Today’s FT story on ‘super advocates’ in social networks got me thinking about how web 2.0 platforms are being used to sell all manner of wares. That line of thought inevitably drew me to consider whether my own information sources are subject to something similar. Likeminded ideas, opinions and politics can be worth a lot to an organisation looking for support.
It all led from a report conducted by Experian and Hitwise. They suggest companies looking to exploit social networks for sales should leave some funds from their marketing budgets aside to ‘court’ ‘super advocates’ on social networks. These are well known, respected and influential members of a particular social networking area.
By using the credibility of such advocates products, services or events can be recommended with credibility to readers. In other words, viral marketing.
The tale of caution the report pushes is that the very credibility of the ‘super-advocate’ and therefore the social network will be called into question if readers perceive they are being sold to. Users will jump ship – and jump rapidly if they smell a rat.
All cynicism to one side, I doubt that this kind of practice is just limited to the commercial sector. And that’s what got my attention; how do we know who is the real-deal and who isn’t? For the record, Incisive Media who own IWR, are themselves owned by venture capitalist giant Apax.
In our arena we use social networking sites for professional purposes; learning, making contacts or keeping up to date with the latest developments. On this very blog we often recommend product x or service y to our readers. Something we think that might help you work a little better; hopefully you trust our recommendations are genuine.
Cabinet Ministers (actual and shadow) seem to regularly be in the spotlight due to their own or department’s poor information practices. There are checks and balances in place to maintain credibility and quite rightly so. Meanwhile if the press step out of line there is the Press Complaints Commission to go to.
As far as I’m aware there isn’t an online equivalent (not that it would be workable) for bloggers and other social networking butterflies to adhere to. Keeping a credible reputation must be something every social networker strives for.
Credibility is king, so transparency is a must, but what should we be telling each other online to maintain this?
No comments:
Post a Comment