x-posted from www.thatdigitalstuff.com
All three search engines have started showing Twitter results among the search results. This is a profitable move for Twitter and a questionable move for Yahoo, Google and Microsoft. One that could go really right or really wrong. There are also important implications for brands to consider. But probably the most important and interesting point of consideration is this: If the search engines, who have made billions of dollars refining search results based on user needs, think that consumer-generated content “improves” their offering, at what point will branded content even have a say in the consumer experience? At what point will branded content get kicked to the back row? I’d argue that this movement has already begun. Twitter results on Google? Case in point.
Research has repeatedly shown that people trust their friends and family more than any other source. In fact, according to a 2008 AdAge Article, recommendations from family and friends trump all other consumer touchpoints, further proving the impact of word of mouth. It is also known that consumers rely more heavily on a “person like them” than on branded content (Edelman, 2007). What the search engines have done by adding Twitter posting to their results is amplified this affect. They have taken the person-like-me-affect and made it easier to access, to review and to act on.
if social networking and consumer-generated content grows and begins to supplant real content, at what point does “real” information even matter? If word of mouth is the best form of information and people trust their friends more than anyone else, why bother ever looking at branded content? Wikipedia is a great example of this. Wikipedia, a consumer-generated information site, on average has 72 Million visitors a month. Compare this to Encyclopedia Britannica, traditionally a trusted expert source in information, who has only 3 Million visitors a month. (Quantcast, 12/18/09) This is the point where consumers have said “I trust other consumers, more than branded content.” Now this isn’t so bad- Wikipedia is a great place for information - but what about the implications for retail marketers?
If I am a consumer and statistically speaking I am more interested in what Jimbo948 has to say about the Droid phone than Verizon, why would I even look at what Verizon has to say? I’d rather follow up with Jimbo948.
See, consumers are able to say whatever they want about brands and brands have no ability to stop it. Brands can contribute to the conversation, which if done properly can improve brand perception and make them a leader in the space, (e.g. Zappos, WholeFoods). However, if done poorly companies can hurt themselves further, by going off message or trying to be something they are not. If brands ignore the conversation all together (e.g. Motrin), then consumers are left to fire at will, with no brand input. Of course brands have been dealing with the influence of social media for some time now, but this situation used to be limited to dot.coms and the privacy of personal social networking apps. In most cases, brands didn’t even know conversations were happening. But now that consumer-generated brand “messaging” appears among search results, brands not only have less control, they have to know it’s happening.
So what are brands to do? They should embrace social networking. They should get involved in the conversation in an appropriate, non-intrusive manner. They should enable their consumers with content, and then leave the reach and distribution to the masses. Brands can no longer control the dissemination of messaging, and they need to recognize that consumers are now their eyes, ears and mouths. The brands that become most comfortable with this, most quickly, will be successful. The ones that do not…well they are leaving it all up to “people -like -me”.
Comments are closed.