Social networking doesn't influence my buying decisions, part two

People are talking this week about a study released by WorkPlace Media, semi-rhetorically titled "Can Big Brands Crash the Social Networking Party?" [link goes to release PDF]. The implied answer: No, they can't... or at least not yet.

The study polled "office Internet users" on their use of social networks at work and their self-reported opinions about major brands relative to whether or not those brands are present on social networks. The press release cites some nice percentages for use in cocktail party conversation, but the basic argument is something like this:

1. Most people don't use social networks at work.
2. Most people who do use social networks at work don't spend much time using them.
3. Most people say recommendations or brand activity on social networks do not influence their buying decisions or brand perceptions.
4. Therefore, “When it comes to influencing brand perception and purchase decisions, the data shows that social networking still has a long way to go.”

I suspect that most brands on social networks do have a long way to go. Marketers are still learning, consumer behavior is still changing, and the number of variables involved makes it tough to employ a universal method of measuring the impact of a brand's online activities. My skepticism about the WPM study has little to do with the conclusion reached. However, the imprecise methodology and incomplete logic of this study leave me a bit exasperated.

Numbers 1 and 2 both come down to audience. If the people your brand wants to influence are on social networks, it doesn't matter how many consumers aren't. For many brands, a consumer who is more active on social networks represents greater potential value. They may be more likely to start discussions about brands (on- and offline). They may have greater interest specifically in technology purchases, and more discretionary income with which to make those purchases. They also may have more social connections and stronger influence on people they interact with (on- and offline). The "may" in each of these can be debated... but if you're a brand who values these consumers, for whatever reason, you probably won't be dissuaded by the relatively small number of them.

By the way, why are we only measuring social network use at work? Does this have any implications for the social networking habits of at-home Internet users, or did the researchers just want to choose a body of respondents that would produce suitably low access percentages?

Finally, let's talk about number 3. Oof. This again. I find that the difficulty here is twofold:

• First, I just plain don't think many consumers in a study will ever say that their brand perceptions and buying decisions are influenced by social networks - or any marketing vehicle, for that matter. People love to believe that they are impervious to brands' attempts to influence them, and will gladly justify their attitudes and purchases with any explanation possible that doesn't have to do with marketing.
• Second, the study makes a big deal out of the combined 33% of respondents citing face-to-face or phone contact with friends/family members/colleagues as their main source of brand recommendations. It is tacitly implied here that there exists some kind of impenetrable wall between online and offline conversations - that people don't ever have phone calls about recommendations they read on Yelp, or talk in person about a company they interacted with on Twitter. Showing how many people are influenced by offline word of mouth doesn't convincingly undermine the influence of online conversations.

Now, does all this mean that the influence of marketing through social networks isn't sometimes overblown? Of course not. But if you want to prove that social networking has "a long way to go" in influencing consumers, this study isn't what's going to do it.

Some great further discussion in the comments on this related Mediapost piece.

R.I.P., Geocities

This post was originally published on PR Nonsense, for March Communications. 

My second thought upon reading the news that Geocities will be shut down later this year was: that’s kind of bittersweet. My first thought, of course, was: wait... Geocities is still around?!

Apparently, it is. For now, at least. Geocities was purchased by Yahoo! in 1999 for 5 billion dollars. Kara Swisher has a fab retrospective (along with her original article about the purchase) at All Things Digital. While most of the discussion of Geocities’ death this week has revolved around its implications for VCs and the current crop of Web 2.0 investments, the thing that struck me more immediately was the contrast between the hyper-literal Geocities Internet of 1999, and the “everything ends in R” Internet of 2009. Indulge my memory for just a moment...

Geocities began as a personal website hosting service in 1994, in a period of time when most people’s understanding of the Internet relied very very heavily on literal interpretations of analogies. Consider: “world wide web,” “information superhighway,” “bulletin board systems (BBS)”... (this was before the “series of tubes” framework had gained widespread acceptance, by the way).

Accordingly, Geocities took a highly literal approach to peddling web sites – sorry, home pages – by offering users addresses modeled on actual neighborhoods, streets, and house numbers, grouping pages on similar topics in the same neighborhood. I know of no technological justification for this, but I do know that in 1994 it was totally normal to be the only one among your friends and family who had a website, and to explain, “It’s www dot geocities dot com, slash SouthBeach, slash Sands, slash 8990. You can see all my favorite quotes from Friends there and listen to MIDIs of Hootie & The Blowfish songs.”

To Yahoo!’s credit, they discontinued the neighborhood-based structure shortly after purchasing the site. A pretty bold move coming from a company whose original purpose was to create a static, manually-updated directory of all web sites. For nostalgia’s sake, though, here is a list of Geocities neighborhoods of yore. Farewell, Geocities. You were adorable while you lasted... and boy did you last.

Any other cute or hilarious memories of the 1999 Internet? Share in the comments. My own favorite Geocities eulogy so far is by a designer/writer/artist named Atherton Bartleby, and can be found here.