Upon reading the list, I was especially struck by the top two brands, the iPhone and CNN.  While one is a relatively new product that has revolutionized the way we use mobile and, most recently, doubled its Q4 sales over the previous year, the other is a nearly 30 year old news network competing with countless other organizations producing much the same product.  So why their congruent success?

It’s easy to understand why iphone topped the list.  The iphone has enabled the use of social media applications mobilely unlike any phone before it, and with a large majority of tech journalists and early adopters utilizing social media tools like Twitter, Digg, and Facebook, it makes sense why the internet was abuzz with the iPhone in 2008.

CNN, on the other hand, is a bit different.  Its product, journalism, is ubiquitous.  While there can be discerning attributes to the network’s journalism that may set it apart; journalistic integrity, un-biased coverage, evocative subject matter, it is only marginal in scale and certainly not enough to create large amounts of buzz, as the news is a product reproduced by myriad publishing organizations.  So why does CNN beat all but the iphone in social media mentions?  What makes it nearly as buzzworthy as the revolutionary iPhone?

I like to think of it as the “what” vs “how” differentiation.  The iPhone’s success is the iPhone.  It’s a product that’s buzzworthy for what it is and how it changes our everyday interactions.  Congrats to Apple and Jobs for developing such an amazing product.  However, CNN can’t rely solely on it’s “what,” the quality of its journalism.  Instead, CNN must rely more heavily on the “how,” the way it is delivered and the experience they provide.

This is where CNN levels its competitors.   CNN has joined the social media space in an innovative way that provides utility to its audience.  Case in point: the presidential inauguration.  CNN, like most other major networks, streamed the inauguration live on their website.  But while the majority focused on the quantity and ease of access to coverage, CNN focused on the social media integration.  CNN allowed their audience to connect and interact with their Facebook friends with a click of a mouse.  After the inauguration, CNN set up “The Moment,” a Microsoft photosynth experience encouraging inauguration attendees to submit their photos, creating a 3D image experience created by the people, for the people.  Gimmicky, sure, but it’s buzzworthy.

I recognize that the particular examples cited previously occurred in 2009, I cited them as the freshest examples of CNN’s innovation.  In 2008 CNN impressed us with Rick Sanchez et al. incorporating Twitter into on air segments, iReports, and essential tools and features such as RSS, bookmarks, and embeddable video (not to mention tech-geeky stunts including holograms and complex touch-screen maps.)

CNN continues to pursue what gives them that ‘purple cow‘ effect that inevitably draws the spotlight on a brand.  While their ‘what’ may be good, it’s their ‘how’ that is exceptional.

1. Category – Best Viral Promotion, Games & Gaming Category (Silver W3): Ubisoft’s ‘1191AD: Brotherhood of Assassins’ Campaign for Assassin’s Creed
2. Category – Best Site, Social Networking Category (Silver W3): Hey! Nielsen for The Nielsen Company
3. Category – Best Site, Branding Category (Silver W3): Hey! Nielsen for the Nielsen Company
   
4. Category – Best Site, Entertainment Category (Silver W3): Hey! Nielsen for the Nielsen Company
   

The 2008 W3 Awards received over 3,000 entries from around the globe this year, we’re honored to be on their list of excellent work.

Thankfully, she was found safe a few days later (turns out she had run away and was not abducted). End of story, right?

Not exactly. In an effort to protect her privacy (and not have the incident “follow” her for the rest of her life), people are being asked to remove any mentions of the incident, the child’s name, as well as photos, etc. – essentially, an attempt to give this child a “clean slate”.

A totally understandable request (which is why I haven’t linked to any of the aforementioned content), but therein lies the problem. The web is a hydra of information, and every piece of content posted online – every blog post, photo, status update, video, tweet, comment, etc. must now be treated as permanent, decentralized record. Even if something is deleted, odds are that the information has been archived and/or reposted elsewhere and will no doubt be discovered in the future. Not a big deal for the average “joe the plumber” (oops, scratch that…), but you never know when something like a moment of, say, teenage indiscretion can come back to haunt you later in life when going for a job interview, running for office, etc.

Censorship versus Privacy versus Slander

I’ve identified the following types of social media “messes” that we will all need to face at some time. If you can think of other categories, definitely drop me a tweet or post a comment:

1. Censorship – Attempt to wipe out or suppress the creation of any factual information that may harm the reputation of a person or organization. See China and Scientology.
2. Privacy – Attempt to protect the personal information of an individual that can put their identity or safety at risk. An example would be a crazed fan posting a celebrity’s email address, phone number, social security #/credit card info, location of schools attended by children, etc.
3. Slander/Libel – Attempt to challenge/rebut damaging (let’s assume false) information posted by an individual or a in more organized, calculated manner. But whether something is considered libel or slander is up for debate.

A Social Media “Fixer”?

So, how do you deal with/clean up a social media mess? Like the Harvey Keitel character in “Pulp Fiction”, could there exist a social media “fixer”, i.e., someone who can clean up a social media “mess”? That would be virtually impossible. Sure, there are plenty of companies out there who tout “reputation management” services, but those are more ongoing/proactive and often involve trying to “bury” the offending information in search results.

I’ll admit, these are somewhat uncharted waters and my analysis may be way off base but this is pretty eye-opening issue. Please don’t take this to mean we must all fear social media, but rather that we must understand how to co-exist with it (and if done properly, embrace it) and choose to accept the consequences of the actions by both ourselves and others (and have a strategy in place to deal with any future social media “messes”). Come on, we were all young and stupid once…

This is the wrong attitude. The expectation is small spend, huge results (often in a short amount of time). With traditional marketing channels, there is a linear relationship between spend and return (i.e., if I know that I get a x% response rate on a direct mail piece, I can simply set my budget accordingly to hit my total response goal; each $1M in additional advertising generates a x% lift in sales, etc.). With WOM or viral marketing, the relationship ideally resembles more of an S-curve (not a J-curve, as you might be led to believe) – fairly linear until a certain point, then takes on a more exponential shape until flattening out again (or falling off entirely). How you get to steep part of the curve is a factor of time (i.e., bigger spend gets you there faster). It’s “organic” versus “amplified” WOM.

Most marketers want to first dip their toes in the WOM waters so they piece together a small budget to try something out, which is understandable. But if their budget is set too low, time frame is too short and expectations are too high, they are doomed to fail (they never hit the exponential part of the curve) and are left with a bad WOM taste in their mouths.

There’s tons of research out there showing that Word-of-Mouth is the most impactful and trusted form of marketing around. But to really see its benefits, marketers need to spend more, not less.

WOM should be treated as being “effective” rather than “cheap”!

So says Andy Sernovitz (the founding CEO of the Word of Mouth Marketing Association) in this iMediaConnection article, where he gives some nice props to our work for Square Enix. Andy also talks about the The Five Ts of Word-of-Mouth Marketing - components that any successful word of mouth campaign shares:

Talkers: find the people who like to talk
Are they your customers? Neighborhood moms? Doctors? Bloggers? Think about the people who are most likely to tell a friend about what you’re doing. Make sure they know about your new topic of conversation.

Topics: give them a reason to talk
Give people a reason to talk about you. It doesn’t need to be fancy. A special sale, good service, a cool, new feature, a better flavor, a funny package. (Remember the Gateway computers that came in cow-patterned boxes?)

Tools: help the message spread faster and further
Do everything you can to make it easy for talkers to pass along your topic. Include postcards and stickers in the box when you ship a package. Put up a chat room so people can talk to each other. Join a blog conversation. Hand out samples. (Did you ever get one of those emails with a “secret” coupon that was supposedly for employees only? Did you forward it?)

Taking part: join the conversation
Conversations die out when there’s only one person talking. When people are talking about you, answer them. Reply to their emails. Comment on blogs that write about you. Send a lot of thank-you notes.

Tracking: measure and understand what people are saying
The word-of-mouth conversation is the best feedback you’re ever going to get. It’s far better than any other kind of market research because it is the authentic voice of the consumer. Hear what people are saying, learn from it and use it to be a better company.

Read this Book!
If you haven’t already, I highly recommend you get a copy of Andy’s new book, “Word of Mouth Marketing: How Smart Companies Get People Talking,” which is a great guide full of ideas on implementing successful word of mouth programs, regardless if you are a major brand or a mom-and-pop restaurant.

see also:

iMedia Connection: Chrysler, Coke: New Brand Buzz Leaders
Square Enix: Slime Knights case study