Posted 4. April 2009, 10:26 by Byron Dudding
Category : Home   Academic developments

This essay sets out to reflect on Twitter and the varying forms of commercial activity surrounding it. The first half will analyse and discuss the options available for businesses and brands to utilise and exploit Twitter as a marketing and brand building tool, while the second half will discuss the challenges for Twitter when monetising the brand and becoming a self-sustaining organisation.

Twitter is the latest development in the realm of social media. The idea behind it is based largely on the combination of two technologies (phone or SMS and the internet) and allows users to update (in one hundred and forty words of less) what they are doing at any given time, these updates are referred to as ‘tweets’. Each user has a network of ‘followers’ who will have signed up for the updates and these updates are delivered in the form of a txt message as well as being available (post-login) on the website twitter.com. The theory behind its creation is that even the most basic updates are meaningful to family members and friends, and Twitter ( 2009) suggests that ‘tweets’ are expressions of the ‘real life’ that happens in-between e-mails, phone calls and face to face interactions.

Although Twitter do not disclose their membership figures, estimates place the site as the third largest social networking facility on the planet (behind facebook (1st) and Myspace (2nd)) (Kazeniac, 2009). With this level of users, it is understandable why the marketing industry would be interested in it. A reason why twitter has been so successful in its market penetration is offered by Earls (2007) who reminds us that humans by nature are social creatures and as such like to talk but not necessarily to transmit, receive or exchange information but simply to hear and be heard.
Twitter was originally designed to be a platform of communication for:

“friends, family and co-workers to communicate and stay connected through the exchange of quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What are you doing?� (Twitter, 2009)

Since Twitter’s launch in 2006 the micro-blogging site has developed and expanded and is now used not only to connect with friends, family and co-workers but with other bloggers with similar interests and motivations. From a marketing perspective the site has begun to be used to note and discuss grievances and/or appraisals of brands and products. As this has started to happen it is logical that brands would get involved in order to give feedback, information and their perspective on the updates of users (Plasseraud, 2009). This type of interaction between brand and consumer is of particular interest when relating to popular consumer behaviour theory on purchasing behaviour, in particular post purchase evaluation (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Five General Stages of a Buyers Purchase Decision Process
Source: (Fill, 2005)

Once a consumer has recognised that they have a problem, they will search out a product/service that solves that problem. Once they have found a product/service they will then evaluate alternatives based on individual constructs that are important to them with relation to the problem, from here a decision will be made as whether to purchase the product/service or not. Once this decision has been made the consumer will then go through a period of post-purchase evaluation (Loudon, 1988). It is within this period of evaluation where the consumer will look at what they receive from the product or in the case that they didn’t purchase, reflect on why not (Arnould et al, 2004). During this evaluation period Fill (2005) stresses that marketing communications must continue to provide satisfaction in order to prevent the onset of cognitive dissonance (a state of unrest whereby the consumer feels the product fails to reach expectations or because the consumer is made aware of superior alternatives).
In order for the marketing communications to prevent cognitive dissonance they must find methods to reach these consumers. Traditional advertising serves as a mass communication method for such communications but can really only offer generic answers to consumer’s often complex concerns. Twitter however provides a medium far more personal to consumers, whereby brands can be privy to detailed and personalized distresses. Although it was mentioned earlier that one must be a ‘follower’ of someone in order to see there ‘tweets’, technology has meant that complex algorithms can now retrieve ‘tweets’ with certain key words of phrases and as a result organizations can cherry pick relevant updates and respond to them accordingly (Plasseraud, 2009), this is what Precourt (2008) refers to as ‘conversational marketing’.

Conversational marketing is an emerging discipline within the Public Relations domain and has already spawned a number of agencies with this consumer based conversation as their soul practice. A recent example is given of conversation agency ‘We Are Social’s client Skype. A consumer had made a ‘tweet’ slating one of the applications found within the Skype software and this ‘tweet’ like all tweets was filtered out to their ‘followers’. On the very same day a member of the ‘We Are Social’ team working on the Skype account had identified the ‘tweet’, its sender and responded with a concise explanation of how to best use the software and get the most out of it. Not expecting such a response the consumer submitted a subsequent ‘tweet’ singing the praises of the brand to all of his ‘followers’, thus resulting in positive word of mouth about the brand (Plasseraud, 2009).
However, before divulging is such conversations with consumers it is illustrated by Doubleday (2008, cited Precourt, 2008) that organizations should adhere to a formula of best practice in order to be trusted online and gain credibility. These attributes of best practice should include authenticity, transparency, integrity, accountability, empathy, humility with a responsiveness to solidify a solution and dignify the feedback. If a brand can deliver such attributes with their online presence, they will eventually become a trusted resource to the online community. Once trusted online, conversation agencies believe that engaging with consumers in meaningful, honest and on ‘their terms’ methods, can develop deep rooted and mutual understandings (We Are Social, 2009). Within these understandings positive word of mouth can be ignited which in today’s consumer driven society can be essential to a brands success (Precourt, 2008).

This emerging discipline could be described as blogging with a business edge; it is a discipline which extends the focus of traditional marketing into new realms and takes its place somewhere between customer service and digital marketing (Precourt, 2008). Kapferer (2008) discusses conversational marketing as an element of a 360Ëš brand experience, as it allows consumers to interact with the brand away from the traditional and build strong relations that encourage brand loyalty and repeat purchase.

Whilst this form of PR can be seen as revolutionary it must be appreciated as heavy in man-hours and thus costly (Baines et al, 2004). Although costly, these outgoings must in return be leveraged against the possible increase in brand equity through such actions (De Chernatony & McDonald, 1998). Positive word of mouth is a difficult attribute to acquire and one that can largely differentiate a brand from its competitors, as a survey conducted by Nielson Online (2008 cited Burmaster, 2008)) shows WOM as the most trusted form of advertising.

Like any form of online activity Twitter is not without its draw backs, especially for marketers. Goodin (2009) refers to the security issues that are associated with anything online and in particular the hacking of the famous celebrity Twitter accounts of Barack Obama and Britney Spears. On this occasion a hacker had gained access to their accounts and was ‘tweeting’ bogus and damaging information. The accounts had to be suspended until the rightful owners could gain control of them. The truth is that these are not isolated events and all of the top three social networking sites have at sometime or another been besieged by hackers. If this is the case then what is stopping brands and organizations becoming the next victims of digital crime. Sometimes a brand doesn’t even need to necessarily be hacked to fall victim to social media. As Bussey (2009) states a recent example being sweet brand Skittles, who decided that it would be a good idea to turn their homepage into a live tweet feed. They filtered all tweets featuring their brand name straight to their site encouraging consumers to be honest about their opinions of the brand. Unfortunately for Skittles this plan backfired as the brand was subject to an onslaught of abuse. This shows that if a brand is to indulge in social media it must first build up an online relationship with its consumers and from this gauge the level of hostility before making rash decisions to be involved online.

Although there are potential pitfalls involved with social media for brands, there are certainly more positives than negatives. The sort of personal interactions that can take place between brand and consumer within Twitter can reap mutual benefits, Arnould et al (2004), suggests that inter-personal ‘tweets’ can cultivate a learning relationship whereby each exchange creates further learning and companies can better tailor their products and services to individual needs.

Having looked at the ways in which Twitter can benefit marketers, it is also important to look at Twitter as a commercial organisation, because without generating revenue the benefits for marketers and consumers already covered with be liquidated with the organisation.
Currently Twitter receives funding from a number of different venture capitalist groups and has recently secured a further investment of $35 million in order to keep the business afloat. One of the companies founders Evan Williams (2009) acknowledged that this investment in the short term to get users on-board and involved is necessary to build to network base before considering monetising. Several different business models have been assessed by the organisation with search looking like the most likely to begin with, the site have looked into replicating Google’s search advertising platform as it is un-intrusive and could generate steady income, although Williams (2009) does not see the sites search facilities as any opponent to that of Google and nor is it trying to be.

Clays (2009 cited Media Week, 2009) has been analysing the options available to Twitter and suggests that as the service becomes more and more used by brands to communicate to consumers a potential charge could be put in place for facilitating these interactions. As well as this Twitter could also charge organisations for traffic generated or convert to targeted advertising like Facebook. The problem with the latter being that currently Twitter is viewed by its users as their domain and any attempt to change that may result in negative fallout (Marketing magazine.co.uk, 2009). Popular opinion suggest that when Twitter do finally decide to monetise the business that brands will be prepared to pay for access to consumers, however there is still the question of how much they will be willing to pay for this service and how consumers will respond. One thing is for sure and that is when Twitter do begin to monetise their site, they stay well away for the idea of charging consumers, as facebook have realised with their user generated group of nearly 2.3 million people stating their intention to leave if a fee is attached (Appendix 1).

In conclusion, Twitter has the potential to be a powerful and meaningful brand building, PR and customer service utility and can generate favourable WOM around the blogosphere as well as providing information and services to consumers that are both relevant and timely (Fill, 2005). In order for consumers to appreciate the technology they have access to free of charge, they must understand that at some point Twitter will have to start generating revenue. It will be at this point that consumers may have to sacrifice some of there ethical beliefs in order to receive free use of the software. Mutual benefits are available for both consumer and brand, now it is just a case of finding a happy medium of how to pay for it.

References

Arnould, E, Price, L & Zinkham, G (2004), Consumers, 2nd Edn, New York; McGraw-Hill

Baines, P, Egan, J & Jefkins, F (2004), Public Relations; Contemporary issues and techniques, Oxford; Butterwoth-Heinemann

Bussey, N (2009), Close Up: When consumers ambush best laid plans, Campaign, 13/03/09 Available: http://www.brandrepublic.com/Campaign/Features/Analysis/890417/Close-Up- When-consumers-ambush-best-laid-ad-plans/?DCMP=ILC-SEARCH, Last Accessed: 16/03/09

De Chernatony, L & McDonald, M (1998), Creating Powerful Brands; in consumer, service and industrial markets, 2nd Edn, Oxford; Butterworth-Heinemann

Earls, M (2007), What the twitter fad tells us about humans and human behaviour, Market Leader, Issue 37, pp. 56-57.

Fill, C (2005), Marketing Communications; engagement, strategies and practice, 4th Edn, Essex; Prentice Hall

Goodin, D (2009), Twitter’s veracity chewed up by Britney’s four-foot vagina; Attack of the Tweats, The Register, Available: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/06/twitter_attacks/, Last Accessed: 15/03/09

Kapferer, J. N, (2008), The New Strategic Brand Management; Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term, 4th Edn, London; Kogan Page

Kazeniac, A (2009), “Social Networks: Facebook Takes Over Top Spot, Twitter Climbs�, Available: http://blog.compete.com/2009/02/09/facebook-myspace-twitter-social- network/, Last Accessed: 16/03/09

Loudon, D.L. (1988), Consumer Behavior:Concepts and Applications, London; McGraw Hill

Marketingmagazine.co.uk (2009), Will brands be willing to pay to be on Twitter?, 23/02/09, Available: http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/news/884276/Will-brands-willing- pay-Twitter?DCMP=ILC-SEARCH, Last Accessed: 20/03/09

Media Week (2009), Will Twitter become a commercial success?, 11/03/09, Available: http://www.mediaweek.co.uk/news/888786/?DCMP=ILC-SEARCH, Last Accessed: 20/03/09

Plasseraud, S (2009), Lecture Notes: Guest Lecture – We Are Social, Unit IMS, Lecture Date: 12/03/09, Location: Bournemouth University.

Precourt, G (2008), Making mobile work for Ford and Nikon, and the latest insights into social networking – stories from Ad:Tech day two, Warc Online Exclusive, August 08, Available: www.warc.com, Last Accessed: 16/03/09

Twitter (2009), twitter.com, Available: http://twitter.com/, Last Accessed: 17/03/09

Williams, E (2009), Interview: Evan Williams CEO of twitter by Nicole Powers, Available: http://suicidegirls.com/interviews/Twitter+CEO+Evan+Williams/, Last Accessed: 17/03/09

Appendices

Appendix 1 – Facebook group: we will not pay to use facebook. We are gone if this happens.