COMMUNICATION AND BUSINESS – Social networks change the grammar of media and brands

What has happened to corporate communication for some time now, since even shrewd managing directors began to try their hand at twitter time like Obama, the first to experiment with this technique? What about professional communicators and their cumbersome presence smeared alongside bosses like pilot fish? You see less of them around in the days of social networks, as if the network and its social communication tools had overturned the paradigm and deflated the bulky ego of spin doctors.

 

In effect, the change wrought by the web has forced companies to look inside themselves, and realize (more or less) that their advertising pomposity - which prompted them to declare themselves "always" close to culture, put "by definition" their people before the interests of the business, declaring themselves dedicated first of all to "listening to their customers", promising savings and value havens so much per kilo – it no longer held up. And not because the idiolect of the Italians had suddenly become highly polished and their ability to read social phenomena made them all better than Bauman. But only because in the meantime social media, contextually giving "idiots to idiots" (as Umberto Eco recently said, producing a great debate on the subject) however meant that the 'idiots' exchanged opinions on the best service to buy, on the crap car, nightmare customer service, the best or worst products of their lives.

Stop. End. And those who did not notice this immediately threw away a lot of money. Today the advertising pie, which was 10 billion euros in 2008, does not reach 5, even if some big players such as Google are not included in this calculation. For the same spaces, investors spend half. Some media are dead (see free press), others are dying (paper, especially periodicals). The traditionally intended Web has reached paper but has stopped growing for more than a few quarters. And not because it has exhausted its propulsive thrust, as one often hears repeated, in the editorial offices of the A-series newspapers, by hopeful players in the old information system that is no longer standing. Simply because there is no money, because business investments have dropped in the last five years, therefore, once the gap has been filled, digital has also stopped growing.

The causes are not all attributable to the crisis, even if for the most part lean periods force investors to rationalize their commercial attitude. The important blow was given by the social tools enabled by the web, which allow for a public discussion also on companies and related products, so as to make a digital PR activity much more effective than traditional advertising spending. Also because the paradigm has substantially changed. The old communication practices followed the traditional one-way process, with one message, one channel, one code, one target. Today the social part of the network has rejected this assumption, effectively forcing organizations to sit at a public conversation table, where they find themselves speaking on an equal footing with the others, unable to stand on any oratory podium, but trying to be accepted in the discussion , or simply expelled from it. And the companies consequently tried to set the table. Who more, who less.

So everything okay? Not a chance. Just take a tour of the channels of the main Italian companies on social media, while those responsible, when questioned about it, stentorian rattle off the millions of followers and likes, boasting of publishing a lot of stuff every day, convinced for this that they are already doing a great social activity. Too bad that a very low level of engagement is not synonymous with success on social media.

Unfortunately for them, they are still very often convinced that they are the institution that speaks and spreads the word, in the confident belief that sooner or later the message will arrive. But that's not how it works, not anymore.

 

If a large bank is followed by 1000 users on Twitter but only follows 9, none of whom are natural persons, what level of engagement will their tweets ever have? Pope Francis follows 8 (which are always his profiles in other languages), but as soon as he speaks he has 3000 retweets, and then he is the Pope (and of such figures, let's say, there aren't many others around... ).

If a large company invests heavily in TV sponsorships chasing high brand visibility, but when it tweets about the related TV appointment it doesn't get a single retweet or favorite, sooner or later it will have to ask itself if its expensive TV exposure is appreciated or at least noticed from the network.

 

In short, before to speak to public opinion, companies used newspapers, paper ones, with advertising and with a great job of media relations. Today the newspapers that have advanced are read only by insiders, politics and the business community, they are used for press reviews. To speak with the general public, companies are learning to use the network with difficulty. Who more, who less. But be careful: you should hurry to understand this grammar, because in the meantime opinions grow by themselves, even without the brand being there or intervening. The co-generation of reputation is speeding up everything, but still today in Italy companies demonstrate that they have only partially implemented the rules of this new grammar.

 

Charles Fornaro

CEO Excommunicate