emergedmedia

my last posting prompted a conversation with a friend about the definition of “social currency” and what it does for a brand.  a lot of marketers tend to think of social currency as “buzz,” their number of friends, followers, youtube views, and the number of likes they have on their facebook pages.  social currency consists of that and much more.  it’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking that just because people “like” you and you have a fair amount of followers that they are engaged with your brand.  that usually isn’t the case and a recent study conducted by vivaldi partners provides some interesting information to assert that social currency is much broader in scope.    

1. advocates trump followers - brands that had the most followers weren’t necessarily the ones that were connecting with their audiences.  dunkin donuts for example had 80% fewer facebook and twitter followers than starbucks.  however, dunkin donuts fans were 35% more likely to recommend the brand.  starbucks spends it’s time telegraphing it’s superiority and by extension it’s fans discerning tastes while dunkin donuts takes a more advocacy driven approach that pays dividends for them online.  

david tryder, dunkin donuts’ director of interactive marketing has two rules for his online campaigns; make them fun and make them cheap.  promotions are built around turning people into online celebrities and then endorsers.  dunkins’ online create the next donut contest drew over 290,000 entries last year and has become an annual event.  ”it’s about all the little interesting things that lets fans engage,” says tryder.

2. context matters - don’t talk down to your followers about the finer points of your product or new packaging and then expect your audience to care.  think about why your product is relevant to them.  people have limited time to interact with you and will only come back if you are talking to them about something they care about.  

beer drinkers don’t care if a beer is triple hopped in an ultra-cold bottle.  product and packaging innovations do not help create relevance in a consumer’s life, but bonding or “social context” during consumption does. 

3. not every brand should be social - mass market brands that are position based on functional superiority, like Gillette, aren’t likely to see much upside in social currency.  96% of respondents in this study touted Gillette’s good quality and reliability.  so what more is there to say?  conversations might lead to a discussion of the downsides such as price and alternative products and brands.  

however, gillette has succumbed to the siren song of social media with a series of lame youtube cartoons  giving tips on how to “manscape.” while the exercise might be funny to a select few, the program doesn’t give the brand a lift and proves that social media isn’t for everyone.  

4. social tools are a means, not an end - as a brand, axe knows how to push the pulse points of hormonal young men with their racy ads.  however, few people would say that axe helps them succeed in the mating game according to the study.  their mastery of social media doesn’t translate into meaningful discussion with a brand or an ardent defense when compared to a brand like clinique, because the axe audience knows that it’s all a goof.  by contrast, clinique’s more instructive approach with youtube tutorials on how to apply makeup, has earned it stronger social currency. 

“educating and empowering our customer is part of our process,” according to emily culp, clinique’s vp of global digital.  every year the company selects 20 “insiders” to post candid unedited product demos and critiques.  clinique has moved from trying to find core influencers towards converting anyone into a brand evangelist.  while axe’s online activities may give users a good laugh, clinique’s activities have a stronger impact on brand loyalty.  

5. gimmicks marginalize trust - vivaldi compared the social media activities of both wendy’s and burger king.  i thought this was interesting because for a long time i’ve seriously questioned cp+b’s burger king work and what it’s done to effectively move the needle that translates into selling more hamburgers and increasing the brand’s social media followers.  bk’s “whopper sacrifice” asked fans to actually drop their facebook friends in order to get a free hamburger.  this program, while intended to increase the brand’s social currency, also diminishes the value of social media.  it was a typical cp+b stunt, like subservient chicken, that relied on gimmickry rather than providing consumers with the all important “reasons to believe.”

“we let the products be the hero,” says wendy’s svp of communications denny lynch.  as an online companion piece to their “real” campaign, wendy’s created a hockey game using a generic frozen patty as the puck.  the online game was a competition that ultimately encouraged bacon fanatics to test the new smoked applewood burger.  the program effectively reached over 250,000 foodies.  they also used expert opinions to add value in a way that felt genuine.  

according to lightspeed, twice as many wendy’s patrons would pay a premium for their products when compared to burger king.  bk’s ploys, as i’ve always suspected, end up doing more for their agencies’ social currency than burger king’s.  the campaigns may be funny, but they don’t motivate consumers to have a hamburger at bk today.  

the impact of social currency isn’t trivial.  your brand’s information needs to be relevant and of value in order to be passed around.  social currency isn’t all about buzz, it’s about creating meaningful experiences around a brand.  social currency is about engagement, adding value, and giving consumers a reason to stand up and tell everyone else how great they think your brand/product is :)