Pinning - The Marketing Onslaught Begins

This is another social network unlikely to escape the marketing onslaught for very long. I imagine creative minds are trying to find ways for their brands to jump in as I write.

I'm talking about Pinterest, of course, the addictive image sharing social network in which people pin cool, bizzare, bland, stupid (to my mind anyway - no more shoes please) or instructive images to 'boards' for others to see, comment on, or trash. The demographics so far skew to 25-34 year olds, the majority (80%) women.

There are personal uses that make a lot of sense, as I found when I asked the question on Twitter a few weeks ago. The responses talked about its value as a wedding planning or interior deisgn tool for example. My boards will be devoted, as expected, to quirky or artsy images.

Such leading brands as Whole Foods have boards (followed by close to 11,000 people already) and Lands End (only 526 followers so far) which have lovely stuff to look at and "pin". In a post at Search Engine Watch, blogger Kaila Strong list seven ways companies could use the Pinterest platform to meet and interact with customers:

1. Hold a contest
2. Conduct market research
3. Feature customers
4. Present concepts in a new way
5. Put a face to your brand
6. Promote your image content
7. Sell more products

All good . . .

For those who work in reputation management, current affairs and the social web, we'll likely be scratching our heads for some time yet about how Pinterest can provide value other than in promoting image content (good for building affective loyalty to a company or organization). Suggestions welcome.

Google+ Pages

It was always intended to be thus.

Google announced this week that it was allowing businesses to set up Google+ pages. Although according to the BBC, "Organisations will not be charged to use the scheme and Google says it will not put adverts on their pages", let's be honest Google isn't a charity and at some point there will be some form of monetization of the fact that these non-people entities (as a colleague calls them) have been given consent to be on this new (sort of) social platform.

After an initial bulge in interest, engagement with G+ has quieted down, maybe because, according to a  complaint in Slate, "There’s nothing to do on Google+, and every time someone figures out a possible use for it, Google turns out the lights."

At least the first part has been true. But now G+ is trying to turn itself into a creative brand playground, for good or bad depending on your perspective on the desirability of non-commercial social platforms. (That's for another post.)

As my colleague Kathryn wrote in an internal email to our social web team:

Businesses, brands, teams, places, plays and other non-people entities will be able to create a profile on Google’s social network with many of the same built-in features as an ordinary Google+ profile. Plus – and this is very cool – page owners will be able to upload media and participate with users in live events and video chats, called Hangouts, on Google+.

In a later blog post, she pointed out:

What is most interesting is the integration with Google search. Since everyone is Googling everything, it makes perfect sense. Using what Google is calling Direct Connect, when you Google by adding + before a word you now get the brand page option (like in Facebook) and will be asked if you want to add that page to your circle. For example, if I were to write in +Motorola, Google would say ask me if I want to add +Motorola to one of my Google+ circles. What this could lead to is brands using ‘+’ as commonly as they do ‘www.’ or ‘facebook.com/’ in marketing materials (i.e. +MuppetsMovie or facebook.com/Muppets).

Maybe if companies use the platform well - and I do worry they won't given the many false starts on Facebook initially - it might just give G+ the haulage it needs in its battle with Facebook, especially if Google provides back-up like the '+' convention. I won't likely invite any companies into my G+ circles, but enough people seem to like 'liking' brands on Facebook that they may gravitate to this new brand home . . . and stay.

We Share Content Everywhere

AOL and Nielson recently published a study about our content sharing habits that draws some useful conclusions about what and how people use social networks to pass on information, brand or product preferences, articles, videos and photos to their friends (and 'followers'):

Aol & Nielsen content sharing study

Highlights of the study's findings include:

• 23% of social media messages include links to articles, videos and photos.
• People are sharing more of this kind of content than they did 2-3 years ago, especially women.
• People share content with their family and friends that they consider "trustworthy" and "helpful"
• A company's website is less important than other social networks when it comes to insinuating itself into this sharing model: "With only 4% of shared content linking to brand websites, it’s clear that the conversation – and opinions – about these same brands is happening elsewhere" . . . namely social networks

This idea that what people share with their networks must be trustworthy and helpful says a lot about how organizations should structure their social web interactions. Messages that are  self-serving, without substance or blatantly manipulative -- no matter how creatively packaged -- are unlikely to find their way into most social web conversations. 

Companies and brands should also use a range of social platforms (including Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, blogs and email) because "for people using a social network, 99% of them use multiple platforms for sharing content."