I just found this article in the online version of the New York times:
http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/kodak-turns-to-twitter-for-easy-sharing/
And I must agree with Jeffrey Hayzlett from Kodak. I think the strategy they are following is correct and the way of the future. Internet has changed. It's no longer a platform for a digital version of a companies product catalog as it was back at the turn of the century. The so called "Web 2.0" has drastically changed the medium.
Todays internet is primarily an interactive medium and corporate presentation, the driving force in the web back during the 90s, has become a niche. If a company creates a nice static homepage they will end up way back on page “x” at google and no one will ever find them or their services. No matter how good or expensive it was to set up that hompage.
Whereas it was normal to go to a manufacturer homepage for information about a product, todays internet users might actually go a different route. I have had cases where people have posted tweet asking:
“I have a xyz camera. Does anyone know what ewa-marine housing I need”
Within seconds he had an answer from another user. PLUS a comment on the usability of our product. So what he got was the required information PLUS added value.
And I suppose that's what he knew to expect and the reason he did it.
Monitoring the forum ourselves, I w as able to chirp in and help him on his way.
Would he have gone to our webpage and check the cross reference list as well? And why didn't he do that in the first place. After all, he new our name and our address isn't very cryptic at www.ewa-marine.com. Oh well. That's something for specialists to investigate and analyze.
Fact is. Times are changing and we have to change with them.
Or to translate a German saying:
Those who don't go with the times, will be gone over time.
And what really surprises me in this regard: Lots of large corporations run very sad profiles on some of the social media. If I go and look at some of them in places like Twitter, I find boring standard backgrounds and less than 100 followers with a couple of short tweets / adds per month. What's a use of an expensive, cool homepage if you then go and “try to ruin” your good name with that kind of presence in the social media?
Any comments from your side about corporate presence in the online social media?
(Twitter, myspace, facebook, Flickr and Co.)
I'd really like to hear fom you.
2 comments:
I think social media is a must for business. You are very correct in the 'added value' you mentioned about not only being able to get directed to your product, but a helpful comment as well, not to mention the interaction that took place that otherwise would not have, had the customer merely gone to your website. We may not all agree that this is the way to 'create a relationship', but now days it is.
It's what people are doing. You really do have to go with the flow when it comes to this kind of thing...and it's free, so why not.
Agreed. Advertising Age's "Why I Hate Social Media" brings relevance to the media norm today, although the product, creating its niche, individuality and connecting emotions and engaging the branding remain priorities with the social media affecting the distribution, image and "go-to" of that very product/service. If you don't stay ahead of it, you'll fall very sadly behind. Bottom line: affect to the bottom line!
Post a Comment