How the internet is evolving and marketeers have to act! Prepared By: Sam Berteloot, Managing Partner, InSites Consulting ...
<ul><li>About sam & insites </li></ul>
Where do we fit in the market? Broad focus, no niche player All key marketing challenges Full spectrum of online methods G...
 
 
 
17 Challenges
16 countries 32 000+ participants 200 in online community Belgium N = 2.119 The Netherlands N = 2.038 France N = 2.000 Uni...
Greece 42% 4 million Sweden 82% 6,2 million Finland 75% 3,3 million Poland 44% 14 million Romania 32% - 5,7 million Intern...
 
Among internet users in Romania  vs  All other countries 65%  - 35yo 38% 33% 55% 11% 14% 55% 29% 98% 98% 92% 90% 20% 49% 5...
TV 63% Radio 36% TV 12% Mob phone 36% Among internet users in Romania  vs  All other countries 50% 46% 19%  week+ 52% 27% ...
<ul><ul><li>Informational evolution  (1994-2000) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transactional evolution  (2001-2007) </li></ul...
49% on a  SNS in  Romania Among internet users in Romania  vs  All other countries 24% 38% 49% 60% Other (eg Hi5)
<ul><ul><li>Social interactions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Entertainment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Unleashing creativity ...
<ul><ul><li>22% updates profile at least weekly </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>29% checking others at least weekly </li></ul><...
<ul><ul><li>30% became a friend of a brand </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>40% encouraged others to do this </li></ul></ul><ul>...
<ul><ul><li>To voice a brand experience  </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(negative or positive): </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>57%...
The Marketing Paradox
? Conversations are going on - Conversations have impact ! What is the impact of conversations and what will the impact be...
The   advertiser   is  dead!
The Conversation Manager by Steven Van Belleghem #CM48
Word of mouth
 
Word of mouth B.G.
Wor L d of mouth A.G.
Speed  INCREASES
Speed
Speed 9 months 3 months
Speed 9 months 3 months
A revolution implies  CHANGE
Not just about observing & joining social media
integration of word-of-mouth in all marketing thinking & acting
Philosophy Conversation Advertising Brand
Conversation Activation Brand Philosophy
STEP 1: Brand leverage
 
 
 
Brand identification  is  KEY  for the Conversation Manager 1
Step2: Advertising becomes  ACTIVATION
Advertising  is the start of a good  conversation
 
Number of followers Number of re-tweets Number of mentions
Number of fans Number of sharing Number of reactions
What should people tell each other
Activation for  the sake of activation
 
7    350.000.000
 
1.200.000 entries    6 finalist Jury with top chefs Winner gets 1% of turnover    50-65K/year
Giving Back!
What should consumers be saying to each other after they’ve seen my ad? 2
Step 3: Manage your  conversations
Conversation Activation Brand Philosophy
As a manager As a brand As a peer
As a manager
As a brand
“ Please don’t change OUR brand; we love it the way it is” As a peer
“ Please don’t change OUR brand; we love it the way it is”
OUCH!
OUCH! “ It’s our page, we set the rules” Nestlé, on its own fanpage...
Listen Ask questions Open Honest Personal Engagement  Thank you!
Joining the conversation is the essence of marketing 3
That’s the philosophy of… The Conversation Manager
A story of  CHANGE
 
integration of word-of-mouth in all marketing thinking & acting
Long term goal: Be ambitious
“ Success is going from failure to failure without the loss of enthusiasm”
 
<ul><li>Sam Berteloot </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Managing Partner InSites Consulting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>[email_address]...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Sam Berteloot - Online meetup #6 31 mai

1,766 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
6 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,766
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
328
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
6
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Broad focus, no niche player In terms of content scope (insight management, innovation, branding &amp; communications, customer relationship management), regional scope (global), industry scope (nearly all industries, B2C as well as B2B) as well as method scope (questions, discussions, observations) we are very broad. Only limitation is the fact that we have a unique focus on online methods. Based on our long-term experience and the output from various R&amp;D projects, we have demonstrated that online research adds value to decision making, is reliable and more cost effective. InSites Consulting has more than 13 years of experience in conducting online research, making us one of the early adopters of the medium in the market research community. Benefiting from being mid-sized Fully independent: all current 8 partners own all shares of the company, no venture capitalists involved Provides the benefit of being able to have a long-term strategic focus and to make decisions in a flexible way Operations are centralized (IT, field, quality management), content &amp; account management via the different local offices (via e.g. the local hubs or via Watsons / research community) Staying ahead of the game 6 people involved in R&amp;D department with sole focus on innovating (ForwaR&amp;D Lab). In 2009, we won 6 different awards (ESOMAR, RMS, MOA, ...). In 2010, we have already been nominated for 5 awards. During the last 3 years, we contributed to ESOMAR conferences +15 times. InSites Consulting has a strong link with the academic world and has a dedicated R&amp;D team that is constantly seeking for new, better and more efficient ways of conducting research, thereby taking research to the next level (see infra ‘Strong industry recognition’) Co-creating with all different stakeholders: consumers, clients, suppliers, … Marketing vision &amp; consulting The word Consulting in ‘InSites Consulting’ Craftmanship, customized approach: one size does not fit all! Taking insights foward: reasoning from a marketing perspective, what are the implications of the results, what can we do with it, what do we recommend? Taking a stance: having a firm opinion backed up by strong data Thought leadership: conversation management philosophy, Joeri’s book, … (see infra ‘Connected marketing’)
  • Recent literature on WOM has largely emphasized these so called influencers. However, others have challenged this idea poning that “word-of-mouth from celebrities, mavens, connectors, alphas, hubs, transmitters, trendsetters, [...] is always good. But it’s no more powerful or influential than word-of-mouth from that guy [...] sitting next to you on the train” (Balter &amp; Butman, 2005). It is therefore our belief that the first step towards a better measurement of WOMO is not looking at “who is doing something”, but at “what everybody is doing.” Therefore, action rather than persons and their characteristics are situated at the heart of our model. When evaluating a viral campaign it is important to map all different communication that consumers have started. The model distinguishes different levels of online actions in relation to the level of engagement they imply (see figure 1) (Womma, 2005). A first type of actions are receiver actions. These happen whenever people receive and absorb the content of a message about brands, products and services. Online surfers can come in contact with information about brands via two types of channels. They can use selective channels like e-mail where they receive information that is personally addressed. However, they can also find information on public sharing platforms like YouTube, online forums,... A second type of actions are sender actions. This encompasses all actions where people share the information about brands with other people. While forwarding as such is indicative for extended reach of an ad (by definition a key performance indicator) it can crystallize in different actions. “Selective forward” actions happen whenever consumers forward the communication to a focussed and/or limited set of people. In turn there are three formats of this kind of forwarding. In “plain forwarding” no comments or much thinking or acting is added from the part of the sender. “Commented forwarding ” means that the forwarder adds negative, positive, reinforcing or other comments. Finally, forwarders can specifically “target” certain people in their peer group (e.g. only send it to brand lovers or acquaintances they know are in a buying process). A second type of sender action are “sharing forward” actions. These consumers like or dislike the ad so much they post it on a open sharing platform such that anyone else interested can be exposed to the ad. The sender is not interested in reaching close acquaintances but reach as many people as possible A final type of actions are creator actions. These actions basically imply people contributing content to the add (e.g. filling out there or others’ details to personalize the ad), participate in a contest or play an interactive game or even create a new add. In this research, we want to measure to what extent consumers undertake the different types and subtypes of actions:   We believe that some WoMo actions will occur more frequently than others. Because receiver actions are passive actions that do not ask a lot of effort from the consumer, we expect this type of action will be the biggest group. Similarly we hypothesize that although sender actions demand more consumer involvement than receiver actions, they will still occur more frequently than creator actions that require a truly active and passionate consumer. Next, we expect that there will be a difference between selective (e-mail) and sharing online communication channels (online forums, blogs, websites specialized in online movies). We hypothesize that consumers will still have a preference for e-mail communication above other types of communication because they are more familiar with the channel ( www.E-scape-reports.com )
  • Recent literature on WOM has largely emphasized these so called influencers. However, others have challenged this idea poning that “word-of-mouth from celebrities, mavens, connectors, alphas, hubs, transmitters, trendsetters, [...] is always good. But it’s no more powerful or influential than word-of-mouth from that guy [...] sitting next to you on the train” (Balter &amp; Butman, 2005). It is therefore our belief that the first step towards a better measurement of WOMO is not looking at “who is doing something”, but at “what everybody is doing.” Therefore, action rather than persons and their characteristics are situated at the heart of our model. When evaluating a viral campaign it is important to map all different communication that consumers have started. The model distinguishes different levels of online actions in relation to the level of engagement they imply (see figure 1) (Womma, 2005). A first type of actions are receiver actions. These happen whenever people receive and absorb the content of a message about brands, products and services. Online surfers can come in contact with information about brands via two types of channels. They can use selective channels like e-mail where they receive information that is personally addressed. However, they can also find information on public sharing platforms like YouTube, online forums,... A second type of actions are sender actions. This encompasses all actions where people share the information about brands with other people. While forwarding as such is indicative for extended reach of an ad (by definition a key performance indicator) it can crystallize in different actions. “Selective forward” actions happen whenever consumers forward the communication to a focussed and/or limited set of people. In turn there are three formats of this kind of forwarding. In “plain forwarding” no comments or much thinking or acting is added from the part of the sender. “Commented forwarding ” means that the forwarder adds negative, positive, reinforcing or other comments. Finally, forwarders can specifically “target” certain people in their peer group (e.g. only send it to brand lovers or acquaintances they know are in a buying process). A second type of sender action are “sharing forward” actions. These consumers like or dislike the ad so much they post it on a open sharing platform such that anyone else interested can be exposed to the ad. The sender is not interested in reaching close acquaintances but reach as many people as possible A final type of actions are creator actions. These actions basically imply people contributing content to the add (e.g. filling out there or others’ details to personalize the ad), participate in a contest or play an interactive game or even create a new add. In this research, we want to measure to what extent consumers undertake the different types and subtypes of actions:   We believe that some WoMo actions will occur more frequently than others. Because receiver actions are passive actions that do not ask a lot of effort from the consumer, we expect this type of action will be the biggest group. Similarly we hypothesize that although sender actions demand more consumer involvement than receiver actions, they will still occur more frequently than creator actions that require a truly active and passionate consumer. Next, we expect that there will be a difference between selective (e-mail) and sharing online communication channels (online forums, blogs, websites specialized in online movies). We hypothesize that consumers will still have a preference for e-mail communication above other types of communication because they are more familiar with the channel ( www.E-scape-reports.com )
  • Recent literature on WOM has largely emphasized these so called influencers. However, others have challenged this idea poning that “word-of-mouth from celebrities, mavens, connectors, alphas, hubs, transmitters, trendsetters, [...] is always good. But it’s no more powerful or influential than word-of-mouth from that guy [...] sitting next to you on the train” (Balter &amp; Butman, 2005). It is therefore our belief that the first step towards a better measurement of WOMO is not looking at “who is doing something”, but at “what everybody is doing.” Therefore, action rather than persons and their characteristics are situated at the heart of our model. When evaluating a viral campaign it is important to map all different communication that consumers have started. The model distinguishes different levels of online actions in relation to the level of engagement they imply (see figure 1) (Womma, 2005). A first type of actions are receiver actions. These happen whenever people receive and absorb the content of a message about brands, products and services. Online surfers can come in contact with information about brands via two types of channels. They can use selective channels like e-mail where they receive information that is personally addressed. However, they can also find information on public sharing platforms like YouTube, online forums,... A second type of actions are sender actions. This encompasses all actions where people share the information about brands with other people. While forwarding as such is indicative for extended reach of an ad (by definition a key performance indicator) it can crystallize in different actions. “Selective forward” actions happen whenever consumers forward the communication to a focussed and/or limited set of people. In turn there are three formats of this kind of forwarding. In “plain forwarding” no comments or much thinking or acting is added from the part of the sender. “Commented forwarding ” means that the forwarder adds negative, positive, reinforcing or other comments. Finally, forwarders can specifically “target” certain people in their peer group (e.g. only send it to brand lovers or acquaintances they know are in a buying process). A second type of sender action are “sharing forward” actions. These consumers like or dislike the ad so much they post it on a open sharing platform such that anyone else interested can be exposed to the ad. The sender is not interested in reaching close acquaintances but reach as many people as possible A final type of actions are creator actions. These actions basically imply people contributing content to the add (e.g. filling out there or others’ details to personalize the ad), participate in a contest or play an interactive game or even create a new add. In this research, we want to measure to what extent consumers undertake the different types and subtypes of actions:   We believe that some WoMo actions will occur more frequently than others. Because receiver actions are passive actions that do not ask a lot of effort from the consumer, we expect this type of action will be the biggest group. Similarly we hypothesize that although sender actions demand more consumer involvement than receiver actions, they will still occur more frequently than creator actions that require a truly active and passionate consumer. Next, we expect that there will be a difference between selective (e-mail) and sharing online communication channels (online forums, blogs, websites specialized in online movies). We hypothesize that consumers will still have a preference for e-mail communication above other types of communication because they are more familiar with the channel ( www.E-scape-reports.com )
  • Sam Berteloot - Online meetup #6 31 mai

    1. 1. How the internet is evolving and marketeers have to act! Prepared By: Sam Berteloot, Managing Partner, InSites Consulting Prepared For: IAB Romania May 2010
    2. 2. <ul><li>About sam & insites </li></ul>
    3. 3. Where do we fit in the market? Broad focus, no niche player All key marketing challenges Full spectrum of online methods Global coverage Broad range of industries Benefiting from being mid-sized 90 passionate people across 5 locations Centralized operations, localized content Fully independent, ensuring long-term focus Staying ahead of the game Award winning ForwaR&D Lab Co-creating the future Marketing vision & consulting No productized thinking or black boxes Thought leadership Taking a stance
    4. 7. 17 Challenges
    5. 8. 16 countries 32 000+ participants 200 in online community Belgium N = 2.119 The Netherlands N = 2.038 France N = 2.000 United Kingdom N = 2.017 Germany N = 2.028 Switzerland N = 1.996 Poland N = 2.022 Romania N = 2.035 Hungary N = 2.010 Spain N = 2.196 Italy N = 2.086 Greece N = 1.971 Denmark N = 1.986 Norway N = 2.016 Sweden N = 2.081 Finland N = 2.005
    6. 9. Greece 42% 4 million Sweden 82% 6,2 million Finland 75% 3,3 million Poland 44% 14 million Romania 32% - 5,7 million Internet penetration > 75% Internet penetration < 50% Norway 83% 3,1 million The Netherlands 85% - 11,4 million France 61% 31,6 million UK 73% 36,6 million Germany 69% 48,6 million Switzerland 73% 4,6 million Italy 52% 26,5 million Spain 50% 19 million Denmark 80% - 3,5 million Internet penetration 50 - 75% Belgium 66% 5,8 million (*) Countries measured in MC DC 2009 Source: MC DC 2009 CATI research and Forrester data Hungary 45% - 3,8 million
    7. 11. Among internet users in Romania vs All other countries 65% - 35yo 38% 33% 55% 11% 14% 55% 29% 98% 98% 92% 90% 20% 49% 50% - 50% 49% - 51%
    8. 12. TV 63% Radio 36% TV 12% Mob phone 36% Among internet users in Romania vs All other countries 50% 46% 19% week+ 52% 27% week+ 21% 55% week+ 43% 58% knows 72% 25% too much 41% @ 45% 34% 19% 57%
    9. 13. <ul><ul><li>Informational evolution (1994-2000) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transactional evolution (2001-2007) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Social evolution (2008-…) </li></ul></ul>
    10. 14. 49% on a SNS in Romania Among internet users in Romania vs All other countries 24% 38% 49% 60% Other (eg Hi5)
    11. 15. <ul><ul><li>Social interactions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Entertainment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Unleashing creativity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Information search </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Escapism but utility is increasing </li></ul></ul>
    12. 16. <ul><ul><li>22% updates profile at least weekly </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>29% checking others at least weekly </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>12% has own blog </li></ul></ul>Among internet users on SNS in Romania
    13. 17. <ul><ul><li>30% became a friend of a brand </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>40% encouraged others to do this </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>38% says they share more product / brand experiences with other Internet users than in the past </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>56% shared at least 1 positive brand experience online in the past 12 months </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>51% shared at least 1 negative brand experience online in the past 12 months </li></ul></ul>Among internet users on SNS in Romania
    14. 18. <ul><ul><li>To voice a brand experience </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(negative or positive): </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>57% would use the brand website itself </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>46% a topical forum </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>20% a product evaluation / comparison site </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>9% a SNS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>68% checks peer reviews before purchasing a product or service </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>57% admits their buying intention decreases after reading negative experiences online from other consumers </li></ul></ul>Among internet users on SNS in Romania
    15. 19. The Marketing Paradox
    16. 20. ? Conversations are going on - Conversations have impact ! What is the impact of conversations and what will the impact be on marketing practice?
    17. 21. The advertiser is dead!
    18. 22. The Conversation Manager by Steven Van Belleghem #CM48
    19. 23. Word of mouth
    20. 25. Word of mouth B.G.
    21. 26. Wor L d of mouth A.G.
    22. 27. Speed INCREASES
    23. 28. Speed
    24. 29. Speed 9 months 3 months
    25. 30. Speed 9 months 3 months
    26. 31. A revolution implies CHANGE
    27. 32. Not just about observing & joining social media
    28. 33. integration of word-of-mouth in all marketing thinking & acting
    29. 34. Philosophy Conversation Advertising Brand
    30. 35. Conversation Activation Brand Philosophy
    31. 36. STEP 1: Brand leverage
    32. 40. Brand identification is KEY for the Conversation Manager 1
    33. 41. Step2: Advertising becomes ACTIVATION
    34. 42. Advertising is the start of a good conversation
    35. 44. Number of followers Number of re-tweets Number of mentions
    36. 45. Number of fans Number of sharing Number of reactions
    37. 46. What should people tell each other
    38. 47. Activation for the sake of activation
    39. 49. 7  350.000.000
    40. 51. 1.200.000 entries  6 finalist Jury with top chefs Winner gets 1% of turnover  50-65K/year
    41. 52. Giving Back!
    42. 53. What should consumers be saying to each other after they’ve seen my ad? 2
    43. 54. Step 3: Manage your conversations
    44. 55. Conversation Activation Brand Philosophy
    45. 56. As a manager As a brand As a peer
    46. 57. As a manager
    47. 58. As a brand
    48. 59. “ Please don’t change OUR brand; we love it the way it is” As a peer
    49. 60. “ Please don’t change OUR brand; we love it the way it is”
    50. 61. OUCH!
    51. 62. OUCH! “ It’s our page, we set the rules” Nestlé, on its own fanpage...
    52. 63. Listen Ask questions Open Honest Personal Engagement  Thank you!
    53. 64. Joining the conversation is the essence of marketing 3
    54. 65. That’s the philosophy of… The Conversation Manager
    55. 66. A story of CHANGE
    56. 68. integration of word-of-mouth in all marketing thinking & acting
    57. 69. Long term goal: Be ambitious
    58. 70. “ Success is going from failure to failure without the loss of enthusiasm”
    59. 72. <ul><li>Sam Berteloot </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Managing Partner InSites Consulting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>twitter.com/samberteloot </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tel. +32 9 269.16 .05 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mobile +32 496 23.29.21 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>InSites Consulting </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Head office </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Evergemsesteenweg 195 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>B-9032 Gent (Belgium) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tel. +32 9 269 15 00 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fax. +32 9 269 16 00 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Other offices </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rotterdam | London | Geneva </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>www.insites.eu | [email_address] </li></ul></ul>

    ×