The world’s most valuable brands. Who’s most engaged? ENGAGEMENTdb Report

I’ve finally made some time to read properly an interesting report from the Wetpaint/Altimeter Group ENGAGEMENTdb, which had been hammering at my inbox from various sources. It’s a quite convincing attempt to measure and categorise the levels of engagement in social media by the top 100 global brands, and correlate that to their recent profitability. The result in a nutshell? Social media pays off – or at least, would appear to:

While much has been written questioning the value of social media, this landmark study has found that the most valuable brands in the world are experiencing a direct correlation between top financial performance and deep social media engagement. The relationship is apparent and significant: socially engaged companies are in fact more financially successful.

So now we know it pays to be social, but it is important to note that by “social,” we’re talking about deep engagement, not merely having a presence. And what exactly do we mean by deep social engagement? Resembling any in-person exchange, socializing requires more than just being there — you have to interact with others, instigate discussions, and respond during conversations. Our study implies value in social engagement on top of social presence — it pays to actively and continually participate and invest in your networks [...] To be specific, companies that are both deeply and widely engaged in social media surpass their peers in terms of both revenue and profit performance by a significant difference.

The report carves up the 100 top global brands into four social media types:

• Mavens: engaged in seven or more channels and have an above-average engagement score. Examples: Dell, Starbucks
• Butterflies: engaged in seven or more channels but have lower than average engagement scores. Examples: American Express, Hyundai
• Selectives: engaged in six or fewer channels and have higher than average engagement scores. Examples: H&M and Philips
• Wallflowers: engaged in six or fewer channels and have below-average engagement scores. Examples: McDonalds and BP

It’s interesting to note that when the spread of social media increased – i.e. the number of channels in which these brands are participating – so did the depth of engagement.

...brands that were in seven or more channels engaged deeply across all channels where they were present, as compared to brands that were present in fewer channels. There is an exponential growth in the depth of engagement as the brand extends itself into more and more channels. Sometimes this is due to brands learning from their experiences in other channels, making it easier to engage deeply in new channels like Twitter. This effect is also a reflection of the brands’ commitment to social media — once they are invested in multiple channels, they are more likely to engage deeply in each of them.

The report delivers really interesting best practice studies on the 4 of the most engaged brands: Starbucks, Toyota, SAP and Dell. It’s great to read in detail how these brands started their social media, across what channels and why, how the growth is managed and how employees across the corporations contribute. I was amazed to find that the the Starbucks social media team is just six people: kudos to them for coming top of the ENGAGEMENTdb ranking of most engaged brands.

The top ten, all 'maverns', as you expect, are:

1. Starbucks (127) -
2. Dell (123)
3. eBay (115)
4. Google (105)
5. Microsoft (103)
6. Thomson Reuters (101)
7. Nike (100)
8. Amazon (88)
9. SAP (86)
10. Yahoo! and Intel [tied] (85)

You can download the free report here.

Read more...

Loaded and Gone? O2 Announces Cash Cards for Teens

I took a sharpish intake of breath this week when O2 announced the roll-out of pre-paid cash cards for teens aged 13. The cards - zippily named 'Load and Go' - can be used to buy online and in the shops, and to withdraw cash from ATMs.

There are several reasons for my involuntary shiver, and for gathering my young a little closer to me than usual, as I gently dissuade them from escalating their game of 'Goad the Cat' to Code Red.

Because although my brood are still at the pet-harassment stage, if previous experience is anything to go by my seven-year-old will be thirteen in approximately one week. So I take both a professional and personal interest in this, and I have to tell you, I'm nervous.

Firstly, on purely practical grounds. While the cards are no more or less susceptible than any other to security issues, the presence of thirteen-year-olds makes for an uneasy combo. The 'taxing' of lunch money by bullies is a nasty reality - and it takes an even uglier complexion when, with the judicious threat or use of force, a PIN number could be extorted and allow the baddy to tax his hapless victim ad infinitum.

Even barring this unpleasant possibility, it seems unlikely to increase family harmony, which during the teen years is a fragile truce at best. Queues likely at O2 call-centres, I'd say, as cornered teens gamble on the 'it must have been credit-card fraud' defence to explain their nuked pre-paid balance.

According to the Guardian.co.uk, O2 CEO Ronan Dunne says that one in five kids already pinch their parents' card to buy stuff online, with music downloads a prime culprit.

His line is that we should "accept that abuse is going to happen", and try and limit the damage. My line is that we should threaten to tattoo each and every Lady Gaga lyric on their foreheads if it happens again; but I acknowledge that my parenting style edges Victorian. No matter: it is undeniable that the card removes another layer of parental control, and thus of safety.

Of course, children can already spend their pocket money on what they like - but if, like me, you live in an area where the best the high street has to offer is last week's issue of Heat magazine and a box of broken Jaffacakes, you can be relatively sure that their purchasing power is safely limited.

But now, the web is their oyster. Teens don't have to settle for local - they can access, well, anything. O2 confirm that they will put measures in place to prevent kids buying pornography or alcohol, but what about slimming pills, fake IDs - even Viagra?

Of course, all this is not only a social or commercial issue - it's a parenting issue. Of course, we have to take responsibility for what our children do, and for educating them, and encouraging them towards web destinations which we know take their safety as seriously as we do.

And I know, it's inevitable that technology should invade this small corner of childhood and spread its relentless pragmatism. And yes, the credit card is infinitely more suited to contemporary spending patterns.

But It feels as though one more aspect of childhood is being chipped away. Pocket money - the solemn exchange of a (uselessly small) sum of cash for the sullen execution of certain tedious domestic chores - will soon be replaced by something much more, well, serious.

And I can't help feeling that O2's release signals the end of the kind of childhood that I had, and which I'd hope to pass on to my children: one where children weren't being prepped for a grown-up credit-card, from the age of 13.

Kate Williams, eModeration Research Consultant

Read more...

Maine's New Law Prevents Use of Personal Information from Minors

Privo and Ypulse have recently alerted us to a new law enacted in Maine USA that bans the use of personal information about minors for marketing purposes. Here I’m quoting both sources.

The law is much more expansive than the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) – the federal law regulating the online collection and use of personal information from children under 13. The Maine law regulates both the online and offline collection of personal information from users under the age of 18 and strictly prohibits any transfer of or use of personal information about minors for marketing products or services – regardless of from whom it was collected or whether a parent has consented to the collection and use. The law is set to take effect in September.

The law includes three major regulatory elements, which appear to be incongruous. The first regulatory element prohibits anyone from knowingly collecting or receiving either personal or health-related information from a minor for marketing purposes without first obtaining verifiable parental consent. The law’s definition of parental consent includes authorization for future collection, use, and disclosure of the minor’s personal information. However, the second and third regulatory elements prohibit any transfer of minors’ personal information and its use for marketing purposes – regardless of from whom it was collected or whether a parent has consented to the collection and use.

Under the new law:

• The knowing collection or receipt of health-related information or personal information for marketing purposes from a minor without first obtaining verifiable parental consent is prohibited.
• The sale or transfer of health-related information or personal information about a minor is prohibited, regardless of whether or not the information was lawfully obtained.
• The use of health-related information or personal information regarding a minor for the purpose of marketing a product or service to that minor or promoting any course of action for the minor relating to a product is strictly prohibited.

Maine’s law, like COPPA, defines “personal information” as “individually identifiable information.” The Maine law provides the following illustrative list of personal information: (1) an individual's first name, or first initial, and last name; (2) a home or other physical address; (3) a social security number; (4) a driver's license number or state identification card number; and (4) information concerning a minor that is collected in combination with an above-described identifier. Unlike COPPA, the Maine law does not specifically include in the list email addresses and phone numbers – both of which COPPA lists as individually identifiable information.

The law also allows for enforcement by the State Attorney General and for a private rights of action – meaning that private parties can sue companies for collecting or using minors’ personal information in violation of the law. Private litigants can sue for injunctive relief and/or damages in the greater amount of either $250 or actual damages, mandatory attorneys’ fees, and costs. Damages for willing or knowing violations can be the greater amount of either $750 or treble damages. A court may also assess civil fines of at least $10,000 and no more than $20,000 for a first violation and at least $20,000 for each subsequent violation.

In other words, companies that currently collect personal information from minors may consider seeking out legal advice about the best way to avoid coming under fire this September.

See the full legal document here.

Update 10th Aug 2009: Thanks to Stephen Kline from Privo for sending through this link to Tips to Deal With Maine’s New Law Regarding Minors’ Personal Information from Liisa Thomas, an attorney at Winston & Strawn, an advertising firm in the U.S. It answers many of the questions being asked following the announcement of the law, although still sadly cannot provide easy solutions! And of course, those pesky under 18's do keep moving house - what if they have moved to Maine since you last refreshed your email database, and didn't tell you...?

Read more...

Angela Connor's 18 rules of community engagement (or how to be the the perfect party host)

Angela Connor, social media expert and dedicated community manager at WRAL’s GOLO.com , must be the best-ever party hostess. I’ve just finished reading her slim book ’18 Rules of Community Engagement’ and I now realised that, dress it up how you will, that’s what’s really required of an excellent community manager.

You’ve got to be really, genuinely interested in your guests (even if they are in their thousands). Remember what they do for a living, admire their new dresses and ask after their children by name. Fill any gaps in conversation, start up interesting discussions, listen attentively. Take wallflowers and newcomers under your wing and introduce them to other people on the room. Serve great food & drink (content), make sure everyone knows where the loos are (or how to post messages and blogs), and, very importantly, know how to control anyone who gets loud and obstreperous and annoying to your other guests.

Well OK, maybe I’m over-simplifying it a bit and stretching a point. But I’m truly impressed by Angela’s highly personal and practical guide to community management. Using her considerable experience, she illustrates each point with plenty of concrete examples from the GOLO.com users (I’m put in mind of Garrison Keillor’s characters at times, but that’s the nature of working in her kind of community, and it’s wonderfully real). Angela grew GOLO.com from zero to a membership 11,000 in just 18 months, and it took real dedication and considerable expertise. Here she lets us know how she did it.

I’m not going to list all the ‘18 Rules’ here because they wouldn’t mean much without reading the detail around them, but they include such topics as how you can help to establish a community’s culture, asking questions to generate content, how to deal with criticism and handle trolls, and the importance of praising and rewarding community members. She even gives advice to community users: successful blogging and how to avoid being seen as a spammer: micro-marketing without upsetting other community members.

When considering each topic, as well as giving her own opinion, Angela has practiced what she preaches, and asked questions to her many contacts within the social media community. How do they handle these issues? The result is real gathering of wisdom from the great and good in the community world, all of whom are generously credited, and *not* all of whom always agree with each other about what is the best way to do things. But that’s just fine: as she puts it at the conclusion: “My goal here was not provide a one-size-fits-all solution, because there isn’t one, and it’s important to know that going in. My goal was simply to give you ideas, encourage you to take this work very seriously, and help you understand that it is not a science, but an art.”

You can buy Angela’s book via Amazon, see her at work at GOLO.com, or visit her blog Online Community Strategist ,Twitter @communitygirl. I’m also hoping to persuade her to come on do a guest blog here at eModeration really soon : )

Read more...

Universal McCann Publish Wave.4 Social Media Tracker

UM’s latest “Power to the People” survey - the largest global analysis of social media usage to date - has revealed dramatic changes in the way that consumers are using the internet to create and share their thoughts,pictures and videos.

You can download the full report here.

Wave 4 of UM’s research into the facts behind the hype of social media reveals that social networks are becoming the dominant platform for content creation and content sharing.
After four surveys of active internet users—those who use the internet every day or every other day—showingimpressive growth for all types of social media, consumers are starting to focus their digital life around the likes of Facebook, MySpace and Orkut.

It’s not that consumers are cutting back on blogging or sharing images it’s just that they are increasingly opting to do it via their social network page rather than the likes of Flickr and Blogger.

Another key change to note has been the expansion of video usage (except in the UK), with significant increases both in the numberof social networkers and bloggers uploading video but also in terms of the number of the active internet users watching audio-visual content.
The report is stuffed full of global statistics, with individual country focusses on the USA, UK, Germany, Korea, Brazil, India and China.

Other key statistics include:

• The total estimated global active internet audience is now 625m
  
• Mobile internet usage has now reached nearly a fifth of all active internet users.
  
• Seventeen percent now access internet on the move as well as at home, work or college
  
• Widgets continue to thrive with 34% of social network users installing them for their own use and 24% installing them to impress visitors to their profile page
  

"Social media is a very fast-evolving landscape and one that’s taking an increasingly important role in consumers’ digitallives. Brands that want to engage with consumers in these spaces need to understand how and where and why they are using the many different platforms that enable content creation and sharing.
"Although the explosive growth of social media has attracted a lot of media coverage and hype only ‘Power to the People’—which began in 2006 and now has four waves of comparable data—has been able to track actual usage and consumer uptake,” says Glen Parker, Research Director at UM EMEA.

Universal McCann (UM) has included its own 10-step programme for successful social media:

1. Listen to/observe what the target audience is doing in social media
2. Create a “social object” that is relevant to the brand and of genuine interest
3. Segment the target into tribes. Give them something they can join.
4. Allow them to engage via their preferred platform of choice—create multiple interfaces to your community
5. Make the experience better when shared
6. Optimise your content for sharing—particularly via newsfeeds and Twitter
7. Use paid-for media to get the ball rolling
8. Take advantage of extreme targeting offered by social networks
9. Make sure you have the resources to manage your community management and refresh the content.
10. Track the results and optimise where necessary

"The data in Wave 4 juxtaposed with the relatively low ad spend in social media shows that consumers are out in front of marketers. The opportunity for success in the relatively uncluttered landscape will never be higher."

About Wave 4

UM questioned 22,729 active internet users in 38 countries between November 2008 and March 2009 for Wave 4, making it the largest global analysis of social media usage.

Read more...

United Airlines Breaks Guitars

I just couldn’t resist this one. The most entertaining example I’ve seen of the joys of social media when it comes to providing an outlet for the rage imparted by trying to deal with obdurate customer services – and an object lesson for brands about the powers of social media when it comes to reputation damage.

For those who haven’t yet seen it (and there may still be some), Dave Carroll is a man with a musical mission: to tell his story of what happened when United Airlines wilfully damaged his guitar in transit and then refused to own up, or cough up for the damage. His story is blogged here, and ends:

United has demonstrated they know how to keep their airline in the forefront of their customer’s minds and I wanted this project to expand upon that satirically. I’ve been done “being angry” for quite some time and, if anything, I should thank United. They’ve given me a creative outlet that has brought people together from around the world. We had a pile of laughs making the recording and the video while the images are spinning on how to make “United: Song 2” even better than the first. So, thanks United! If my guitar had to be smashed due to extreme negligence I’m glad it was you that did it. Now sit back and enjoy the show.

And here it is. Enjoy. (Or watch it - un-cropped by my blog formatting - on YouTube here)



Perhaps we could think of this as a little exercise about damage limitation in Web 2.0. If it was your brand (or your client’s) on the line, what would you do in response? United Airlines say they are going to be using this video internally to ensure better customer service: all well and good. They might also use it as a ‘how not to’ for their baggage handling staff. But on a quick search of the web and Twitter, I haven’t yet come across any communication from United to their customers. Why not?

Read more...

Copyright issues in Twitter and Flickr: when is it OK to reproduce?

By coincidence, two articles on the issue of copyright in journalism have landed in my inbox today: one by Joel Postman in socialmediatoday concerning the legal and ethical issues of live tweeting from conferences and events (where Twitterers effectively publish a portion of the speaker’s presentation), and the other From Steve Myers at Poynter Online, about a recent case of an image from Flickr sourced by the Chicago Tribune.

As a moderation agency, eModeration adheres to very strict guidelines regarding copyright. Images (photos, logos), quotes from news stories, video, pirated software – thousands of these items have to be removed from the UGC sections of our clients’ sites every year. And whilst in many cases, it is obvious what is and what is not subject to copyright, there are still grey areas, exemplified by these two cases.

In the first article, Joel takes a good look at best practice for reproducing copyrighted work. How much is reasonable to reproduce when reporting? Do you need permission to reproduce just a small portion? Does it depend on the nature of the work itself? The Fair Use provision of U.S. copyright law says:

“The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. In other words”, says Joel, “fair use is in the eyes of the beholder. The government will not rule on what is or isn’t fair use, leaving it the judgment of the individual, and in some cases, the courts to make the ultimate determination.”

In the case of conferences and events, which may well charge hefty ticket prices, is it fair to tweet live and share the information you’re receiving? If the speakers release their presentations to the guests, is it ethical to pass those on? Who are you potentially defrauding – the speaker or the conference organisers?

Joel concludes: “A practical approach is to simply ask yourself, does the speaker want his or her work reproduced and distributed free of charge? Some may, some may not. The right, and the ability, to freely share information is such a cornerstone of Web 2.0, that I think most conference organizers and speakers in the Web 2.0/social media sphere are happy to have their talks live tweeted and live blogged. Either practice is more like reporting than reproduction, and would involve the “copying” of relatively small percentages of the content.”

Web 2.0 is about the sharing and aggregation of information: blogging, Twitter, open source software, Wikipedia, crowdsourcing. Most of us are basically trying to get our voices and our work out to as many people as possible. But consider the case of re-tweeting a tweet from a private Twitter account – one that requires owner approval before you can ‘follow’. Is that ethical? Whilst she owns that “open Twitter accounts are a matter of permanent public record and fair game for journalists” Julie Posetti thinks private Twitter accounts are not, in a piece on the PBS MediaShift blog, Rules of Engagement for Journalists on Twitter.

The issue of the picture of the child crying at Santa Claus’ graveside which was posted in the Chicago Tribune photo gallery ‘Awkward Tombstones’ is more clearly an error on the part of the news media. It was sourced from Flickr, an image available under the Creative Commons license. But the problem was that the poster of the picture didn’t actually have the rights to distribute it because he didn’t create it. Apparently it was a composite made using a stock image, and have been received via a chain email. Had the Chicago Tribune checked with the Flickr user source, he would probably have told them exactly that.

"News organizations need to realize they are taking on trust a license that may or may not be valid" if they use such images without contacting the user, said David Ardia, director of the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard University. "Probably most of the photos uploaded to those sites are by the original photographer, but not all.

"We're learning what 'verify' means in this context," Ardia continued. "Does it mean taking at face value what someone says on their Flickr account, or does it mean more than that? For news organizations, I think verification probably means more than that, from a journalism ethics standpoint."

So. Use discretion, common sense and politeness when it comes to tweeting and blogging other people’s work. And images? Tread extremely carefully indeed, and always check sources.
Whilst writing this post, I have to admit I’ve been secretly delighted about the internal contradiction of republishing the authors quoted here. But please note that they have all been fully credited : ) And in case you’re wondering if I’m breaching copyright law by reproducing the Chicago Tribune picture, I’m reassured by Steve Myers, quoting David Ardia, who says that “using the photo to illustrate copyright issues would probably be allowed”. Phew.

Update 21st July 2009:

A rather timely row has erupted over the reproduction of high res images of London's National Portrait Gallery paintings on Wikipedia. Check out http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8156268.stm for the story.

Read more...

eModeration introduces ReputationShare online reputations

Wouldn’t it be good if community managers could somehow detect what kind of person was registering on a community site? Whether s/he was a known troll or cyberbully, or had previously uploaded child abuse images onto another site – or on the other hand, as an excellent online reviewer, was going to be a real asset to the community?

If you know a bit about your community users’ previous history on other sites you may well change the way you treat them on yours. You may choose to pre- (rather than post-) moderate their contributions for a while. You may not grant them as many ‘strikes before they’re out’ as you would other users. You might even ‘gag’ them from the off, or reject their profile altogether. Conversely, if you know they have performed well elsewhere, you could reward those with good ‘online reputations’ by granting access to ‘VIP’ areas of your site or issuing them with discount vouchers.

What you choose to do is up to you. But we’re really excited to announce that, thanks to LOOKBOTHWAYS Inc’s new product ReputationShare, it will now be possible to offer community managers and publishers that choice.

ReputationShare, a new way to track and share the reputations of online community users, is being introduced to the UK and US markets by eModeration and their moderation technology partners Crisp. The adoption of ReputationShare technology is a significant step in increasing the protection of community users from abusers; for example people who persistently upload abusive or illegal content to websites, or commit online fraud. ReputationShare allows brands to tap into user reputation information in much the same way that credit reference information is shared, so users’ reputations will precede them from site to site.

Now for the science bit:

How does it work?
Everyone starts off with a score of 500. Whether that score then goes up or down depends on what moderation the user receives from sites participating in ReputationShare. Moderators working on sites using ReputationShare will be submitting their (encypted) information to ReputationShare as they work, and ReputationShare then assigns their actions a positive or negative score, based on category, severity and date. It’s important to note that users will only get a seriously reduced rating for specific, serious abuse of the rules of a website – for example, uploading offensive or abusive material onto a community designed for children, and that the service’s algorithms take into account the date and severity of the offence. Only in cases where an incident report is extreme, such as a report of sexual or grooming behaviour, would a single report dramatically damage a user’s online reputation. ReputationShare will be monitoring participating sites and will investigate any instances of mal-moderation. Users can see their score anytime at ReputationShare, and will have enough information to challenge a negative report at its source if they feel they need to.

What’s the unique identifier for each user?
Their email address (or addresses – users can add addresses or change the email addresses associated with their ReputationShare identity at any time by going to the ReputationShare.net website). The email addresses are encrypted by an algorithm so that no personally identifying information is held by ReputationShare.

Can Web users view their reputation information?
Yes. Any user can visit ReputationShare.net and enter their email address to see their score, their incident reports, the incident report number, the dates the reports were submitted, the event types (active and positive user, bullying, profanity, etc), whether the reports were positive or negative, see which service made the report and the service’s URL. (However, if the negative score originates from a user flag they cannot see which user made the report).

What’s the benefit to the community owner?
Quite simply, it will improve the community. Make it a safer, more pleasant environment to participate in. And this has obvious benefits to the site owner: a higher net promoter score, better customer retention, with customers more likely to pay subscription fees. It will provide a further level of knowledge about your site’s customers, and help to exploit the power of social media by making it easier to identity the brand ambassadors and community champions. Moderation costs may be reduced as users with a positive reputation do not need to be moderated as intensively as those with no history or a reduced reputation. It will promote good online behaviour by both carrot and stick approach: good users can be rewarded for being socially responsible, persistent offenders will find their online freedoms curtailed.

Who is behind ReputationShare?
LOOKBOTHWAYS Inc., a leading online safety technology and services provider, has developed ReputationShare. LOOKBOTHWAYS is headed up by Linda Criddle, a 13 year Microsoft veteran, pioneer in online safety technologies, and president of SAFE Internet Alliance. They have partnered with eModeration and Crisp to bring ReputationShare to communties who would really benefit from its use.

The adoption of ReputationShare demonstrates the online community’s commitment to safety and social responsibility. The strength is in the numbers, and we feel really strongly that this is a system that other moderation companies and brands should take up. If you’d like more information, please have a look at http://www.reputationshare.com/ or get in touch with tia@emoderation.com.

Read more...