The influence of permission marketing final version
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•291 views
This document discusses social media marketing research methods and results. It explores social media marketing through exploratory research methods like literature reviews, case studies, and content analysis. Results show how consumers progress through purchasing funnels driven by content and trust. Social media allows companies to micro-target consumers through different tools. Metrics on major brands are provided for platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to The influence of permission marketing final version
Similar to The influence of permission marketing final version (20)
More from Ed Dansereau
More from Ed Dansereau (10)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
The influence of permission marketing final version
- 2. Recent Phenomena Sparse academic research Permission Marketing Inbound Marketing Practitioners have taken the lead Solve today’s problem Academia Need for generalization Why Social Media Research is Important 1. Increase Revenue 2. Increase Retention 3. Decrease Costs INTRODUCTION – SOCIAL MEDIA MARKETING
- 3. METHODS Exploratory Purpose: Emphasis is gaining ideas and insights Launch pad for further research Research that attempts to answer the question, ‘What?’ Systematic observation and focuses on the meaning given to social actions Triangulation Literature Review – academic literature has huge gaps Case Study – Intensive observation of phenomena Benchmarking – documenting best practices Content Analysis – examine and analyze communication
- 5. Purchasing Funnel • Driven by Content • Mutual Interest • Traditional Ads are anti-social • Would purchase more because of trust RESULTS – HIERARCHY OF EFFECTS
- 6. • Consumers View of online experience • Retailers very different • B2B focus on image • UGC Trust Familiarity Awareness RESULTS – BUILDING TRUST
- 7. Use of tools for different purpose Micro Target based on tool Granular level Target within tool RESULTS – HUB AND SPOKE
- 8. RESULTS – RESEARCH METRICS Facebook Twitter YouTube Organization People Talk Likes Tweets Follow Following Subscribers Views Amazon 197,846 18,135,745 1,338 56 481,399 3,126 1,129,881 Target 129,363 21,850,556 9,690 1,292 544,598 12,817 5,352,485 Apple 37,007 9,017,349 11 1 2,994 1,199,492 31,005,253 Google 68,246 12,607,061 4,140 390 5,830,573 1,553,948 737,688,270 Pepsi 71,089 9,730,618 22,621 44,219 1,116,770 325,055 109,114,940 Coca-Cola 1,269,874 64,333,300 76,778 67,738 723,107 122,791 131,422,466 McDonalds 296,831 28,442,824 12,704 12,650 1,157,832 6,080 7,968,083 Starbucks 433,659 34,429,965 14,804 80,183 3,724,778 17,866 9,103,263 Nike 78,414 12,765,055 119,139 221 800,495 74,657 35,150,709 RedBull 408,028 37,662,302 18,511 42,654 981,306 2,137,122 547,254,136
- 9. REFERENCES amazon.com. (2013). Amazon. Retrieved April 2013, from Amazon: www.amazon.com Apple Inc. (2013). iPhone 5. Retrieved April 2013, from Apple: www.apple.com Barker, M. S., Barker, D. I., Bormann, N. F., & Neher, K. E. (2013). Social Media Marketing: A Strategic Approach. Manson: South- Western, Cengage Learning. Facebook. (2013). Facebook. Retrieved April 2013, from Facebook: www.facebook.com French, J. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The Bases of Social Power. In D. Cartwright, Studies in Social Power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan. Godin, S. (1999). Permission Marketing: turning strangers into friends, and friends into customers. New York: Simon & Schuster. Google. (2013). Google. Retrieved April 2013, from Google: www.google.com MBA Article. (2013, Febraury 6). OnlineMBAPage.com. Retrieved February 28, 2013, from OnlineMBAPage.com: www.onlinembapage.com McDonald's. (2013). I'm lovin' it. Retrieved April 2013, from McDonalds: www.mcdonalds.com Nike, Inc. (2013). Swosh. Retrieved April 2013, from Nike: www.nike.com Pepsi Co. (2013). Pepsi Pulse. Retrieved April 2013, from Pepsi: www.pepsi.com/en-us/d Red Bull. (2013). Red Bull. Retrieved April 2013, from Red Bull: www.redbull.com/us/en Starbucks Coporation. (2013). Starbucks. Retrieved April 2013, from Starbucks: www.starbucks.com Target Brands Inc. (2013, March). Target. Retrieved April 2013, from Target.com The Coca-Cola Company. (2011). Coca-Cola. Retrieved April 2013, from Coca-Cola: us.coca-cola.com Twitter. (2013). Tweets. Retrieved April 2013, from Twitter: www.twitter.com YouTube, LLC. (2013). YouTube. Retrieved April 2013, from YouTube: www.youtube.com
Editor's Notes
- Social Media is a recent phenomenon, a new field of studyVery little academic research availablePopular Press is taking the lead as thought leadersOrganizations have a need to understand social media and how to monetize phenomenonIncrease RevenueNew channels and better serving target marketsIncrease Customer Life Time ValueCustomer satisfaction and loyaltyMore frequent purchasesIncreased purchase sizeLower turn-overDecrease Marketing CostsReach target markets more efficiently
- MethodsAmbiguity CertaintyExploratory Descriptive CasualAnswers the question of “What”What are the emerging patternsWhat are the future research questions What is happening with PhenomenonTriangulationLiterature Review – Failed, not enough academic literature availableCase Study – Intensive observation of organizationsBenchmark – Top Social Media Companies with fortune 500Content Analysis – examined communications
- Get Logos
- Purchasing Funnel (Hierarch of Effects)Strongly suggests research for determining what content is valuable at each level of funnelContent of mutual interest (Indirect, Educational, Informative, How To)Showing product/service at end was OK but do not “sell”Traditional Ads are anti-socialPush ads kill Permission MarketingPurchasing Funnel is popular press terminology. The academic research is call “Network of Effect” models. Of which the seminal work is the ADIA model by St Elmo xxxxx. The strong parallel to the funnel suggests future research for determine what content is valuable at each level and for determining appropriate metrics (ROI).Content, especial content that was of mutual interest to both consumer and organization was very powerful. The content encourage engagement with community, built reputation, and was more interesting to us as researchers. Some observations include:Showing the use of the product/service or showing at end of information was OK. Mutual Interest information is indirect or educational in nature. Not about product features. For example Fiskars scissors features crafting and Google features Internet search.Traditional Ads are anti-social. Pushing ads onto social media does not appear to work. Very little engagement from consumers and boring to view. “Push Ads kill Permission Marketing”.The use of mutually interesting content lead our team to believe that we knew less about product specifications, knew more about application of product, and believe we would be more likely to purchase product or service.
- Building TrustSuggest research into different methods used to build trust.Retailers differ from B2B and other B2CVariety of products, no central themeSales, discounts, special offers for retailersCould be industry of reason for buyer going to siteB2B companies appear to be building brand awarenessCoolnessSales generated through distribution channelUser Generated Content is very powerful for building trust and an area of potential researchWhy do some people engage?Feel of community?Type of content varies by tool (FB, Twitter, YouTube)In an effort to build trust we documented different styles. Although our sample size is to small to generalize results a pattern did appear. The pattern could be based on consumer information preference, differences in markets served, differences in customer’s reason for engaging with company (reason for being online), or differences in industries. Future research would be needed to better understand. A secondary research could be with User Generated Content (UGC), why do consumers engage with different industries in different ways?Retailers where similar to each other but very different from other organizations we researched. Amazon and Target focused on selling or ecommerce with sales and coupons and more. Is shopping the goal of consumers for these destinations? Do people go online just to shop for deals? The reason could be more benign, for example: because of the variety of products, there is no central theme for mutual interest besides selling product.We noticed B2B corporation had a different feel than B2C. Companies like Nike and Apple where “cool”, lots of white space for an air of sophistication. Companies appear to be focused on trying to influence consumers image of company (academic definition of branding – the image of a company in a consumers mind. Most people use the term “Brand” incorrectly.). B2B companies featured the best and newest products. Could it be because sales are primarily generated through distribution channel (retailers)?(Note: To fully develop this idea we should think about Google, Coke, Pepsi, and Redbull.)UGC (User Generated Content) is a large part of the community feel. People want to be part of these communities. Type of content varies with the tool used (FB, Twitter, homepage, or YouTube) and industry (or customer’s reason for going online).
- Hub and SpokeFurther research on micro and granular targets based on tools and sub hubs within toolsMicro Targets based on part of target market that uses toolFB, Twitter, YouTube, Pinterest , . . . Granular Target Segments by further segment Micro targetsCustomer Service with Twitter HandlesBrand Pages in FBSales separate from contentYoutube channelsFurther research need at the type of content required at micro and granular levelsThe organizations we researched appear to moving toward Micro Targets based on tools (FB, Twitter, Homepage, YouTube). Further research is required to generalize. Further research on the success of micro and granular targeting.Organizations appear to use tools to reach and engage different micro segments of the desired Target audience. For example different tools displayed different information and sometimes even a different brand personality (but still kept central theme). Some tools further granular level of micro targets. For example using brand image pages on FaceBook and separate twitter handles (The largest being separating Customer Service). The strong separation of customer service appears to get all the bitching off of main pages or sites. Also, there appear to separate sales/selling from Content. For the most part the tools were used for different purposes.Secondary thought: different content need at each micro and granular level. UGC is very, very important.
- Metrics need to be established and measured throughout sales processProductivity gains – (Output)/(Input). Compare month over month or year over year Exposure, Influence, and Engagement stages of funnelROI – Return On Investment – Profit/(Cost of Social Media) Action/Conversion and $$(Sale) stages of funnelCost savings in Retain (feedback loop) Savings for social media PR Savings for Social Media Co-creation of value (Crowdsourcing) Savings on Customer Service Increased customer retention – Life time value of customer