Want exclusive? Be influential.

Good news everyone: We have finally reached a point in society where you can get exclusive VIP access into the newest and hottest fashion boutiques, even if you’re not a celebrity or really, really, ridiculously good looking. 

Chances are that if you have had more of a social life on the Internet than in real life itself, you’re probably going to have a high Klout score.

Yes, Klout.

Klout is a website that calculates a score based on a person’s online and social networking influence. It works by firstly connecting all of your social networks to Klout (such as Facebook, Twitter, Google+, LinkedIn, Foursquare, YouTube, Instagram, Tumblr, Blogger, Wordpress and Flickr). From this, your Klout score is based on a variety of elements such as number of Facebook likes, fans and shares, number of Twitter followers, retweets and mentions and LinkedIn connections etc. Users are given a score between 1 and 100. The higher your score is, the more influential you are deemed to be online.

To put this into perspective, people with high Klout scores include:

• Barack Obama has a score of 99
• Justin Bieber - 94
• Julia Gilliard - 68

As the retail world jumps on the online shopping bandwagon, businesses are getting creative on how to generate excitement and draw attraction to their new website. A new Melbourne based online shopping website called Jasu has done exactly that by only letting online shoppers with a Klout score of 40 or above access to their website for the first two weeks. The reason for this is to create an exclusive barrier for the influential people of the online community so that they can then send out a positive word to their followers. 

New online shopping website - Jasu

This is something that is reasonably unheard of in cyberspace.

In the traditional world of retailing, a boutique fashion store’s grand opening has always been an exclusive event involving influential fashion trend setters, industry experts and celebrities to get the town talking. And now, we’re starting to see it happen online.

The real issue is, whether Klout is the best method of determining who should and should not get access. Discussions at Uni this week and research in social media has found that people believe that Klout is not a true indication of measuring influence, rather the potential for it instead. Others say it is flawed, irrelevant and “crap”.

Recent studies have shown that the average Australian has a Klout score between 25 and 29. So, like many other Australians, I’ll have to wait until Jasu’s website opens up to everyone to judge it for myself. But in my opinion, if you’ve seen one online shopping website, you’ve seen them all and creating an exclusive opening most likely won’t change that.

Do you think we will see more new websites use this exclusive access strategy in the future? Is there a better way to determine who the online influencers are?

No like for ASB ruling

If I was to purchase a bottle of Pump water… take a photo of myself drinking from it…  Instagram it… then post it on Pump Australia’s Facebook page with the caption ‘GR8EST WATER EVA’  – is this advertising for Pump Australia? Or is this just my humble opinion about the product?

The answer to these questions was cemented during the week, when a landmark ruling was brought down by the Australian Advertising Standards Board (ASB). The ruling was featured quite heavily in newspapers and marketing websites and had lawyers saying Mr Burns’ favourite quote: ‘excellent’. All because it controversially misses the point of social media and possibly changes social media marketing as we know it.

As a marketing student, it was a pretty exciting week to be at University.

Long story short, the ASB ruled that Facebook pages (and other social media pages) used by businesses are considered to be advertising. Further, businesses have total responsibility over the comments that are made on their Facebook pages which must comply with the Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA) Code of Ethics.  

Specifically this means:

1. Businesses must regulate all content that appears on their Facebook page, including comments written by other Facebook users.
2. Offensive messages which are sexist, racist or factually inaccurate statements are to be removed within a reasonable time frame.

In one way, I think it’s fair that businesses should be held accountable for the content that the business itself posts on its Facebook page. But surely it’s unreasonable for businesses to incur a penalty for offensive content that is written by other Facebook users?

The new ruling will effectively cost businesses time, effort and money in order to be compliant. Businesses will have to employ staff around the clock in an effort to ensure that content on their social media sites complies with the AANA Code of Ethics.

For businesses that easily generate over 500 comments per status update, it is going to be a mammoth task to review every comment. For example, VB has recently come under review for failing to remove some offensive comments on its Facebook page which “slipped through” their review process. In fact, the company has warned that the new ruling is “commercially unrealistic”.

This presents a double edged sword: If businesses disable user comments until they are approved by their Facebook administrators, then it defeats the purpose of engaging and communicating in-the-moment with consumers. 

No longer will there be a two way discussion occurring and some Facebook pages are probably going to look quite bland. 

And what ever happened to freedom of speech? Surely in this day and age, people can have their opinion without having it deleted. 

So the burning questions are: Will businesses turn their back on social media and go running back into the open arms of traditional advertising? Or will businesses just accept this decision and tailor their social media pages accordingly? Or will they allow offensive material to be posted on their wall and pay the penalties?

Having said all that, as the masses in the community start interacting in the world of social media, I think we will start to see more legalities being handed down that will hurt the development of social media.  

To view the ASB ruling, please click here. 

It’s a jungle out there

For at least the past five years, professional marketing organisations have been vigorously writing and presenting social media “how to’s”.  This information provides a useful foundation and framework for developing a social media strategy. However, for many businesses, having a social media presence is becoming essential, so which social media website(s) are most relevant for you? 

There is a wealth of social media websites to choose from and each has a unique way to communicate and deliver messages. Large organisations often have a high social media presence, usually with a team of employees monitoring online activity. For example, Coca-Cola Australia is active on Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, YouTube and LinkedIn. 

As social media requires time and resources to be effective, it is unrealistic for small to medium organisations to commit to many social media websites. 

The image below lists the most common social media websites available and cleverly notes how they differ using the example of a donut.

Social media was once a task that the marketing manager worked on when she had a spare moment in her lunch break but it is now becoming a position in itself, requiring attention outside business hours. In my opinion, if your business is going to jump on the social media train, do it well or don’t do it at all. 

Another element of social media marketing to consider is the following scenario; when a marketing manager tweets in a rainforest and nobody follows her, she does not make a sound. So how do small to medium organisations generate an online audience? Let me know what you think.