In the world of research, traditionally we have Quantitative (the What) and Qualitative research (the Why) but what I have been finding in the last few years as I have been traveling further down the social media path with market research and marketing is that the two are converging together.
Recently I found that I had a bit of time on my hands so I decided to try and come up with a term for it, but so far the best I have formed is Quantilative.
So if anyone has a better term for this convergence of methodologies, would love to hear what it is!
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Killer Kat: Nestle V Greenpeace
I was talking with an associate today, telling him about the latest corporate social media dilemma that has befelled another blue chip company, this time no other than the world's largest food manufacturer.
It is a case, as with many social media battles, of David and Goliath. A financially small non-profit brand taking on the likes of the bigger-than-country-of-origin company. It is Greenpeace V's Nestle.
The cause, whilst even acknowledged by Nestle's reaction as somewhat worthy, is not the sensational part. What is impressive here is Greenpeace's call-to-arms, starting less than two weeks ago and already twisting Nestle's arm to an increasingly uncomfortable position.
It started with Greenpeace mocking the Kit Kat brand, parodying it as Killer Kat in a video which Greenpeace claimed that Nestle had removed from YouTube, but evidently is back up there.
But this was only the start... next there was a rally for people to sign up to Nestle's Facebook fan page, become a "fan", tell Nestle what they think and then "de-fan" Nestle. There was nothing but passionate protesters leaving their feedback on the site:
Jeremiah Owyang wrote an interesting piece on this earlier today (or yesterday depending on your time zone). Whilst he did not openly condemn the attack that was launched, his piece did seem to side more with the corporate and what to do to minimise such risks. However what he did not mention and what appeared in the discussion at the end of the piece was that for there to be such a protest, the brand should be evaluating their principles and ethics. My experience has been that the brands that get well received are generally because they are trying to do the right thing by it's customers and society, whether they want to or not.It is hard to use money in these situations to make the problem go away.
The question now is what is Nestle going to do? They released a piece saying that by 2015 they plan to only obtain Palm Oil from renewable sources but this is unlikely to be good enough for the protesters. The fact that they have not closed down the Facebook page may appear to be foolish on one hand, however it could also be the wise decision as it may be perceived as trying to run from the problem. Personally I think that they do need to start to talk with the protesters rather than pushing more news pieces and threats about their intentions... after all this is Social Media.
It appears that Nestle are not winning at the moment. Whether Greenpeace is winning either would really depend on whether they are trying to simply raise awareness or expect Nestle to change. That latter would probably depend on the financial impact they can have on the giant.
It is a case, as with many social media battles, of David and Goliath. A financially small non-profit brand taking on the likes of the bigger-than-country-of-origin company. It is Greenpeace V's Nestle.
The cause, whilst even acknowledged by Nestle's reaction as somewhat worthy, is not the sensational part. What is impressive here is Greenpeace's call-to-arms, starting less than two weeks ago and already twisting Nestle's arm to an increasingly uncomfortable position.
It started with Greenpeace mocking the Kit Kat brand, parodying it as Killer Kat in a video which Greenpeace claimed that Nestle had removed from YouTube, but evidently is back up there.
Jeremiah Owyang wrote an interesting piece on this earlier today (or yesterday depending on your time zone). Whilst he did not openly condemn the attack that was launched, his piece did seem to side more with the corporate and what to do to minimise such risks. However what he did not mention and what appeared in the discussion at the end of the piece was that for there to be such a protest, the brand should be evaluating their principles and ethics. My experience has been that the brands that get well received are generally because they are trying to do the right thing by it's customers and society, whether they want to or not.It is hard to use money in these situations to make the problem go away.
The question now is what is Nestle going to do? They released a piece saying that by 2015 they plan to only obtain Palm Oil from renewable sources but this is unlikely to be good enough for the protesters. The fact that they have not closed down the Facebook page may appear to be foolish on one hand, however it could also be the wise decision as it may be perceived as trying to run from the problem. Personally I think that they do need to start to talk with the protesters rather than pushing more news pieces and threats about their intentions... after all this is Social Media.
It appears that Nestle are not winning at the moment. Whether Greenpeace is winning either would really depend on whether they are trying to simply raise awareness or expect Nestle to change. That latter would probably depend on the financial impact they can have on the giant.
Labels:
Greenpeace,
Nestle,
Palm Oil
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
How does Nike engage
Not only do Nike have a great community for running but they also came out with this awesome tool that puts you in the shoes of Air Jordan Spokesman Mars Blackmon... check it out and have a play. Awesome customer engagement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
