In researching our recent report on Google Plus, I asked social listening and intelligence provider Converseon for some help. They agreed to review more than 2,500 direct user interactions with 20 leading brands on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Plus. (They tracked only direct user interactions, meaning posts directly onto brands' Facebook or Google Plus pages, comments on brands' Facebook or Google Plus posts, and @mentions of brands on Twitter. The brands were selected from among Interbrand's list of top global brands.) The goal? To determine whether those user interactions were mostly positive or mostly negative and to see whether the sentiment of user interactions varied by site.
In the end, that research didn't make it into the final report — but I thought you might like to see the data anyway, and the folks at Converseon agreed to let me share the results.
We expected there might be big differences in the tone of users' interactions with brands on each site. But it turns out about one-half of user interaction on each site was positive. And as for the question in the title of this blog post ("Do people complain more on Twitter or on Facebook?") — exactly one-fifth of user interaction on both Facebook and Twitter was negative.
Thanks again to Converseon for pulling this data and allowing us to share it here.
Recently the New York Times called Google Plus a ‘ghost town,’ and most marketers agree. I understand why. Even if you believe Google’s own user count (many don’t), Google Plus has only one-quarter as many global users as Facebook. Nielsen says that while Facebook users spend more than six hours per month on site, Plus users spend only seven minutes per month on site. Put simply, Google Plus isn’t the Facebook killer some hoped it would be.
But that doesn’t mean marketers should ignore Plus. Far from it: I believe every marketer should use Google Plus.
First, Google Plus has more users than you think. Yes, it pales in comparison to Facebook — but so do most other social sites. Rather than trust Google’s own user data, we decided to run our own survey. We asked more than 60,000 US online adults which social sites they used — and 22% told us they visited Google Plus each month. That’s the same number who told us they use Twitter, and more than told us they use LinkedIn, Pinterest, or Instagram. That means you can build a real follower base on Google Plus: On average, top brands have collected 90% as many fans on Plus as on Twitter. (In fact, the brands we studied have more followers on Google Plus than on YouTube, Pinterest and Instagram combined.)
Just four months later, the debate seems to be over. Is there any doubt now that Facebook has abandoned social marketing, and that its paid ad products aren’t delivering results for most marketers? Consider:
Marketers can now reach just 6% of their fans organically. When we published our research, some brands were surprised to find that Facebook only delivered posts to 16% of their fans. In December a leaked sales deck revealed that Facebook was telling marketers they should expect organic distribution of posts to decline further — but few could guess how far and how fast that distribution would fall. This month, Ogilvy released data showing that the brand pages they manage reach just 6% of fans. For pages with more than 500,000 fans, Ogilvy says reach stands at just 2%.
Last week we published a report on how "data in, data out" practices are the future of social relationship platforms — and just a week later, Google has made a big bet on the "data out" side of that equation.
In the report, we say that "'data out' will prove the value of social and improve the rest of your marketing [. . .] [by] powering effective targeting in everything from banner ads to TV spots." Readers familiar with our research will know we're talking about the database of affinity: a catalogue of people's tastes and preferences, collected by observing their social behaviors, that could revolutionize brand advertising.
Well, last night, Google announced it was shifting the focus of its Wildfire division (previously a full-service social relationship platform) away from managing brands' profiles on social networks and toward extracting social data to help it better build the database of affinity.
There are lots of reasons for this dissatisfaction, but the biggest is that most vendors just aren’t solving the problems that social relationship marketers face. Yesterday we published a new report detailing social relationship marketers' top challenges:
Measurement. Most just don't know what impact, if any, their Facebook pages and Twitter accounts have.
Content. Marketers struggle both to decide what type of content to publish, and then to find good content assets to use.
Staffing. Many say they just don't have enough human resources to handle the every tasks of social relationship marketing.
Scheduling. Marketers don't know when to post their content for maximum impact.
We evaluated established SRPs like Spredfast, Sprinklr, Shoutlet, Adobe Social, and salesforce.com’s Buddy Media, and found that none of them were good enough to fall into our “Leaders” category. Why? For one thing, most had significant gaps in their offerings.
But we also found that many of their customers weren’t terribly satisfied. Even though all the clients we spoke with were referred to us by the vendors themselves — and so presumably were amongst each SRP’s happiest customers — most had some reservations about the features, functionality, and service the vendors provided. In several cases, we were shocked by how little the reference clients thought of their technology partners.
One year later, we decided to check in on whether marketers had grown any more satisfied with their social relationship platforms. For a new report out today, we asked 56 marketers who used a variety of SRPs whether they’d recommend their vendor to a colleague — and found that overall, social relationship platforms have a Net Promoter Score of -16. Yes, that’s negative sixteen.
You have ten days left to enter the 2014 Forrester Groundswell Awards — and to receive recognition for your successful social programs. Winners receive a nice shiny trophy, a winner’s badge for your website, a free pass to the Forrester Marketing Leadership Forum in San Francisco, a chance to accept the award on stage, and lots of recognition in Forrester speeches and reports.
Not sure which category to enter? Check out this video, which explains all our categories.
Remember: The deadline is February 28, 2014 — and you can enter here.
We're now accepting entries for the 2014 Forrester Groundswell Awards – and our research associate Sarah Takvorian is here to share her thoughts about how you can with in the Social Relationship Marketing category:
Want to send Forrester a valentine this month? Submit your entry to our 2014 Forrester Groundswell Awards and show us your love for social marketing. The deadline for entries is February 28, and we’ll be presenting the winners at Forrester’s Marketing Leadership Forum in San Francisco this April.
For this eighth edition of our awards, we will continue to evaluate both B2C and B2B entries using Forrester’s RaDaR research for social marketing, selecting winners across three categories: Social Reach, Social Depth, and Social Relationship.
In 2013, we received nearly 150 entries from all over the world – but only a handful could win. Think you belong on the winner’s podium? Let’s take a look back at the two winners in last year’s Social Relationship group. This category recognizes social programs that engaged existing fans and customers in order to increase their lifetime value. (If your social program was designed to create loyalty and repeat business, it was probably an example of social relationship marketing.)
If you work in social media, you've been hearing variations on a theme for the past week: Facebook is in trouble! It's lost young users! It's getting crushed by upstart social networks! Eighty percent of its users will disappear in the next few years!
But as was the case with Mark Twain, reports of Facebook's death are an exaggeration:
That Princeton report seriously misses the mark. Last week, two Princeton PhD students circulated a report predicting Facebook would lose 80% of its users by 2017. They used epidemiological models to predict that, like MySpace before it, both the rise and fall of Facebook would look like the spread of a virus. But the research wasn’t peer-reviewed, and wasn’t published in any journal, and you can perhaps see why. Facebook itself did a pretty good job of pointing out the limitations of the researchers’ methodology. And I see another problem with this study: The MySpace ‘virus’ hardly mutated in all the years it infected the world, but the Facebook ‘virus’ mutates frequently. One of Facebook’s greatest strengths is its practice of regularly adding new features and functionality to its site; this both ensures it infects new users and also makes sure existing users don’t become immune to its charms.