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

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

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

by IWMW on Jul 28, 2008

Accessibility

Categories

Tags

Upload Details

Usage Rights

2 Embeds 20

Statistics

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

http://www.ukoln.ac.uk	19
http://www.slideshare.net	1