Social Media For The Social Good

Social Media for the Social Good Dr Stephan Dahl

Social Media
Increased credibility
2% trust Advertising
15% trust online reviews
49% trust friends’ recommendations

Syndication & Social Network Main Site Other Sites facebook Badges twitter

Fundamental change
Consumers are “ empowered ”
Information
Aggregation
Relationship control
Creation

Information

Aggregation

Patients like me
Empowering, aggregating BUT also confusing!

Who owns this data?

Relationship Control
Follow:
Social reasons
Substance reasons
Style reasons
Status reasons
Unfollow
Not delivering on expectations in terms of
Style
Substance
Status
Spamming
Boring
Duplicates
Offensive
People don’t unfollow if socially engaged!

User generation & co-creation

Blog alerts... and not working!

Active Engagement

Camel Signature

Meet your audiences where THEY are - 2.0 style
What networks are your CURRENT audience(s) using?
Constituents/Customers set agenda: MySpace Blogs Facebook iVillage...
Be part of the CONVERSATION !

Tools
Groups
Fans
Friends
Look for like-minded groups already out there and PARTICIPATE
Monitor communication, but DON't police it!
Chime in when needed
Focus on Audience self-help

Facebook Applications/Badges

Facebook Pages (“Fan of”)

Facebook Groups

Twitter: Follow the Ribbon

Twitter: News and Support

Where will it work Source: Rothschild (1999) Motivation Yes No Opportunity Yes No Yes No Ability /Self-Efficacy yes 1 prone to behave education 2 unable to behave marketing 3 resistant to behave law 4 resistant to behave marketing & law no 5 unable to behave education & marketing 6 unable to behave education & marketing 7 resistant to behave education, marketing & law 8 resistant to behave education, marketing & law

Central Route: Active Engagement Peripheral Route: Passive Change Exposure to message High involvement with product, message or decision Low involvement with product, message or decision Limited attention focused on peripheral, non-product features and feelings Strong attention focused on central, product related features and factual information Persuasion generally alters product beliefs, which influence brand attitude which influences purchase intention Persuasion operates through classical conditioning. Affect change, attitude towards the ad, and non-conscious belief changes led to a behavioural and attitude change Conscious thoughts about product attributes and use outcomes; considerable elaborative activities Low or non-conscious information processing; few or no elaborative activities

Twitter: Qwitter

Novelty Value?

Leaving users “hanging”

Little Engagement

TAM Perceived Usefulness Perceived Synchronicity Behaviour Intention Attitude Perceived Ease of Use Perceived Involvement TAM 2.0 (Shin and Kim 2008)

Things that work
Actiwatches
Increase of 2h18m/day over 9 weeks

Smoking
Tailored messages delivered online, mirroring a stop smoking programme:
24.1% quit rate vs. 8.2% in control group
Personalisation is key!

Problems with evaluation
Self selection of participants
Simultaneous media usage
traditional measures based on “media by media outcomes”
Host of statistics – but they are outPUT not outCOME driven!
How long do changes last?

Conclusion
Web 2.0 can work well for motivated audiences
Unlikely to work for unmotivated audiences
Novelty factor may be a problem!
Needs strong tailoring and personalisation for shift to central processing!

Thank you!

Social Media For The Social Good

by Stephan Dahl

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

2 Embeds 41

Statistics

Social Media For The Social Good Presentation Transcript

http://dahl.at	40
http://translate.googleusercontent.com	1