Cool comm hoh@skbc_2011_0217

  • 775 views
Uploaded on

Hoh Kim, Founder & Head Coach of THE LAB h presented "Why we need to be 'cool'?" at the Swiss-Korea Business Council luncheon meeting on February 17, 2011.

Hoh Kim, Founder & Head Coach of THE LAB h presented "Why we need to be 'cool'?" at the Swiss-Korea Business Council luncheon meeting on February 17, 2011.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
775
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. "Why we need to be cool? How social media is changing consumers vs.How corporate executives still stick to the old paradigm Prepared for Swiss-Korean Business Council February 17, 2011 Hoh Kim THE LAB h®
  • 2. Conclusion after more than a decade of strategic communication consulting: Whose mouth is better? “My” “Their” mouth mouths OMy strengths OMy weaknesses(mistakes, wrongdoings) Hoh Kim 2010 2
  • 3. Context: Why? Social media is changing Corporate leaders need toconsumers‟ attitudes & actions change their attitudes & actions towards companies… towards consumers… how? how? Copyright 2011 THE LAB h 3
  • 4. Three Questions• “Every company = Media company”: What does it mean to my business?• “Be cool”: Do I know how to communicate my weaknesses?• “Socialize”: Does my company publicize or socialize? Copyright 2011 THE LAB h 4
  • 5. Three Conclusions (in advance)• “How are we doing as a „media company‟?”: You should ask & answer this question within your organization.• “We need to be cool”: You need to be cool with „bad news‟ in social media, and deal with it by adding your position, rather than trying to take the bad news off. Don‟t try to test the „Streisand effect‟!• “Socialize, not just publicize”: You need to identify and build stories around your leadership and business, and try to socialize, not publicize in social media. Copyright 2011 THE LAB h 5
  • 6. 1. Some Stories
  • 7. “Streisand Effect” “The Streisand effect is a primarily online phenomenonin which an attempt to hide or remove a piece of information has the unintended consequence of perversely causing the information to be publicized more widely and to a greater extent than would have occurred if no contrary action had been attempted.” (wikipedia) Copyright 2011 THE LAB h 7
  • 8. “Streisand Effect” • Unsuccessful lawsuit by Barbra Streisand against photographer Kenneth Adelman and Pictopia.com for US$50 million • from “unknown picture”  over 420,000 visits the following month Photo source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Barbrahouse1.jpg Copyright 2011 THE LAB h 8
  • 9. Streisand Effect andDunkin‟ Donuts in Korea (April 2007) Copyright 2011 THE LAB h 9
  • 10. What were they thinking?“Minus” paradigm “Plus” paradigm Mass Media Mass/News Consumer Media Media Bad News Bad News Bad News Good Response on Bad News Public Relations Corporate Media Copyright 2009 THE LAB h 10
  • 11. from „Silence and Denial‟ to „Disclosure and Apology‟ • “Paradox of Transparency” • Trust and Weaknesses (Dr. Robert Cialdini)출처: 조선닷컴http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2009/06/02/2009060201586.html?srchCol=news&srchUrl=news1 Avis 이미지 출처: 구글 이미지 http://images.google.co.kr/images?sourceid=navclient&hl=ko&rlz=1T4ADBR_koKR27 9KR289&q=avis,+we+try+harder&um=1&ie=UTF- 8&ei=ouafSveVNpeEngfh6d3tDQ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1 Copyright 2009 THE LAB h 11
  • 12. Anything common? Hoh Kim 2010 12
  • 13. Trend: Public apologies in Korea and the U.S.5000400030002000 Chosun.com1000 NYT.com 0Data gathered: 1) “Public apology (Kong-gae-sa-gwa)” in chosun.com;2) “Public apology, apologize, and apology” in nyt.com Hoh Kim 13
  • 14. Trend (Korea): “Presidential” apologies400300200 News Blog (x 00)100 0 김영삼 김대중 노무현 이명박 News (headline search only) and blog post search by Naver using “사과,김영삼,” “사과, 김대중,” “사과, 노무현,” and “사과, 이명박” were conducted April 18, 2010 Hoh Kim 14
  • 15. Trend (the U.S.): “Presidential” apologies200015001000 News Blog (x000)500 0 Clinton Bush ObamaNews and blog search by Google using “apology, clinton,” “apology, bush,” and“apology, obama” were conducted April 18, 2010 Hoh Kim 15
  • 16. Use of Youtube for „one to many‟public apologies on social media jetBlue: David Neelman, (ex-) CEO (2007. 2) – 360,000 viewed on Youtube Domino pizza: Patrick Doyle (2009. 4) – 750,000 viewed on Youtube Hoh Kim 2010 16
  • 17. Benefits of video apologies • Editing (production) • Timing (release) MATTEL Bob Eckert CEO (2007. 8) • Search (attention) Before video After video apologies apologiesPurchase intention 71% 76%Trust 75% 84%Source: HRD Research (August 2007)http://www.mediacurves.com/nationalmediafocus/J6482/ Hoh Kim 2010 17
  • 18. “The Pizza Turnaround” campaign by Domino‟s Pizza(stock price of the first half of 2010 went up 70% compared to 2009) Hoh Kim 2010 18
  • 19. 2. Some Statisticsfrom THE LAB h® Cool Communication Studies
  • 20. Context of the Study 2010 (c) THE LAB h 20
  • 21. Background & Motivation• Opinion leaders‟ engagement: blog vs. twitter• Opinion shaping: one-way promotional message driven corporate campaign (AD/PR) vs. two-way conversation between corporate person and individual consumer/individual consumer and individual consumer• Perception gap: general public vs. twitter users 2010 (c) THE LAB h 21
  • 22. What is “cool” communication?• Disclosure: Communicating Weakness too vs. Strengths only• Apology: Accept vs. Avoid your responsibility in front of your mistakes or wrongdoing• Actions: Improvements made vs. Rhetorical apology after your mistakes/wrongdoings• Listening, trustworthiness, responsible, (two-way) communication 2010 (c) THE LAB h 22
  • 23. Cool Communication Study:How was the study conducted General Public* Study Twitter User StudySubjects Nationwide men/women 19 Korean Twitter users years old and aboveSubject Size 500 305Sampling Error +/- 4.38% +/- 5.61%(95% Confidence Level)Method CATI (Computer Assisted Online research Telephone Interviewing)Sample Extraction Quota sampling based on Random participation through region/gender/age Twitter announcement + Twitter users on the Research and Research panelDuration April 1, 2010 10:00 – 21:00 May 1 – 17, 2010* Some Twitter users among the general public group may have been included. Therefore, this study should beunderstood not as a comparison of Twitter users vs. Non- Twitter users but of Twitter users vs. the generalpublic in Korea.The following 10 conglomerate companies were given as options in the questionnaire – Kumho Asiana, Lotte,Samsung, POSCO, Hanjin, Hyundai Heavy Industries, Hyundai Kia Automotive Group , GS, LG and SK. The orderof these options was rotated in order to minimize respondent bias. 2010 (c) THE LAB h 23
  • 24. Corporate Reputation: trustworthy self-promotion listening responsible communication purchase intention 2010 (c) THE LAB h 24
  • 25. “most trustworthy”:Samsung vs. Posco Samsung 54% 27.20% POSCO 13.20% 41.30% LG 10.50% 11.10% Hyundai Kia Automotive 6.10% 2.60% SK 5.90% 6.20% General publicHyundai Heavy Industries 5% 2.30% Twitter users Lotte 1.90% 2.30% Kumho Asiana 1.90% 2.60% Hanjin 0.80% 0.70% GS 0.70% 3.60% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 2010 (c) THE LAB h 25
  • 26. “most competent in self-promoting”:only category (twitter > general public) for Samsung Samsung 57.10% 61.60% Hyundai Kia Automotive 12% 3.90% SK 7.80% 17.40% LG 6.50% 4.90%Hyundai Heavy Industries 5.00% 0.70% General public Lotte 4.50% 2% Twitter users POSCO 4.00% 6.20% Kumho Asiana 1.50% 1.30% GS 1.00% 1.60% Hanjin 0.60% 0.30% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 2010 (c) THE LAB h 26
  • 27. “most engaged in listening to customers‟ opinions”:Samsung vs. LG Samsung 46.0% 17.4% LG 16.6% 23.3% Very active in corporate Hyundai Kia Automotive 4.9% 9.3% blogging; the first for a top 7.1% 30 company to share the SK 17.0% customers’ comments POSCO 6.9% without screening 12.1% General public Lotte 3.9% 3.0% Twitter users Kumho Asiana 3.6% 9.5% GS 2.9% 9.8% Hyundai Heavy Industries 1.8% 0.7% Hanjin 1.8% 2.3% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% 2010 (c) THE LAB h 27
  • 28. “most responsible”:Samsung vs. Posco Samsung 52.70% 21.60% POSCO 14.80% 40.30% LG 10.10% 9.20% Hyundai Kia Automotive 7.60% 7.20%Hyundai Heavy Industries 5.40% 5.60% General public SK 3.90% 7.20% Twitter users Hanjin 1.80% 1.60% Lotte 1.60% 0.70% Kumho Asiana 1.30% 3.90% GS 0.80% 2.60% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 2010 (c) THE LAB h 28
  • 29. “most skilled in communication”:Samsung vs. SK Samsung 41.30% 13.40% LG 13.60% 23.30% SK 10.60% 31.50% Hyundai Kia Automotive 9.90% 4.90% Lotte 7.00% 2.30% General public POSCO 6.40% 11.10% Twitter usersHyundai Heavy Industries 4.20% 1.00% GS 3.20% SK Telecom was the first company 4.60% among the top 30 Korean companies 2.00% Hanjin 1.30% to open a corporate blog and directly Kumho Asiana 1.70% 6.60% communicate with consumers 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% 2010 (c) THE LAB h 29
  • 30. “most desirable to purchase”:Samsung vs. Samsung Samsung 54.60% 26.90% LG 25.10% 23.30% Hyundai Kia Automotive 9.10% 12.80% POSCO 3.10% 14.80% Lotte 3.00% 3.60% General public SK 2.20% 7.50% Twitter users GS 1.60% 5.90% Kumho Asiana 0.70% 3.00% Hanjin 0.60% 1.30%Hyundai Heavy Industries 0.20% 1.00% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 2010 (c) THE LAB h 30
  • 31. Reputation Quotient (RQ):Samsung, Posco, LG, Hyundai-Kia, SKin both categories Rank General Public Twitter Users No. 1 Samsung 50.9 Samsung 28.0 No. 2 LG 13.7 (-37.2) POSCO 21.0 (-7) No. 3 Hyundai-Kia 9.0 (-41.9) LG 15.9 (-12.1) No. 4 ~ POSCO 8.1 SK 14.5 No. 10 SK 6.2 Hyundai-Kia 6.1 Lotte 3.7 GS 4.7 Hyundai Heavy 3.6 Kumho Asiana 4.5 Kumho Asiana 1.8 Lotte 2.3 GS 1.7 Hyundai Heavy 1.9 Hanjin 1.2 Hanjin 1.3 2010 (c) THE LAB h 31
  • 32. Samsung among Twitter users:In “corporate communication 2.0” categories, Samsungis NOT #1 General Public Twitter Users“Most trustworthy” Samsung (54.0%) POSCO (41.3%) Difference with No. 2 POSCO (12.2%): Difference with No. 2 Samsung 40.8% (27.2%): 14.1%“Most competent in Samsung (57.1%) Samsung (61.6%)self-promotion” Difference with No. 2 Hyundai/Kia Difference with No. 2 SK (17.4%): (12.0%): 45.1% 44.2%“Most engaged in Samsung (46.0%) LG (23.3%)listening to Difference with No. 2 LG (16.6%): Difference with no. 2 Samsungcustomers’ opinions” 29.4% (17.4%): 5.9%“Most responsible” Samsung (52.7%) POSCO (40.3%) Difference with No. 2 POSCO: 37.9% Difference with no. 2 Samsung (21.6%): 18.7%“Most skilled in Samsung (41.3%) SK (31.5%)communications” Difference with No. 2 LG (13.6%): Difference with No. 2 LG (23.3%): 27.7% 8.2%“Most desirable to Samsung (54.6%) Samsung (26.9%)purchase” Difference with No. 2 LG (25.1%): Difference with No. 2 LG (23.3%): 29.5% 3.6% 2010 (c) THE LAB h 32
  • 33. Cool Crisis Communication: disclosure apology actions 2010 (c) THE LAB h 33
  • 34. Transparent/candid disclosure of wrongdoing Samsung 32.00% 6.90% Hyundai Kia Automotive 14.70% 5.20% POSCO 14.20% 32.80% LG 13.90% 19.70% SK 9.70% 11.50% General public Kumho Asiana 4.40% 9.50% Twitter users Lotte 4.00% 3.90% GS 3.10% 7.90%Hyundai Heavy Industries 2.70% 0.70% Hanjin 1.30% 2.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 2010 (c) THE LAB h 34
  • 35. “Genuine Apology for Wrongdoing” Samsung 33.70% 8.90% LG 16.20% 22.60% POSCO 14.40% 32.50% Hyundai Kia Automotive 12.80% 5.20% SK 7.40% 9.50% General public Lotte 5.00% 1.60% Twitter usersHyundai Heavy Industries 3.30% 1.60% GS 3.00% 7.50% Kumho Asiana 2.30% 7.50% Hanjin 2.00% 3.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 2010 (c) THE LAB h 35
  • 36. “Make Improvements and Go Beyond aRhetorical Apology” Samsung 42.10% 15.10% LG 14.30% 20.70% Hyundai Kia Automotive 14.10% 6.90% POSCO 10.70% 26.90% Lotte 4.60% 3.30% General public SK 4.50% 10.50% Twitter users Kumho Asiana 3.50% 5.90% GS 2.80% 7.90%Hyundai Heavy Industries 2.30% 2.00% Hanjin 0.90% 1.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% 2010 (c) THE LAB h 36
  • 37. Cool Crisis Communication Quotient:Samsung vs. POSCORanking General Public Twitter Users No. 1 Samsung 35.9 POSCO 30.7 No. 2 LG 14.8 LG 21.0 No. 3 Hyundai/Kia 13.9 SK 10.5No. 4 ~ POSCO 13.1 Samsung 10.3No. 10 SK 7.2 GS 7.8 Lotte 4.5 Kumho Asiana 7.6 Kumho Asiana 3.4 Hyundai/Kia 5.8 GS 3.0 Lotte 2.9 Hyundai Heavy 2.7 Hanjin 2.0 Industries 1.4 Hyundai Heavy 1.4 Hanjin Industries 2010 (c) THE LAB h 37
  • 38. Samsung vs. POSCO General Public Twitter Users“Company to officially Samsung (32.0%) POSCO (32.8%)disclose its Difference with No. 2 Difference with No. 2 LGwrongdoing” Hyundai/Kia (14.7 %): 17.3% (19.7%): 13.1%“Company to Samsung (33.7%) POSCO (32.5%)genuinely apologize” Difference with No. 2 LG Difference with No. 2 LG (16.2%): 17.5% (22.6%): 9.9%“Company to make Samsung (42.1%) POSCO (26.9%)efforts for Difference with No. 2 LG Difference with No. 2 LGimprovement” (14.3%): 27.8% (20.7%): 6.2% 2010 (c) THE LAB h 38
  • 39. The most used channel for obtaining the news TV 61.9% 17.7% online newspaper 15.8% 25.9% newspaper 10.2% 5.9% portal sites 9.1% 35.1% General public radio 1.1% 0.0% Twitter users mobile 0.5% 13.1% others 0.7% 2.3%dont know/no response 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 2010 (c) THE LAB h 39
  • 40. Experience of Posting an Online Reviewover the Past Year 15.90%online review over the past year General public 67.20% Twitter users 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 2010 (c) THE LAB h 40
  • 41. Contents for Respondents with Online Review PostingExperience 19.70% positive 25.40% 41.80% negative General public 19.50% Twitter users 37.00%positive/negative 55.10% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 2010 (c) THE LAB h 41
  • 42. 3. Socialize? How?
  • 43. Fact vs. StoryTraditional Website vs. Social Media
  • 44. Don‟t tell others(consumers, journalists, even your employees) that “integrity” is your corporate value.Find what actual stories(experiences) of “integrity” exist within your organization and tell them.
  • 45. Some Final Thoughts
  • 46. • The interest for social media among opinion leaders from business and political circles in Korea has increased alongside the popularity of Twitter and smart phones that enable easy access to social media• Companies must pay attention to how they are perceived by social media users.• You got to be cool: “Highlighting strengths, underplaying weaknesses” paradigm is no longer feasible, because company mistakes and wrongdoings are increasingly unveiled to the public through social media. 2010 (c) THE LAB h 46
  • 47. • Social media users no longer perceive a company based on a unilateral “image advertisement,” “press release or newspaper article” or “one-off promotion” but are rather influenced by conversations coming from social networks.• The first criteria for establishing a positive relationship with social media users is enabling real people from the company to participate in social media and talking about their strengths and weaknesses in a “cool” manner.• In such Cool Communication® , everyday trust, responsibility, listening, and communication are key elements, while in crisis situations, the disclosure of wrongdoing, genuine apology, and actual efforts for improvement are crucial. 2010 (c) THE LAB h 47
  • 48. "Why we need to be cool? How social media is changing consumers vs.How corporate executives still stick to the old paradigm Prepared for Swiss-Korean Business Council February 17,2011 Hoh Kim THE LAB h®
  • 49. Appendix
  • 50. Appendix: Respondents Demographics Category Sub-categories General Public Twitter UsersBy Region Seoul 106 (21.2%) 183 (60.0%) Incheon/Kyonggi 140 (28.0%) 67 (22.0%) Daejon/Chungchong 50 (10.0%) 13 (4.3%) Gwangju/Jeolla 52 (10.4%) 8 (2.6%) Daegu/Gyeongbuk 52 (10.4%) 8 (2.6%) Busan/Ulsan/Gyeongnam 79 (15.8%) 25 (8.2%) Gangwon/Jeju 21 (4.2%) 1 (0.3%)By Gender Male 248 (49.6%) 200 (65.6%) Female 252 (50.4%) 105 (34.4%)By Age 19-29 97 (19.4%) 126 (41.3%) 30s 107 (21.4%) 135 (44.3%) 40s (Twitter users until here) 114 (22.8%) 44 (14.4%) 50s and above 182 (36.4%)By Education Level Below middle school graduate 71 (14.3%) 0 (0%) High school graduate 175 (35.6%) 10 (3.3%) Current college student & graduate 247 (50.1%) 295 (96.7%)By Income Below 2mil Korean Won 126 (29.9%) 25 (8.2%) 2mil.-2.99mil. Korean Won 85 (20.1%) 47 (15.4%) 3mil.-3.99mil. Korean Won 93 (22.1%) 62 (20.3%) Over 4mil. Korewan Won 118 (27.9%) 171 (56.1%)By Occupation Self-employed 72 (14.6%) 0 Blue collar 63 (12.8%) 40 (13.1%) White collar 81 (16.4%) 184 (60.3%) Housewife 139 (28.0%) 0 Student 59 (11.9%) 55 (18.0%) Unemployed/Others 80 (16.2%) 26 (8.5%)Total 500 (100%) 305 (100%) 2010 (c) THE LAB h 50
  • 51. 2010 Cool Communication Study full report can be downloaded @• http://www.slideshare.net/hohkim/2010-thela-bhcool-communication- studyenglishfinal (English Version)• http://www.slideshare.net/hohkim/2010-the-lab-h-final (Korean Version)THE LAB h® specializes in executive coaching and workshop inthe area of strategic communication:. Business Storytelling for Results (individual). Bad News Management Workshop (group of 12-20). Principles of Persuasion™ Workshop (group of 15)For any inquiries on the Cool Communication® Study and THE LAB h®executive coaching services, please contact Hoh Kim @ hoh.kim@thelabh.com 2010 (c) THE LAB h 51