Web 2.0 Expo NY: Beers 4 Canada Case Study
by Alistair Croll and Sean Power on Nov 30, 2009
- 1,082 views
This case studies gives an overview of the successes and failures of a community marketing campaign for Beers 4 Canada.
This case studies gives an overview of the successes and failures of a community marketing campaign for Beers 4 Canada.
Accessibility
Categories
Upload Details
Uploaded via SlideShare as Apple Keynote
Usage Rights
© All Rights Reserved
Statistics
- Likes
- 1
- Downloads
- 27
- Comments
- 0
- Embed Views
- Views on SlideShare
- 1,078
- Total Views
- 1,082
sanjaym
A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high.
The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”!
We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high.
The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”!
We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high.
The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”!
We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high.
The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”!
We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high.
The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”!
We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high.
The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”!
We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high.
The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”!
We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high.
The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”!
We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high.
The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”!
We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high.
The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”!
We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high.
The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”!
We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high.
The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”!
We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high.
The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”!
We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high.
The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”!
We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high.
The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”!
We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high.
The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”!
We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).
A few people mentioned it on other platforms or their blogs, but not many, so repurposing of the initial message wasn’t high.
The message was retweeted a modest amount, and those people’s follower counts were small, meaning it only amplified by 2.9%. Remember, it needs to be >100% to be “viral”!
We only saw 1,642 total visits, but that translated to about $1,000 in donations. Conversion rates were less than 0.2%, which we attribute in part to the passive message we used at first. In other words, the tone of the campaign emphasized attention (”visit this page”) over conversion (”please donate”).