Web 2.0 and Brand: Theory and Practice, James Souttar and Dean Russell, Precedent
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Web 2.0 and Brand: Theory and Practice, James Souttar and Dean Russell, Precedent

on

  • 4,789 views

Plenary talk at IWMW 2008

Plenary talk at IWMW 2008

Statistics

Views

Total Views
4,789
Views on SlideShare
4,766
Embed Views
23

Actions

Likes
2
Downloads
63
Comments
0

2 Embeds 23

http://www.ukoln.ac.uk 22
http://www.slideshare.net 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Please use the dd month yyyy format for the date for example 11 January 2008. The main title can be one or two lines long.

Web 2.0 and Brand: Theory and Practice, James Souttar and Dean Russell, Precedent Web 2.0 and Brand: Theory and Practice, James Souttar and Dean Russell, Precedent Presentation Transcript

  • Web 2.0 and Brand: Theory and Practice. A brand-led approach to the use of web2.0 technologies in university’s web presence. Dean Russell and James Souttar, Precedent Communications 22 July 2008
  • Choosing our web2.0 technologies.
  •  
  •  
  • The cloud
  • Our audiences and their relationship with us.
  • brand intimacy
  • brand engagement
  • Intimacy of relationship with brand Level of engagement with brand the SAFE matrix
  • Intimacy of relationship with brand Level of engagement with brand High Low Low the SAFE matrix High
  • increased efficiency improved learning greater reach deeper understanding The adoption of a particular technology should be assessed by the benefits this provides to the organisation & brand communication based on each communication type, as outlined below. the SAFE matrix
  • By assessing a technology based upon its communication purpose, it is possible to place it within the SAFE matrix framework usually falling under a single quartile. Email Banner ad Second life Online learning the SAFE matrix
  • Intimacy of relationship with brand Level of engagement with brand High High Low Low Website
  • Selecting and comparing technologies.
  • CSF model for ‘Sensory’ Critical success factor Weighting of importance (multiply by rating) Technology - can be multiple columns for comparison (rate out of 10) Tech 1 Tech 2 Tech 3 Target audience reach 10% 3 (0.15) Innovation curve 55% 9 (6.3) PR/Publicity value 30% 9 (1.8) Measurability 5% 2 (0.1) Total 100% 8.35 (min target = 6.5)
  • CSF model for ‘Awareness’ Critical success factor Weighting of importance (multiply by rating) Technology - can be multiple columns for comparison (rate out of 10) Tech 1 Tech 2 Tech 3 Target audience reach 55% 7 (4.9) Alignment/integration with other activities 20% 9 (0.9) PR/Publicity value to the organisation 5% 2 (0.1) Measurability 20% 8 (1.2) Total 100% 7.1 (min target = 6.0)
  • CSF model for ‘Functional’ Critical success factor Weighting of importance (multiply by rating) Technology - can be multiple columns for comparison (rate out of 10) Tech 1 Tech 2 Tech 3 Increase efficiency/reduce costs 20% 6 (1.2) New approach/solution 30% 9 (2.7) Increase communication effectiveness 30% 8 (2.4) Measurability 20% 3 (0.6) Total 100% 6.9 (min target = 7.0)
  • CSF model for ‘Educational’ Critical success factor Weighting of importance (multiply by rating) Technology - can be multiple columns for comparison (rate out of 10) Tech 1 Tech 2 Tech 3 Improve learning experience 35% 7 (4.9) New approach 10% 5 (0.5) Increase learning effectiveness 35% 5 (0.25) Measurability 20% 8 (1.2) Total 100% 6.85 (min target = 7.0)
  • CSF model for ‘Sensory’ Critical success factor Weighting of importance (multiply by rating) Technology - can be multiple columns for comparison (rate out of 10) e.g. Second Life There.com Whyville Target audience reach 60% 5 (3) 3 (1.8) 7 (4.2) Innovation curve 10% 7 (0.7) 5 (0.5) 4 (o.4) PR/Publicity value 20% 9 (1.8) 3 (0.6) 2 (0.4) Measurability 10% 6 (0.6) 4 (o.4) 1 (0.1) Total 100% 6.1 (min target = 6.0) 3.3 5.1
  •  
  • Demonstrating our difference .
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  • Evaluating the impact on our brand. Implementation and measurement.
  • Buzz monitoring tool
  •  
  • Brand launch blog statistics
    • Total Views: 25,372
    • Best Day Ever: 8,089 — Monday, February 4, 2008 : launch day
    • Comments: 435
  • The future?
  • Mobile technologies
  • New technologies
  • The brand ‘experience’ will become more important than the brand ‘message’ The future?
  • Feedback, comments, queries or questions. Dean Russell & James Souttar Email: dean.russell@precedent.co.uk Tel: +44 (0)20 7426 8900 www.precedent.co.uk