1.       The role of the company website

In B2B social media the company website is crucial. The messaging in B2B campaigns is more complex and the information required before a purchasing decision is made is usually much deeper. That information is likely to be hosted on the company website. Of course blogs are useful, but it is highly unlikely any final decision will be taken without time spent on the company website. Therefore a key focus of the social media strategy is to get the audience, eventually, to spend time on the website.

In B2C social media, although the brand website can be used in the strategy it may also be completely irrelevant. Think of all the brands you purchase or recommend on a daily basis. How many of their websites have you ever visited? What role did their website play in your purchasing decision?

2.       Building the community

Put simply, the key in B2B is quality not quantity. There is a healthy debate in B2C social media on the value of huge social networks and how to leverage them. In my opinion, in B2B there is no debate, the quality of the community is crucially important, the size is very much secondary. The key difference is the complexity of the target audience.

I appreciate that socio-demographic targeting to consumers is complex itself, but in the B2B world this needs to done with pinpoint accuracy. As an example, take a look at this audience and messaging model put together by our sister company Tangerine PR’s head of B2B, Sam Gregory:

 This makes the task of finding then engaging with the right people complex.

3.       Influence analysis

Influence analysis is also more complex in B2B social media. Not particularly in their social media influence, which can be measured in similar ways to a B2C audience, but in their influence over the purchasing decision.

For example, if a consumer brand identifies ‘the young mother’ as a prime target, it’s reasonable to assume that the majority of the segment will have a similar influence on the, say, grocery purchases within the family unit. However, let’s say you’re an IT supplier the influence of the MD, FD, Office Manager etc will vary enormously from organisation to organisation.

There’s nothing new in this, B2B marketers have always had to deal with this issue in traditional marketing channels; social media simply provides another challenge.

4.       The Roles of the Client and Agency

In a B2C campaign it is possible for the agency, if required, to ‘own’ the personality of the brand. It can, in social media, become the brand and converse as it. Yes, this can present challenges, but with a carefully agreed strategy, brand personality guidelines and agreed messaging it is possible. It is rare for anyone in the client organisation to require any ‘visibility’ in the campaigns and there is little benefit in them doing so. There are exceptions of course – The Warburton family anyone?

In B2B however, particularly within the professional sector, individuals within the client organisation are important. The agency can represent the brand, direct the strategy, find  content, and distribute it. It can manage the client’s community and respond to it if required.

But key individuals within the client company also need to have a personal brand on social media. They need to demonstrate their experience and expertise and make a personal connection with the community. The agency can support them in this, but they must ‘front’ it themselves.

 There are other differences, but I believe the above are key. Would be delighted to hear your views.

 Steve Downes,

Managing Director, Juice Digital

 There has been much hoo-ha on Twitter – and elsewhere – this week following the news that Sky and BBC have issued new social media guidelines for their staff.

 Another day, another Twitter hoo-ha. I reckon that should be its new name – hoo-ha me has a certain ring to it don’t you think?

 First Sky told its journalists not to repost information from any Twitter users who are not an employee of the broadcaster and it warned staff to “stick to your own beat” and not to tweet about non-work subjects from their professional accounts.

 And the following day the BBC issued new guidelines telling its reporters not to break news stories on Twitter before informing their newsdesk and newsroom colleagues.

 To me the guidelines seem to make perfect sense however many have accused Sky in particular of missing the point of social media.

 But I would say that view misses the point of broadcasting. Of course social media is important and for me Twitter has totally changed the way I now get my news. However it sits under the umbrella of broadcasting and what is interesting, for me, about these new rules are that they highlight just how new and untested this whole social media malarkey is.

 And that is exciting.

 Broadcasters have quite rightly come to the conclusion that there needs to be greater thought put into how their staff use social media, and more specifically Twitter.

I guess the biggest surprise really is why it has taken them this long to come up with these guidelines.

The BBC’s technology correspondent Rory Cellan-Jones said the BBC had been “very nervous” about Twitter to begin with but had come to the conclusion that social networks can be “brilliant tools for broadcasters as long as they remember that the same rules apply as in any other form of broadcasting”.

 But he also acknowledged that the BBC is “feeling our way forward through the fog of this new media landscape”. And he offered an interesting insight into how some within the media view social by adding: “Some would like to turn the clock back to a simpler time, when all power resided in the newsdesk…and sharing information with outsiders before the presses rolled or the bulletin began was a sacking offence.”

 But it is – as he concedes – much too late for that. The genie is out of the bottle, there is no going back. And I believe our media landscape is all the richer because of it.

 However what broadcasters are, quite rightly, trying to do is reign Twitter in so that it runs by the same rules as all other elements of the business.

 And who can blame them? Yes Twitter has enriched the media landscape but it can’t run independently; an integrated approach is, well, integrated.

 So I guess this is the first real attempt by the BBC and Sky to fully integrate Twitter into their day-to-day operations. This in itself proves just how serious they are taking it; a year ago such policy announcements were unimaginable.

 However, some might ask, is this the beginning of the end of Twitter? Try to control it and you will kill it. And while I agree that Sky’s new guidelines seem a little OTT it is merely an exercise in a business trying to streamline its different strands. The fact that is the BBC and Sky News makes it news.

So no need for all the hoo-ha at all, getting uptight about these moves just makes you look like a twit.

I am a huge fan of Facebook. I’m not, personally a heavy user of it, I prefer Twitter and LinkedIn, but am very involved with it professionally.

I have enormous admiration and gratitude for it. Without it social networking would be nowhere near where it is today and that’s brought great benefit to the world in my opinion. It has also been the stimulus behind the commercial exploitation of social networks – an industry that puts the food on my table.

I also thought it was bullet-proof. Its future was guaranteed. Yes it would reach its inevitable plateau, but that would be a plateau at the summit of the social networking mountain.  I’ve dismissed the doom-merchants predicting Google’s Search plus Your World as a game-changer that would lead to Facebook’s decline.

But now I’m not so sure. Not so sure at all.

What concerns me is its upcoming IPO. What’s to worry about a $5bn cash injection to further develop an already extremely successful business? Perception and brand image that’s what.

Social network users are an extremely touchy bunch. Even relatively simple changes like imposing the new Facebook Timeline cause a huge furore and backlash.

They’re also, on the whole, an idealistic lot. Democracy, Transparency, Openness and the like are non-negotiable principles on which Social networks were founded and that’s what their members bought into.

Research has also shown that, again on average, their political leanings are slightly left of centre and somewhat anti-establishment.

So how is all that going to square with, what might be perceived as, a takeover by Wall Street? Yes, $5bn might only get you a 5% stake initially but it is, or will certainly be seen as, the thin end of the wedge.

Let’s look at some extreme examples, possibly silly, but imagine how millions of Facebook members might react if the shares were bought by a huge tobacco or weapons firm, or the Chinese Government’s investment arm? Or the US Government is seen to have, in some way, a financial interest? Or the Scientologists?

Imagine the uproar. I would predict a mass ‘click-out’ and the likes of Google+ would have a field day.

And what about the pressures for more commercialisation and profit? Because that’s exactly what a $5bn investor will demand. The investor will already have paid the full price (or maybe over-paid) for Facebook’s current size, member-base, turnover and profit. So only improvements in that will be acceptable. And big improvements at that.

I doubt if Facebook  could ever renege on its “Facebook is free and always will be” pledge, so  that can only come in a number of ways; more advertising, more paid for ‘added value’ services and – the real jewel in the financial crown – ‘monetisation’ of the vast amount of personal data it holds. How will Facebook’s community react to that?

Google and Facebook’s other ‘competitors’ are going to exploit these issues to the full.

Deciding which social media channel to use is not entirely rationale. It’s a very personal thing and with decisions of that sort perceptions, grievances and emotions play a great part.

I fear for Facebook, I really do.

The big sites in the digital/tech world went ‘dark’ for 24 hours to protest the so called ‘Internet Blacklist bill’…Google even blacked out its logo!

Why? It’s because Senator Ron Wyden plans to take these acts to Congress where they will vote on internet censorship on 25^th Jan.

Since the mid-90s, the internet has had a huge effect on the world, opening up new channels for commerce, facilitating communication and leading to the birth of the world’s first (and only) truly free press!

If passed, this new bill will:

• Give the Attorney General of the US to take action against foreign sites infringing on copyright
• If the AG chooses to take action, then:
  • Internet service providers will be required to block access to the site
  • Search engines (eg Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc.) will be forced to remove all references to the offending sites
  • Ad providers (eg Google AdSense) will be required to stop providing ad service to the site
  • Payment providers (eg PayPal, Visa, etc) will be required to terminate service to the site

Basically, this will give the Attorney General the power to censor sites that the US government does not have jurisdiction to take down directly. (Cough WikiLeaks!)

The real juicy stuff (pardon the pun) though is this:

“An ‘Internet site is dedicated to theft of U.S. property’ if [a portion of the site is US-directed] and is used by users within the United States and is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of offering services in a manner that enables or facilitates [copyright violation or circumvention of copyright protection measures]. “

Basically, this means that any site that allows users to post content is infringing copyright law– uh oh!

Sites like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Wikipedia, Gmail and millions of others would be technically in breach of copyright and subject to censorship by the US.

What’s more, the US sets a precedent for internet law around the globe which means that this could become the new GLOBAL standard.

Goodbye free-press and hello propaganda!

The findings are not shocking, and yet still, I find myself quite annoyed.  The article points out the fact that Google has not, in the 8+ years of Twitter, decided to index the “@” symbol for its search algorithm.  As covered in the article, this means that searching for a brand or person’s Twitter page there is no search priority for the results of “@mktgba” or “mktgba”.  What this means is that a brand’s Twitter page will show up in order of relevance at the same position regardless of adding the @ symbol to your search query.  However, Google has indexed its own “+” sign; thus prioritising its Google+ page results to the top in any search including this symbol.

As an additional benefit to Google+ users, Google search crawlers will pull content from Google+ pages, while not pulling from brands Facebook or Twitter pages (admittedly because they are “private”) thus meaning that Google+ pages will have a larger effect on SEO.

What does all this mean?  It means that Google is clearly allowing its interest in succeeding in the social networking arena to effect its objectivity in search.  While social networking has had a huge boom over the past 3 years, search (as an industry) is still widely considered the most important facet of a business’s online priorities.  By controlling the world’s most dominant search engine, Google is able to greatly affect the positive value of having a Google+ page.  However, is this really fair?  And even if Twitter or Facebook get an injunction against such self-serving practices will it be too late?  Will Google+ be able to utilise this competitive advantage for long enough to reach a critical mass? Google+ is growing at an extraordinary rate at the moment and while usage (once a member) still remains low, it could be a threat in the near future.

I don’t believe that Google+ will challenge Facebook or Twitter, anytime soon, for consumer engagement (consumers already have invested too much time and data in those two sites) however the precedent of bias algorithms for search is a serious issue.  What obligation does Google have to ignore competitive pressures and just provide the BEST results?  Don’t they owe us a certain level of trust and impartiality?

Like everyone else in the marketing world , I’ve been  fascinated by Google’s launch of ‘Search Plus Your World’

This is all about this

Basically, Google has played its trump card in its, so far unsuccessful, attempt to be a major player (or indeed dominate) the social space as it does search. Last June Google executive chairman Eric Shmidt said here  that his biggest failure has been Google’s failure to grapple with the rise of social networks.

At the moment Facebook is the undisputed Daddy of the social space, with Twitter and LinkedIn significant players.  All of these have had huge amounts of investment (and LinkedIn an IPO) with little or no ROI for investors. It’s highly likely that Facebook will launch its IPO this year. The pressure is now on for monetisation (or more monetisation for Facebook) of these businesses.

In Google’s case,  all their attempts so far to in this, potentially lucrative, area have been a spectacular failure. Google Answers, Orkut (in the US), Google Buzz, Google Wave and the rest.

So, Google+ was launched in June 2011, with clever marketing as an invitation-only beta test. Then invites were suspended due to an “insane demand”. It was opened up to everybody in September 2011.

While it has made reasonable progress (13% of US adults have signed up), it’s mostly being used by the somewhat geeky, technical savvy individual. Its typical user is a 30 year old male. It has nowhere near the universal appeal or take-up of the other leading social networks.

So now, as I said, they have played their trump card. What they have effectively done with ‘Search Your World’ is give Google + content a huge advantage over the likes of Facebook and Twitter on the world’s most popular search engine –  itself.

Initially, its effects won’t be massive because you have to be logged in to Google+ to access the functionality, but I’ve no doubt that will change.

There has not been much comment from Facebook yet, but Twitter has been unusually vocal in its opposition. They’re particularly furious because last year, during failed negotiations, Google stooped taking Twitter content into its search feed as it had previously.

So what now? No-one really knows. The big questions are:

• What will Facebook and Twitter do in response?
• Do Facebook and Twitter’s billion+ members care enough about these changes to switch loyalties?

I don’t know either. I think Google+, functionality-wise, is becoming an excellent social network and could give Facebook and Twitter users everything they want. However, I don’t underestimate the power of inertia. Most  people can’t be bothered to change their banks or utilities even if they think they should, so will they go through the hassle of leaving their friends and content behind on one social network they’re happy with to join another? Does the world need another social network?

If I was absolutely forced to gamble on one or the other (if that is the choice) I would predict that Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn will remain the leading social netwoks for the foreseeable future. But I would rather gamble with your money than mine!

What do you think?

“Manchester is the place where people do things. There, you don’t talk about what you are going to do, you do it.’ That is the Manchester habit. And in the past through the manifestation of this quality the word Manchester became a synonym for energy and freedom and the right to do and to think without shackles.”

One of the Oasis boys maybe? Ian Brown? Bit older maybe? What about Anthony Burgess?

Nope. It’s a hundred-year old quote from a book published in 1912 called “What the Judge Saw: Being Twenty-Five Years in Manchester by One Who Has Done It” by a chap called Edward Abbott Parry.

The place has kicked on a bit since then – it’s got better and better. But it’s stayed true to that attitude.

Here’s a thing. Walk through cities like New York, London, Barcelona etc and who is wearing all the I <3 NY T-shirts? Tourists. Walk around Manchester and you’ll see them being worn by thousands of Mancs who are simply in love with their own city. Now I’m not even pretending to be un-biased, but for me it’s the greatest city on earth to work, live and simply fall in love with life.

Let’s just leave Manchester there for a moment and talk about some work stuff.

You chose a career in PR or Social Media. Why? Think back.

Was it to work on some of the biggest brands going? Was it to work in teams that come up with brilliant ideas that capture national headlines? Or did you always fancy picking up bucketfuls of awards at those glamorous award ceremonies?

Are you getting all those things?

Or maybe you’re one of those people who simply expect the best. “I’m going to work at the best PR agency in the UK: Full Stop”

You’re going to have to be in London to do that, right? Wrong. Guess where?

OK, now here comes the call to action. If you’re somebody who wants all those things and downright deserves them – we want you. We need quality people in all areas. Consumer and B2B. PR and Social media. And at all levels, from Director to account executive.

So you need to do a bit of research. First of all check out these websites: www.tangerinepr.com; www.juicedigital.co.uk

You might want to read what the CIPR judges said when they named us Outstanding PR Consultancy of the Year 2011:
“Tangerine does everything well! It is clearly an inspiring consultancy – for client and employees alike – with strong values and a consistent record of success, based on clever ideas, hard work and – in the judges’ view – an exceptionally sincere relationship with its clients. The judges felt that Tangerine represented an outstanding showcase for UK PR at its very best!”

Finally. What’s with the beach?

Well, some time ago a certain Ian Brown of the Stone Roses said “Manchester has everything, except a beach”. It has now Ian. That’s Castlefield beach. It arrives every summer. And see that building behind on the left? That’s us!

Where else would you want to be?

Now the easy part. Want to chat? We make a good brew in Manchester too! Send your CV to: sue.pyatt@tangerinepr.com and we’ll do the rest!

This concept of having “heart” goes back to my days of competitive team sports, where quite often it was the most hard-working players not necessarily the most talented that succeed. It is even more amazing when talent and heart are paired in a single individual. All my coaches and mentors I’ve ever had, have always said “you can teach skill, but you can’t teach heart”.

In my role as a leader I have taken this mentality seriously when conducting the hiring process. Talent is great to have, and at times it is a necessity. However, when I conduct the hiring process I look for those people who are willing to work. Those that are passionate about their jobs, the team, and their clients. At the entry level, most of the candidates will need to be taught – so I have always tried to surround myself with those people I thought would try the hardest and care the most. Because those are the people that will not accept being mediocre.

I myself have rarely been the most talented at anything – sports, music, business – but what I’ve always posssessed is the competitive drive to be the best. When it came to PR/Marketing not only did I find something I wanted to be the best at, but something that I simply loved to do. Work doesn’t feel like a job, it feels like a blessing that I get paid to do something that would consume my passion regardless of monetary rewards.

I am now at a Juice Digital, a young agency that is growing, and I’m yet again faced with hiring decisions. I look around at my team and see a thoroughly committed and passionate group that I am proud to work with. With each new team member I want to bring on other like minded passionate individuals. Individuals who, through their similar commitment, will push everyone to be better and push our work to be more dynamic. It’s not that talent isn’t important – it’s just not the MOST important attribute in a new hire.

So when you look to add to your team, keep this thought in mind: “You Can’t Teach Heart”.

It seems forever we have been categorising consumer marketing as B2C, or business to consumer. But is that now the appropriate description?

The power of consumer advocacy, whether that’s word of mouth, social media sharing, peer to peer recommendation or customer reviews etc is now universally acknowledged.

Marketing through, not to consumers is now the most effective  way of building or maintaining brand awareness and positive sentiment towards it.

So are you doing everything you should to encourage Consumer to Consumer (C2C) marketing?

Can you give positive answers to these questions?

• Why should my customers recommend us to their friends?
• Am I providing them with ‘content’ to share?
• Have I provided a place for my advocates to connect and share?
• Have I provided a place for people to review my brand?
• Do I ‘reward’ my advocates for positive recommendation?
• Do I regularly respond to comments – positive and negative – about my brand?

These are just the starting points for C2C marketing. If you want to succeed you don’t just need to do all these things, you need to do them better than your competitors.

Even in that short time things have got worse and it’s quite obvious from the Chancellor’s Autumn update that what we’re doing at the moment simply isn’t working. The opposition parties seem to have lots to say about what the government is doing wrong, but nothing very credible about what they would do instead. No change there then.

But even more worrying is the beginnings of class divisions among the general public. Yesterday’s public sector strike caused deep divisions. Private v Public sector, Working Classes v The Bosses, etc.

The reality is we’re all in the mire. Frankly I don’t care who got us here. I don’t care if it was the government, bankers, global forces, switch in the balance of power or whatever. All that counts is sorting it out before our kids have to pay for our inactivity.

I also don’t give a fig where David Cameron went to school, whether Nick Clegg is posh or if Ed Milliband has any charisma. I think both George Osbourne and Ed Balls are probably decent blokes who would really like to solve this problem.

Although my own career has been firmly in the private sector, many of my friends and family work in the public sector and are all decent, hard-working people who have as much right to their public pensions as I have to my personal one. They’re both under threat and almost certain to decrease in value.

I’m from a traditional, northern, working class family. We have all voted Labour for ever. Of course we have, our parents and grandparents did. Tories are the well-off aren’t they? Labour’s for the workers, right?

Well I strongly suggest we need to put all our prejudices aside – Left or Right, Private or Public sectors. It’s not a bloody football match.

The dangers facing us are as economically dangerous  as the Great Wars were. What did we do then? We united to protect our loved ones and future generations. That’s what we need now. I’m calling for a Government of National Unity with a pre-determined life-span and agenda. We need to put politics and prejudices aside until we’re out of the woods.

I’m waiting for my HMG e-petition to be approved and I’ll be asking you all to sign it when it is.

Love to hear your views.

By Steve Downes, Juice Digital.