Session Blog Reviews

Posts Tagged ‘Research’

It’s notoriously difficult to measure the value of social media—but apparently not impossible. Social media specialist Vitrue looked at its clients’ data for Facebook to determine exactly how much a Facebook fan is worth, as AdWeek reports , and they came up with a number: $3.60 . Vitrue’s clients boast a combined 41 million Facebook fans. For the most part, each fan yielded an extra impression. They assumed twice-daily posts bringing in 60M impressions and used a $5 CPM, “meaning a brand’s 1 million fans generate about $300,000 in media value each month. Using Vitrue’s calculation, Starbucks’ 6.5 million fan base — acquired in part with several big ad buys — is worth $23.4 million in media annually.” Not all brands are created equal. Vitrue found wildly divergent impression-to-fan ratios. Some marketers generated just .44 impressions per fan, while another saw 3.6 impressions. [Michael Strutton, chief product officer at Vitrue,] chalked that up to sexier brands having more engaged connections, giving them access to the news feed more often. The impressions are not unique. The $3.60 figure is the value over the course of a year, but is only a basic figure, since it doesn’t take into account engagement value, or the value of secondary mentions (such as when your fan page activity shows up on a user’s profile, and someone who isn’t your fan sees the post). What do you think? What are Facebook fans worth to your company? Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

More here:
How Much Are Facebook Fans Worth? $3.60

New research from Brightcove and TubeMogul ’s joint video analytics venture suggests that Twitter may be a magic bullet for online video consumption. While Twitter’s 140-characters aren’t exactly designed to cure adult ADD, Twitter’s referral traffic to video sites shows that those visitors actually watch videos longer than the average user, and especially the average user from search. This research focused specifically on music videos from the four big music labels (Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and EMI Music). And they found that: consumers that find online music videos via Twitter watch an average of 2:30 minutes per stream compared to the 1:30 minutes viewed on average by consumers discovering online music videos via search engines like Yahoo!. However, 76% of online music videos viewed on artist and label sites are found through Google searches. So it’s also possible that a smaller sample size is affecting the amount of time spent on a video, too. Perhaps Twitter’s audience isn’t the same as Yahoo’s (gasp!). TubeMogul released research last year that showed that more than half of all online video watchers moved on by about 60 seconds into a video. So either things are already looking up for average video consumption, or search is better than pure average, but not nearly as good as Twitter average. AllThingsD’s Peter Kafka gives a logical explanation : “A search result may get you something you think you want. But a recommendation from a Twitter pal means even more — if they like it, and you like them, you’re probably more likely to invest more time.” What do you think? Do you watch videos recommended by your Tweeple longer than Yahoo’s? Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

Read more:
Twitter + Video = Magic! (And Engagement!)

While it’s not a surprise that social media is growing it can often be a bit stunning to hear some ‘actual’ numbers to back up the assertions and assumptions that the industry itself can be prone to making. The latest data that tells us about who is involved in social media comes from Arbitron and Edison Research via MediaPost . What it shows is that the young crowd has greater saturation in who has profiles but the older age groups are seeing large percentage increases in social networking profiles. This should make marketers happy because the older the person the more money (supposedly) there is to buy stuff. Overall, though, about half of the people in the US aged 12 and older have at least one social network. Here’s a picture for you. You can get a copy of the Arbitron presentation here . Another point of interest in the study, which was done in January on the phone with 1,753 participants includes the following insight into the importance of TV vs. the Internet. While the percentage growth of use in social networks is on the climb in older Americans it is obvious that if faced with a choice between the Internet or TV, the older you are the more tied to TV you are. With so many people tied more and more to their social networks online there is plenty of work for marketers to do. What will be the most important task is to make sure that marketing programs are never weighted too heavily toward one medium or another. It is not likely that an online only approach will yield optimal results and the same holds in the reverse. So while the numbers may be interesting what will be most interesting is the response by those trying to reach consumers through these channels. How do you see this playing out between the Internet and TV in this decade? When we look back in 2020 will the Internet be the king or will there still be a balance? We would love to hear your thoughts. Join the Marketing Pilgrim Facebook Community

More here:
Research Shows Social Media and TV Importance By Age

40% of online consumers turn to social media in managing their health, according to a new survey by Epsilon . 80% of those engaging with social media in their health care are “the highly engaged patient[s] who [take] an active role in health management.” However, most people using social media for healthcare aren’t asking Dr. Twitter for a diagnosis. First and foremost, they’re looking for connections, says Epsilon: Emotional needs are primary. Many healthcare social media users want reassurance, support, and a sense of intimacy from people who are going through a similar experience; Rational needs are secondary, but also important. Social media users are searching for foundational information about their specific conditions and symptoms, information about drugs and supplements, and the latest health news. For the 60% who don’t participate in social media, they most often cited relying on a doctor’s advice as the reason. (I assume they mean they’re satisfied with the doctor’s advice, and not that the doctor advised them not to go online.) Lack of time and trust in social media were other popular reasons. And the usual suspects when it comes to social media aren’t the top choices here. “Third party health-related sites are the most important destinations for both social and editorial content,” Epsilon says, “but their level of credibility varies.” The survey indicated that governmental and NGO endorsements would increase their trust. Epsilon lists the ADA and the FDA as examples. (Ha! If only people knew what a racket some of those places are.) However, “Many people have mixed feelings about how pharmaceutical companies should participate in websites and social media—but most are open to some level of participation, as long as it is transparently disclosed.” What do you think? Do you turn to social media for health care concerns? Would you be more likely to do so with FDA etc. approval on these sites?

The rest is here:
Is Dr. Twitter In?

Branding is a sometimes-elusive concept in marketing. We all know we want to build consumers’ like, trust and respect for our brands, but there isn’t a set way to do that. It’s hard to quantify progress in branding (unless you’ve got the moolah to spend on large, brand-specific surveys). But a new Harris Poll may help us avoid negative branding tactics—to an extent. The bottom line: be careful who you choose as your spokesman . Case in point: me and Local Company. I’m not sure what brand message LC is trying to portray in their commercials, screaming “WE LOVE YOU!!!” at the end of poorly made, increasingly obnoxious, obviously local spots. Probably that they may be clinically insane. (If you really loved me, you’d never make another commercial.) When I came across their ad on Facebook this week, I hit the little gray X in the corner of the ad, and gave FB the reason of “This company is so freakin’ annoying.” The Harris poll shows I’m not the only one who would do the same thing. 35% of Americans have chosen not to purchase a product because they found the company’s ads distasteful, and another 28% just because the spokesman was obnoxious (another 22% thought about each of those). 27% chose not to purchase because they didn’t like a brand-sponsored program or event. The results held steady across most ages, although those over 55 were slightly more likely not to buy for those reasons. Men and women were roughly equal in not buying because of distasteful ads, but men were more likely to not buy for the other two reasons. Interestingly, distasteful ads were as much as turn off for 18-34 year olds as for 55+s. Harris also found some correlation with income level and tendency not to buy because of annoying spokesman—a third of those making $75k+/yr chose not to buy for that reason, while a quarter of those making $35k or less a year gave the same reason. (The in-between range was in between: 28%.) Education level also showed some correlation: 29% of those with a HS diploma or less chose not to buy because they found the ads distasteful, while 43% of college grads gave the same reasoning. Why People Choose NOT To Purchase Certain Brands (Education and Income; % of Category Saying "Ever Done So”)