Social Marketing exChange

In social marketing, behavioral change is one of the key benchmarks of success. Some of the most influential social marketing campaigns over the last decade have motivated people to change their habits in a way that benefits their health, as well as the wellbeing of those around them.

With the advent of social media, measurement has evolved. We now consider metrics such as the number of followers or “fans”, in addition to traditional metrics such as behavior change.

But are these types of social media metrics still relevant? Has the bar been raised?

Eran Gefen, CEO and co-founder of FanGager, definitely thinks so. In a recent blog post, Gefen argues that collecting fans is no longer enough:

“To move to the next stage in the social media evolution, brands need to start focusing on actively engaging their fans over a sustained period of time. An active fan is one who has a relationship with a brand and, at least once a month, reacts to posts on the brand page, indicates a liking for various content, retweets a brand’s messages or creates original content on the page.”

Ogilvy has established a proprietary approach to measuring social media initiatives, Conversation Impact, which segments and incorporates metrics into three key categories: Reach/Awareness, Preference, and Action:

• Reach and awareness metrics include the number of followers a campaign or brand has on Twitter
• Preference metrics include sentiments of online conversation and fan counts on Facebook
• Advocacy and action metrics include the number of individuals who share a message with friends or download an application or widget from a campaign website

 A self-report of engaging in a specific behavior—when directly linked to a campaign’s messaging—is also considered an “advocacy” and “action” metric. This can be measured using a specially developed application to allow such reporting.

But despite gains made in measuring social media’s inherent value, new questions such as Gefen’s have emerged. He believes we are nearing the end of social media’s buzz stage – where everyone is doing something just because everyone else is doing it. And he may be right. Research indicates that current social media metrics realistically serve as a proxy for stronger, yet-to-be-identified measurements.

What do you think? Have we evolved beyond fan counts?

Keep following the Social Marketing exCHANGE blog to learn more about the future of social media metrics, and their role in social marketing interventions.

By now, many of you have probably read about an editorial in the latest issue of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) which asserts that British researcher Andrew Wakefield’s study linking autism to childhood vaccines is an “elaborate fraud.”  According to BMJ, Wakefield used “bogus data” to support claims that launched a “worldwide scare over the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine.”

Following the release of Wakefield’s study in 1998, concerned parents worldwide began to refuse the MMR vaccine for their children, fearful that their sons or daughters may eventually develop autism.  Over the years, celebrity autism advocates such as Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy celebrated Dr. Wakefield’s study as “historic” and encouraged parents to question the need to vaccinate their children.

The National Autism Association also openly defends and supports Wakefield’s work.

These advocates’ efforts eventually contributed to a drastic increase in measles cases nationwide.  According to the CDC, more cases of measles were reported in the U.S. in 2008 than in any other year since 1997.

But are misinformed autism advocates really the only ones responsible for the jump in measles cases?

The BMJ editorial goes as far as blaming the media, researchers and the U.S. government for the outbreak of anti-vaccine sentiment:

“… the damage to public health continues, fueled by unbalanced media reporting and an ineffective response from government, researchers, journals and the medical profession.”

In this statement, BMJ appears to imply that the public health community should have worked more vigorously to correct the potentially dangerous misinformation creeping through the Internet and public airways.

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter who is to blame.  Wakefield’s study gained sufficient media and public attention to impact vaccine rates, and if the BMJ editorial is accurate, measles cases jumped as a result.

Public health communicators should use the autism/vaccine debate as a case study in how to combat bad science in the public arena. Because nowhere is misinformation more dangerous than in the public health sphere.

What do you think? How can public health communicators learn from this case study?  Post your thoughts in the comment box below.

To find out more about the history of the autism/vaccine debate, check out Darryl Cunningham’s clever cartoon storyboard.

A new celebrity-fueled social media campaign has been labeled by “dead on arrival” based on its slow-to-start performance last week.

Songstress Alicia Keyes solicited nearly 20 celebrities to commit to a “Digital Death” in which they are forbidden from using Facebook or Twitter until $1 million has been raised for Keyes’ AIDS charity, Keep a Child Alive. Fans can bring their favorite celebrity “back to life” by donating through the campaign’s website. Organizers promised that when the campaign’s $1 million goal is reached, “everyone will be back online and tweeting in no time.”

As of 10:30 a.m. today, the campaign had raised only $298,718 of its $1 million goal, suggesting that a digital blackout by celebrities isn’t a strong motivator for Americans to open their checkbooks. News of the campaign’s own “digital death” seems to have eclipsed its fundraising goal, and the mission of a worthy organization. (Although nearly $140,000 has been raised since the campaign was labeled “DOA” on Friday.)

Celebrity-watchers expressed surprise that the effort hasn’t been more of an out-of-the-gate success, given participation from A-listers such as Justin Timberlake, Lady Gaga, Ryan Seacrest, and Serena Williams.

So where did the “Digital Death” campaign go wrong? Should celebrities leverage social media for social causes?

Margaret Lyons of Entertainment Weekly believes that Keyes’ campaign may have fallen short in one key area – rewarding its supporters.  Lyons points to Stephen Colbert’s efforts to raise more than $500,000 for Donors Choose by promising Reddit users that, if they raised the money, he’d answer their questions on the site. This “fund-and-reward-your-fans model,” Lyons notes, may be more effective than threats of a “digital death.”

The problems don’t end there.

According to Yahoo! News, organizers put a $10 minimum on donations. While that may not seem like a large sum, it can be a hefty price to pay during tough economic times, particularly for younger fans. Also, if the celebrities had been kept online during the donation process, as Yahoo! celebrity writer Dylan Stableford suggests, more money may have been raised. Stableford recommended approaching the campaign from the angle of “if fans [don't] meet the stated goal, then kill [the celebrities] off, one by one.”

Ultimately, the “Digital Death” campaign presents a number of important lessons for social marketers interested in engaging celebrities for a good cause:

Don’t silence your most effective spokespersons during the height of a campaign. Social media is about spreading the message, not suppressing it. Digital spokespersons are often what keep your target audiences interested and engaged throughout the lifecycle of a campaign, and silencing their voices or limiting their presence can be extremely detrimental in the short- and long-term.

Understand the limits of your target audience. Given that nearly all of the celebrities involved in the “Digital Death” campaign appeal to teen and millennial audiences, there should not have been a minimum donation requirement. During tough economic times, even small donations can be significant.

Don’t overestimate the value of your “reward.”  Clearly, bringing Alicia Keyes and her celebrity contemporaries “back to life” on Twitter and Facebook wasn’t a large enough incentive or “reward” for fans to donate. When creating a reward for a campaign, it’s important to have a clear sense of how valuable that reward is in the minds of your potential funders. Will it improve their day-to-day lives? Provide them with information that’s not available elsewhere? These are all important considerations.

What do you think of Keyes’ campaign? How long do you think it will take to “resurrect” all of the celebrities?

Last week, the Pew Internet & American Life Project released a report that should serve as a wake-up call for those studying the intersection between the Internet and public health.

Pew’s report focused on what might be called the “wealth gap,” namely that those in higher-income households are different from other Americans in their tech ownership and use.

This isn’t a new concept, and the existence and ramifications of income disparities has been covered ad nauseum throughout the Great Recession. What I find most troubling (and fascinating) about Pew’s findings is the following:

“Internet users in the top income brackets are more likely to search for medical information online, seek treatment information, seek material about doctors and medical facilities, and get data concerning test results.”

The “top is income bracket” includes individuals making $75,000+ annually.

Digital information seeking can translate into Americans making more informed, empowered decisions regarding their health. If the “wealth gap” is sustained, millions of low-income Americans will continue to miss out on a viable alternative source of health information.

People living at or below the federal poverty level are significantly more likely to be uninsured, and as a result, are less likely to have access to affordable care. Consequently, they are one of the populations most in need of credible, alternative sources of health care information.

The gap between rich and poor is most pronounced in the area of digital information seeking around medical issues.  Fully 80 percent of Pew’s survey respondents in the $75,000+ income bracket have searched for information about a medical issue online – nearly 30 percentage points greater than the least wealthy individuals surveyed.

Those respondents who could be classified as “middle class” (i.e., those making between $50,000 and $74,999) did not fare much better.  Only 66 percent of respondents in this income bracket reported that they had searched for information about a medical issue online.

Searches for medical facilities represented the smallest gap (previous reports by Pew have reported similar findings).

So what does this mean for social marketers?

1. Recognize that income is only one of many barriers to digital health information seeking. There are numerous barriers which contribute to Americans staying offline to search for health information. These include a lack of trust in the credibility of information found online, and a lack of time to devote to digital health information seeking.
2.  
3. Consider mobile as a digital information sharing alternative. Only 40 percent of Americans earning less than $30,000 per year have broadband access at home, whereas 75 percent of Americans in this income bracket own a cell phone. While not all mobile phones provide Internet access, nearly all are equipped with SMS/text capabilities, a viable channel for sharing digital health information.
5. Accept that not all of us will evolve into “e-patients.”  Certain populations, regardless of income, are expected to remain offline for the foreseeable future.  The very elderly for example, will likely continue to rely on their doctors and “connected” loved ones to help them make informed health care decisions.

Pew’s survey was conducted in late 2009 and 2010, and with today’s evolving economic and health care environment, it’s likely that these findings have shifted and will continue to shift throughout 2011.  But even as the nation’s economic situation improves, even small social and economic inequalities are detrimental to the health of any nation or society.

Ogilvy Washington and the Center for Social Impact Communication at Georgetown University have released a white paper, Using Social Media Platforms to Amplify Public Health Messaging, developed and created under the 2010 Social Marketing Fellowship

You can access the white paper by clicking here.

Please join us for a Social Marketing exCHANGE on Tuesday, November 16 from 8:00 to 9:30 a.m.  to learn more about how people are talking about public health issues online in 2010, and where they will go to find information about health care in 2011.  You can also follow this event online using the Twitter hashtag #ogilvyexchg.

With Election Day less than a week away, conversations about public health and health care in general are buzzing on- and off-line.  So as a social marketer I’m wondering, “How are people talking about public health issues online in 2010?  Where will they go to find information about health care in 2011?”

These are just some of the questions I’ll touch on during a Social Marketing exCHANGE on Tuesday, November 16 at Ogilvy Washington (click here or check out the invitation below for details).

I’m co-moderating a panel of five social marketing and digital influence experts who will answer questions about social media best practices in public health and social marketing. These experts include:

• – Susannah Fox, Associate Director, Digital Strategy, Pew Research Center
• – Irfan Kamal, Social Media Evaluation Expert, Ogilvy Digital Influence Group
• – Marie Cocco, Director, National Communications, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
• – Jessica Kutch, Website Coordinator, Service Employees International Union
• – Joel Selzer, CEO and Co-Founder, Ozmosis

We’ll also discuss issues such as implementing national-level communications efforts around complex public health issue, and what metrics the most effective campaigns are using to evaluate their efforts.

I’ll conduct a brief review of my white paper, Using Social Media to Amplify Public Health Messaging, during the exCHANGE.  This paper was developed under the Social Marketing Fellowship created by Ogilvy Washington and the Center for Social Impact Communication at Georgetown University.

If you can’t join us on November 16, post your questions as comments here, and we’ll share them with our expert panel.