while there’s much to appreciate about the ‘Dunk in the Dark’ tweet, the real question is ‘was it effective?’ Did more people buy Oreos as a result of that tweet? Is that the true measure of success for real-time marketing? The question is, does getting sixteen thousand re-tweets correlate to positive ROI?
Did People Buy More Oreos as a Result of ‘Dunk in the Dark’?
This is hard to say, and really, only Oreo and their parent company Mondelez International are able to judge the return on their Super Bowl 2013 efforts. In terms of financial results, the actual attribution of that tweet is cloudy, as noted in by Danielle Sacks in her piece “Oreos Tags Pop Culture”:
Since Oreo embraced culture, the brand’s annual sales growth is up from the low double digits to more than 20%. But analysts attribute that to its expansion into emerging markets in Asia. It’s very hard to prove that new-media campaigns increase sales. During the Grammys this year, viewers who tweeted #SendMeOreo received a box of limited-edition cookies in new flavors that landed in stores a week later. “In terms of revenue, it was the biggest limited-edition launch that we ever had,” says [Janda] Lukin, Oreo’s North American chief. But no one at the company can tell me how—or if—”Daily Twist,” the Super Bowl tweet, and the Twist, Lick, Dunk app affected cookie sales. Asked specifically about the Super Bowl, Lukin admits, “There isn’t a great way for us to directly link it.”
Given there were so many campaigns and changes occurring around the same time, it’s difficult to directly attribute that tweet to an increase in revenue. But it definitely generated coverage, every media outlet from Forbes to CNet to The Huffington Post praised the genius of the Oreos tweet, which was universally considered to have won the Super Bowl ad blitz – some even questioned whether that one tweet did more for the Oreos brand than the $4 million Oreos ad that aired during the game.
Definitely the cumulative presence of these campaigns has had a significant and lasting impact, and has helped keep the brand within the awareness of many consumers, so in that sense, ‘Dunk in the Dark’ was obviously a huge win. Though the correlation is not as straight forward as many might suspect.
Did ‘Dunk in the Dark’ Improve Brand Perception?
Of course, sales alone may not be the true measure of the success of such coverage, it’s possible that Oreos saw increased brand perception, became better placed in the market or within certain demographic brackets as a result. This, too, is very difficult to measure, and no doubt the flood of coverage Oreos has received as a result of that tweet (including this piece you’re reading) has increased their brand awareness – but how beneficial has that one tweet been for overall brand sentiment?
Brand perception can be significantly influenced by a well-placed, real-time message. Arby’s, for example, would likely have seen a major boost in brand perception amongst a younger, hip audience when they sent this tweet in response to Pharrell Williams wearing a that now famous hat at the Grammys:
That single tweet brought them significant recognition, and helped them reach an audience they may not have been able to otherwise – their brand perception definitely got a ‘cool’ boost in the reflection of that tweet. There are regular examples of brands utilising real-time response to benefit positive brand perception – just recently, Australian telecommunications giant Optus posted this to their Facebook account in response to a iPhone error which had caused the alarms of many of their customers phones to go off an hour earlier than set, due to a time zone glitch:
Of course, giving people a free coffee doesn’t get them that hour of sleep back, but that extra effort to connect with their customers would have some impact on overall brand perception – no doubt better than just ignoring it and doing nothing at all.
So what about ‘Dunk in the Dark’? Would that message have improved the perception of Oreos, made customers more aligned the brand? Outside of maybe making a few more people feel like eating some chocolate biscuits, there probably wasn’t a significant increase in brand sentiment as a result of that message. It’s possible, like Arby’s, that they were able to reach a specific audience, through retweets and shares, that they’d otherwise not have hit, but again, how much would that perception reflect in the bottom line, at the end of the day?
Cause an Effect
The question of effectiveness really comes down to the specific people reached and the actions they subsequently took as a result of exposure to that brand message. The numbers themselves, in relation to the re-tweet, followers and favourites, are not, in themselves, a true measure of success. As noted recently by Gary Vaynerchuck, metrics like follower counts don’t necessarily correlate to success – reaching more people definitely increases your opportunities to convert, but getting through to just one person with the right message at the right time can be more successful than reaching 1000.
The discussion of ‘Dunk in the Dark’ and it’s relative success, based on impressions and interactions alone, is the perfect illustration of were traditional broadcast focus collides with new-school targeting and analytics. In the past, the way to win at marketing was to hit as many people as you could, get as many eyeballs as possible looking at your stuff in order to increase the chances of reaching the right few. This is why blast radius is still seen as such a significant measure to many marketers – but are impressions and reach really reflective of your success? As big data becomes more embedded and we learn more about analytics, and how to link specific data points to profitable results, it’s likely that bigger won’t necessarily be seen as better when we reflect on marketing effectiveness.
Of course, exposure is, and always will be of significant value, and research has shown that there is a link between social interactions and website visits. And far be it for me to make a call on the success of ‘Dunk in the Dark’ – the only people who can do that are Oreos themselves – although it as interesting that for such a huge, massive, win, they didn’t even try to replicate it, noting before the 2014 Super Bowl that they were ‘going dark’ this time round. No, the purpose of this post is to widen discussion of the metrics and what constitutes your own success, particularly as brands gear up to wade into the trending currents of Superbowl 2015.
Effectiveness is relative, it’s up to us to correlate the data and show what it means in the wider scheme.