Social Media For The Social Good

963 views
872 views

Published on

Social Media for the Social Good - Presentation for the "Twitter for Behaviour Change" workshop at Middlesex University, London

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

No Downloads
Views
Total views
963
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
73
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Social Media For The Social Good

  1. 1. Social Media for the Social Good Dr Stephan Dahl
  2. 2. Social Media <ul><li>Increased credibility </li></ul><ul><ul><li>2% trust Advertising </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>15% trust online reviews </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>49% trust friends’ recommendations </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Syndication & Social Network Main Site Other Sites facebook Badges twitter
  4. 4. Fundamental change <ul><li>Consumers are “ empowered ” </li></ul><ul><li>Information </li></ul><ul><li>Aggregation </li></ul><ul><li>Relationship control </li></ul><ul><li>Creation </li></ul>
  5. 5. Information
  6. 6. Aggregation
  7. 7. Patients like me <ul><li>Empowering, aggregating BUT also confusing! </li></ul>
  8. 8. Who owns this data?
  9. 9. Relationship Control <ul><li>Follow: </li></ul><ul><li>Social reasons </li></ul><ul><li>Substance reasons </li></ul><ul><li>Style reasons </li></ul><ul><li>Status reasons </li></ul><ul><li>Unfollow </li></ul><ul><li>Not delivering on expectations in terms of </li></ul><ul><li>Style </li></ul><ul><li>Substance </li></ul><ul><li>Status </li></ul><ul><li>Spamming </li></ul><ul><li>Boring </li></ul><ul><li>Duplicates </li></ul><ul><li>Offensive </li></ul><ul><li>People don’t unfollow if socially engaged! </li></ul>
  10. 10. User generation & co-creation
  11. 11. Blog alerts... and not working!
  12. 12. Active Engagement
  13. 14. Camel Signature
  14. 15. Meet your audiences where THEY are - 2.0 style <ul><li>What networks are your CURRENT audience(s) using? </li></ul><ul><li>Constituents/Customers set agenda: MySpace Blogs Facebook iVillage... </li></ul><ul><li>Be part of the CONVERSATION ! </li></ul>
  15. 16. Tools <ul><li>Groups </li></ul><ul><li>Fans </li></ul><ul><li>Friends </li></ul><ul><li>Look for like-minded groups already out there and PARTICIPATE </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Monitor communication, but DON't police it! </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Chime in when needed </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Focus on Audience self-help </li></ul></ul></ul>
  16. 17. Facebook Applications/Badges
  17. 18. Facebook Pages (“Fan of”)
  18. 19. Facebook Groups
  19. 20. Twitter: Follow the Ribbon
  20. 21. Twitter: News and Support
  21. 22. 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
  22. 23. 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
  23. 24. Twitter: Qwitter
  24. 25. Novelty Value?
  25. 26. Leaving users “hanging”
  26. 27. Little Engagement
  27. 28. TAM Perceived Usefulness Perceived Synchronicity Behaviour Intention Attitude Perceived Ease of Use Perceived Involvement TAM 2.0 (Shin and Kim 2008)
  28. 29. Things that work <ul><li>Actiwatches </li></ul><ul><li>Increase of 2h18m/day over 9 weeks </li></ul>
  29. 30. Smoking <ul><li>Tailored messages delivered online, mirroring a stop smoking programme: </li></ul><ul><li>24.1% quit rate vs. 8.2% in control group </li></ul><ul><li>Personalisation is key! </li></ul>
  30. 31. Problems with evaluation <ul><li>Self selection of participants </li></ul><ul><li>Simultaneous media usage </li></ul><ul><li>traditional measures based on “media by media outcomes” </li></ul><ul><li>Host of statistics – but they are outPUT not outCOME driven! </li></ul><ul><li>How long do changes last? </li></ul>
  31. 32. Conclusion <ul><li>Web 2.0 can work well for motivated audiences </li></ul><ul><li>Unlikely to work for unmotivated audiences </li></ul><ul><li>Novelty factor may be a problem! </li></ul><ul><li>Needs strong tailoring and personalisation for shift to central processing! </li></ul>
  32. 33. Thank you!

×