Is The Social Media Slumber Finally Over For Big Brands?

Perhaps it is because I am the father of a 13-year old daughter but whenever I hear the word "slumber" I immediately think of the phrase "slumber party" - which then conjures up fun, unless of course you are the host parent of said party.

However, if you're a big brand, say on the level of a Fortune 500 brand, your "state of inactivity" - AKA your slumber - when it comes to social media, may finally be over. At least it may finally be over for some as that's the indication one gets from reviewing data from a recent study from the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Center for Marketing Research.

You can clearly see the uptake in social media usage across the board re: the big social media networks. Most notably is the increase in blogging among Fortune 500 companies - up 28% in just one year.

However, the study delved deeper into blogging and in fact showed that blogging among Fortune 500 companies is up over 112% since 2008.

And try this stat on for size re: blogging: Brands ranked in the top (Fortune) 200 were more likely to blog than those ranked 300-500.

Coincidence?

Here's some other findings/stats:

• The 171 Fortune 500 corporations with blogs represented 58 of 75 industries in the Fortune 500.
• 8 of the top 10 corporations actively post on Twitter.
• 72 of the 75 industries represented in the Fortune 500 use Facebook &  Twitter
• Only 1 of the top 10 companies (Ford Motors) is on Instagram.
• Walmart is the only company among the top 10 to use Foursquare.
• Half of the top 10 have a Pinterest board.

And speaking of Pinterest, in what should come as no surprise to anyone, it has seen a growth of 350% YOY, 2012 to 2013, going from 2% to 9% adoption among Fortune 500 brands. It is worth noting we're talking very low numbers - 11 companies in 2012 to 45 in 2013 but, you can surely expect to see that number increase as more and more brands take full advantage of the visual-social networks.

Why Has It Taken So Long?

I am a very curious person by nature so when confronted with facts and figures like those above I am left wondering "why has it taken so long for so many large, multi-billion dollar brands to realize what we already know?"

Social media is not a fad. It is not going to go the way of other fads and one day be found on sale on eBay or discovered by the American Pickers sitting in someone's farm with dust and cobwebs over it.

It is where your customers and future customers are spending more and more of their time so why would you not want to be there with them?

Not that should I have to do this but I will anyway.

Just some, some of the latest stats re: social media usage:

• 27% of time spent online is on a social network
• Facebook has 1.11 billion monthly active users
• Twitter has over 550 million users
• More than 1 billion unique users visit YouTube each month
• There are more than 2.1 million LinkedIn groups
• Pinterest has nearly 50 million users

So why Mr. & Mrs. Brand?

Why has it taken you so long to come around and why so others among you continue to resist the open invitation to join the party - the social media slumber party?

Here's a few of the reasons I believe it took so many brands to accept the invitation and/or continue to refuse it:

• Fear. Pure, unadulterated fear. Fear, when it comes to social media, comes in many shapes and sizes and at or near the top of the list for brands is fear of saying something or doing something stupid - for all the world to see.
• Lack of true ROI. This reason is perhaps trotted out by more brands as to why they don't participate in social media. Plenty of articles written about this topic. Here's a real good one from Natalie Burg, my fellow Forbes contributor: How To Measure Your Social Media Return On Investment
• Lack of content. I think there are still a great number of brands - both big and small, who know they need to be at the party but simply do not know what to say; what to share, what to post and on and on and on. So they choose to watch from afar, hoping one day to take the leap - which of course they won't and it won't matter anyway for it will be too late.

The bottom line to all of this is very simple in my humble opinion.

Now, more than ever, it is vital to establish and maintain a relationship with consumers. And short of going door-to-door or inviting everyone over for a backyard BBQ, the next best alternative is to interact, engage and relate to them via social media.

Come join the social media slumber party.

Pajamas are optional.

Sources: Marketing Charts, umassd.edu, activecommunities.com

Named one of the Top 100 Influencers In Social Media (#41) by Social Technology Review and a Top 50 Social Media Blogger by Kred, Steve Olenski is a senior creative content strategist at Responsys, a leading global provider of on-demand email and cross-channel marketing solutions. He is a also a member of the Editorial Board for the Journal of Digital & Social Media Marketing and co-author of the book StumbleUpon For Dummies. He can be reached via Twitter, LinkedIn or Email. 

The Real Reason GM Left Facebook

So GM is pulling its $10 million Facebook ad budget and we all are now left to ponder who will be next, right?

In their official statement GM marketing chief Joel Ewanick said “We regularly review our overall media spend and make adjustments as needed. This happens as a regular course of business and it’s not unusual for us to move our spending around various media outlets – especially with the growth of multiple social and digital media outlets. In terms of Facebook specifically, while we currently do not plan to continue with advertising, we remain committed to an aggressive content strategy through all of our products and brands, as it continues to be a very effective tool for engaging with our customers.”

Blah, blah and blah.

GM is pulling their money from Facebook just as they would pull an account from an ad agency. There is no difference.

See, somewhere along the way to IPO nirvana the folks at Facebook forgot the one cardinal rule in advertising – always keep the client happy and do whatever you can to please them.

Anyone who has been in advertising for longer than 30 seconds knows this is the way of life. Like or not, and a lot of times we don’t like it, that is the way it is. How many times of those of in the ad agency world have griped and complained about a given client’s decision to change this or alter that only to realize at the end of the day, the client is paying the bills – literally?

Fearless Forrester Forecaster

In what maybe a bit of a Nostradamus-esque bit of foresight Forrester analyst Nate Elliott wrote last November that he hasn’t “spoken to many companies that are thrilled with their Facebook programs.”

And on May 14th, on the eve of the announcement from GM and on the quasi-eve if you will of Facebook’s IPO, Elliott wrote “Facebook still hasn’t stumbled upon a model that’s proven consistently successful for marketers, or that brings in the massive revenues to match the site’s massive user base.

Hmm, catch the use of the words “stumbled upon?” Probably nothing but thought it was worth mentioning.

Regardless, they are some very telling words coming from Elliott and speak to the issue that I think is prevalent which is Facebook seems to put more emphasis on its members than it does on those who allow for the site to even exist in the first place – the advertisers.

Elliott seems to agree with my take writing “Facebook just doesn’t pay nearly as much attention to marketing as it does to user experience. If Facebook did pay much attention to the marketers who handed it billions of dollars last year, and who make the site’s very existence possible, maybe we’d see innovative new marketing solutions every six months rather than every few years.”

I’m not saying, and I don’t think Elliott is either, that there needs to be a higher value placed on satisfying marketers and advertisers than on consumers, but rather there should be an equal amount of time and effort devoted to each.

One last thing from Elliott, which he labeled as being “shocking” – and I would certainly agree with him, is that one global consumer goods company told Forrester recently that “Facebook was getting worse, rather than better, at helping marketers succeed. And companies in industries from consumer electronics to financial services tell us they’re no longer sure Facebook is the best place to dedicate their social marketing budget.”

So Is Facebook Doomed?

Of course not.

GM’s decision is sending shock waves for sure through the halls of big brands and smaller ones, too. I’m sure many are openly questioning their own Facebook ad buying strategies. So it will be interesting to see the fallout from all of this.

There is also the possibility that GM’s poor Facebook ad experience is self-inflicted.

In the original Wall Street Journal article, where the news of GM’s decision first appeared, there was mention made of a meeting held earlier this year in which reps from Facebook actually criticized GM’s approach of having multiple firms managing its advertising for the site.

Too many cooks in the Facebook kitchen?

Somehow I think that plays a role in all of this but, be that as it may – and I think it’s a small role, Facebook still needs to do a better job at helping the folks who keep them in business.

They need to provide better tools to the marketers and advertisers.

They need to keep them happy.

Sources: Wall Street Journal, Forrester

Named one of the Top 100 Influencers In Social Media (#41) by Social Technology Review, I am a freelance writer/blogger currently looking for full-time work. I have worked on some of the biggest brands in the world and have over 20 years experience in advertising and marketing. I live in Philly and can be reached via email,Twitter, LinkedIn or here, my website.