In case you’re wondering … consumers don’t really care about brands all that much.

August 10, 2015August 10, 2015 Phillip Nones Advertising, Branding, Business, Marketing, Marketing Communications, Social Media Advertising, Apple, Brand Development, Brand Strategy, Branding, Chipotle, Google, Havas, Intel, marketing, Meaningful Brands Index, Samsung, Uber, Under Armour

“I don’t want a ‘relationship’ with my brands. I want the best products at the best price.” — Jane Q. Public

In the era of interactive marketing and social media, there’s often a good deal of talk about how certain brands are successfully engaging their customers and creating an environment of “brand love” — or at least “brand stickiness.”

It’s not only consumer brands like Chipotle and Under Armour, but also B-to-B and hybrid brands like Intel, Apple and Uber.

As a person who’s been involved in marketing and advertising for well over a quarter-century, I tend to treat these pronouncements with a little less open-mouthed awe than others.

I get how when a brand is particularly admired, it becomes the “go-to” one when people are in the market for those particular products and services.

But the idea that there’s real “brand love” going on — in a sense similar to people forging close relationships with the people in their lives — to me that’s more far-fetched.

The marketing research I’ve encountered appears to refute the notion as well.

Case in point: In an annual index of “meaningful brands” published by the Havas MarComm agency, the research finds that very few consumers cite brands they “can’t live without.”

The 2015 edition of the Havas Meaningful Brands Index has now been released … and the results are true to form. Among U.S. consumers, only about 5% of the 1,000 brands evaluated by Havas across a dozen industries would be truly missed if they were no longer available.

It’s a big survey, too: Havas queried ~300,000 people across 34 countries in order to build the 2015 index. Broadly speaking, the strength of brands is higher in countries outside the United States, reflecting the fact that trust levels for leading brands in general are higher elsewhere — very likely because lesser known brands or “generics” have a greater tendency to be subpar in their performance.

But even considering the brand scores globally, three out of four consumers wouldn’t miss any brands if they suddenly disappeared from the market.

What are the exceptions? Looking at the brands that scored highest gives us clues as to what it takes to be a brand that people truly care about in their lives.

Samsung is ranked the #1 brand globally. To me, it makes perfect sense that the manufacturer of the most widely sold mobile device on the planet would generate a strong semblance of “brand love.”

Even in the remotest corners of the world, Samsung has made the lives of countless people easier and better by placing a powerful computer in their pocket. It’s only logical that Samsung is a brand many people would sorely miss if it disappeared tomorrow.

The second strongest brand in the Havis index is Google. No surprise there as well, because Google enables people to research and find answers on pretty much anything that ever crosses their minds. Again, it’s a brand that most people wouldn’t want to do without.

But beyond these, it’s plain to see that nearly all brands just aren’t that consequential to people’s lives.

With this in mind, are companies and brands spending too much energy and resources attempting to get customers to “care” about them more than simply to have a buying preference when the time comes to purchase products and services?

Related to that, is adding more “meaning” to a brand the answer to getting more people to express brand love? Or does it have far more to do with having products that meet a need … work better than competitors’ offerings … and are priced within the means of more people to purchase?

Havas — and common sense — suggests it’s the latter.

Do that stuff right, and a company will earn brand loyalty.

All the rest is just froth on the beer … icing on the cake … good for the psychological bennies.

Copywriting by computer: Wave of the future? … or wild-ass pipe dream?

July 8, 2015 Phillip Nones Advertising, Business, Content Creation and Content Management, Direct Marketing, Marketing, Marketing Communications, Marketing Research, Publishing, Sales A/B Testing, Algorithmic Copywriting, Bob Bly, Business, Copywriting, E-Mail Marketing, Marcomm, marketing, marketing communications, Persado, Vratskides

In recent years, computers have upended many a job category. And they include quite a few positions involving “language” – from foreign language translators to medical transcriptionists.

And now, it looks like copywriting itself may be the next domino to fall.

Earlier this year, The Wall Street Journal published a story about Persado, a company which has developed a software algorithm that enables it to write copy without the human element.

David Atlas, the company’s chief marketing officer, refers to it as “algorithmic copywriting.” The process creates sentences with a maximum length of 600 characters that are used for e-mail subject lines and other short persuasive copy.

Persado builds the copy by sending thousands of different e-mail subject lines to the e-databases of its clients, which include large retailers and financial services firms such as Overstock.com, AMEX and Neiman Marcus. Response rates are measured and used to refine the subject lines to narrow them down to just the most effective.

Company PR spokesperson Kirsten McKenna explains the Persado edge further:

“Typical A/B testing will send out only a few messages – then go with the one that gives the best response. Persado can send out thousands of permutations of the same message to determine which would be the most successful.”

Comparing Persado’s machine-generated results with traditional copywriting, “We have never lost to a human,” Alex Vratskides, the company’s president, claimed to The Wall Street Journal.

Those results would suggest that Persado is doing things right. And here’s another positive indicator of success: The company raised over $20 million in venture capital earlier this year.

The bigger question is whether Persado will be able to scale its simple and short-sentence copywriting into persuasive copy for longer-form marketing materials such as sales letters and brochures – which would make it an even bigger threat and seriously threaten to upend the traditional copywriting field.

For the answer to that question, I’d never want to take issue with the views of veteran copywriter Bob Bly, whose perspectives I respect a great deal. In writing on this topic, he states:

“I do think that either already or very soon, software will equal or surpass the performance of human writers in both simple content and short copy. We have to prepare for the eventuality that computers may someday beat human direct response copywriters in long-form copy, just as Deep Blue beat Kasparov in chess and Watson clobbered Ken Jennings in Jeopardy. Ouch.”

What do you think? Is computer copywriting the wave of the future? Let’s hear your own perspectives.

What’s driving innovation in consumer packaged goods these days?

July 5, 2015July 6, 2015 Phillip Nones Branding, Business, Marketing, Sales Business, Consumer Marketing, Consumer Packaged Goods, Consumer Trends, Consumers, CPG, marketing, Product Development

With the steady rise in the number (and variety) of consumer packaged goods offerings, one might wonder if the factors that drive CPG innovation are the same today as they’ve been in the past.

There’s no dearth of research to help give us clues to the answer. In the first half of this year alone, major CPG research results have been published by the likes of Accenture, Deloitte, Forrester, IRI and Kantar – and that just covers the first half of the alphabet!

The broad takeaway from these reports is that there are six major trends driving innovation in the industry. Three of them are just as important as they’ve ever been, and three additional ones are becoming more significant as time goes on.

The three “classic” trends that drive CPG innovation as much as ever are convenience, value, and specialization.

They’re fundamental, they’re significant, and they haven’t lost their importance based on what’s happening in the larger marketplace or the economy:

Convenience is a major driver because consumers are always looking to get what they need faster and with less effort than before. If a product saves time and delivers multi-benefit solutions, consumers will respond.

Value is always perennially important. When the perceived value of a product goes down because of price pressures or a lack of differentiating benefits, brand loyalty is adversely affected.

Specialization – Product formulation and packaging can affect the way consumers feel about products. The more that can be provided in the way of a “just-for-me” solution as opposed to “one-size-fits all,” the better.

If they concentrate on these three trends, most CPG brands do pretty well. But there are three additional trends that appear to be gaining momentum. Add them to the repertoire, and an additional competitive edge can be established:

Portability – As consumers’ lives have become more mobile than ever, a premium is placed on brand that can deliver on-the-go offerings.

Environmental Impact – It’s been a long time coming, but this trend finally appears to be reaching some semblance of critical mass. More consumers are considering environmental factors — not just as attributes for products that are “nice to possess,” but actually necessary for making a responsible choice. It’s more than the product itself; it’s also sourcing, manufacturing, distribution and disposal.

Health Impact – The days of CPG products being big on convenience but bad on health are numbered. Thanks to better education and more out-of-pocket medical-related cost responsibilities, health awareness among consumers has never been higher. It may not be translating yet into improved health metrics like lower obesity rates, but there’s pretty clear evidence that more people understand health risks and are taking more responsibility for their own personal health and that of their family members. Products that can credibly claim to “healthy” benefits stand to gain in the competitive landscape.

Do you feel that there are other trends besides these six that that are influencing the development of consumer packaged goods today? Perhaps ones associated with cultural diversity … or something else? If so, please share your thoughts with other readers here.

Which brands are America’s most “patriotic”?

July 2, 2015July 2, 2015 Phillip Nones Advertising, Branding, Business, Marketing, Marketing Communications, Social Commentary American brands, Brand Keys, Brand Values, Branding, Brands, Business, Corporate Image, Jeep, marketing, Patriotic Brands, Patriotism, robert Passikoff

With the 4^th of July holiday nearly upon us, sharing the results of a recent brand study seems particularly apropos.

Since 2013, Brand Keys, a branding consulting firm, has conducted an annual evaluation of famous American brands to determine which ones are considered by consumers to be the most “patriotic.”

In order to discover those attitudes, Brand Keys surveyed nearly 5,500 consumers between the ages of 16 and 65, asking them to evaluate American brands on a collection of 35 cross-category values – one of which was “patriotism.” (The number of brands included in the evaluation has varied somewhat from year to year, ranging between 195 and 225.)

Of course “patriotism” is a hyper-qualitative measure that’s based as much on emotion and each individual person’s own point of reference as on anything else.

Brand familiarity and longstanding engagement in the marketplace helps, too.

So it’s not surprising that the American brands scoring highest on the patriotism meter are some of the best-known, iconic names.

For the record, listed below are the “Top 10” most patriotic American brands based on Brand Keys’ most recent survey – the ones that scored 91% or higher on the patriotism scale (out of a possible 100 percentage points):

Jeep (98%)

Coca-Cola (97%)

Disney (96%)

Ralph Lauren (95%)

Levi Strauss (94%)

Ford Motor (93%)

Jack Daniels (93%)

Harley Davidson (92%)

Gillette (92%)

Apple (91%)

Coors (91%)

The next highest group of ten patriotic brands scored between 85% and 90% on the survey:

American Express (90%)

Wrigley’s (90%)

Gatorade (89%)

Zippo (89%)

Amazon (88%)

Hershey’s (87%)

Walmart (87%)

Colgate (86%)

Coach (85%)

New Balance (85%)

[As an aside … the only entity to score a perfect patriotism rating of 100% was the U.S. Armed Services.]

To be sure, “rational” aspects like being an American-based company whose products are actually made in the United States affect the patriotism rating of individual brands.

But other attributes — such as nationally directed customer-service activities and highly publicized involvement in sponsorships and causes that tie to the American experience — are attributes that add to a general image of being patriotic.

Robert Passikoff, Brand Keys’ president, expanded on the idea, stating,

“Today, when it comes to engaging consumers, waving an American flag and actually having an authentic foundation for being able to wave the flag are two entirely different things — and the consumer knows it.

“If you want to differentiate via brand values – especially one this emotional – if there is believability, good marketing just gets better.”

This is the third annual report issued by Brand Keys that’s been focused on brand patriotism – one of 35 brand values comparatively surveyed. Over the three years, there’s been some change in the patriotism rankings, with Colgate, Wrigley’s and Zippo falling out of the Top Ten and being replaced by Jack Daniels, Gillette, Apple and Coors in 2015.

What I find intriguing about the findings is that there isn’t a very strong correlation between the perceived patriotism of specific American brands and whether or not most of their products are made in the United States versus offshore. Of course, foreign production is more the norm than ever in the global economy. What’s important is how the consumer reacts to that reality.

With that point in mind … what about Jeep? Now that it is part of the global Fiat organization, should Jeep no longer be considered an American brand? Whether it is or not, the brand has the distinction of achieving the highest patriotism score outside of the U.S. Armed Services.

The bottom line is this: Brands, what they “mean” and what they stand for are based on the emotional as well as the rational – with the emotional aspect being the trump card with consumers.

Jeep, with all of its associations with winning wartime campaigns (particularly World War II), likely will always be a beloved “patriotic” U.S. brand, regardless of its recent Italian parent company ownership.

Are there brands not listed above that you would consider to be “highly patriotic”? If so, please share your thoughts with other readers here.

Are young marketers now the “smartest people in the room”?

June 29, 2015June 29, 2015 Phillip Nones Business, Marketing, Marketing Communications Baby Boomer Generation, Baby Boomers, Boomers, Business, Corporate Marketing, Deanie Elsner, marketing, Marketing Strategy, marketing technology, Millennials, Tapad, Unify Tech

Recently I read about some interesting remarks made by Deanie Elsner, who is the former executive vice president and chief marketing officer of Kraft Foods.

Ms. Elsner made them as the keynote speaker at the Tapad Unify Tech 2015 cross-screen technology conference held in mid-June. The gist of her argument was that senior-level marketers and heads of companies are most often the ones who are the “ball and chain” in a company when it comes to following effective marketing practices.

The way Elsner sees it, too few of these officials understand digital marketing as an integrated program that commingles data with a coordinated brand strategy:

“When you ask marketers to define digital strategy, they will give you ‘random acts of digital’ rather than an holistic strategy informed by data, with KPSs and data points that prove success.”

It doesn’t help that most upper-level managers are part of the Baby Boomer generation or just slightly younger, whereas most of the big developments in marketing technology and the communications landscape are being driven by Millennials.

[An aside: recently we learned that Millennials, at 87 million strong, are now this country’s largest age cohort — ~14% larger than Baby Boomers. And they’ll only grow more important in the coming decade or two as the Boomer generation passes into retirement and then into history.]

In Elsner’s view, Millennial employees understand something that their older counterparts generally don’t see, which is that the “one-way communications” perspective on advertising and promotion is no longer so important — or even relevant.

I can see her point. Consumers today are the ones determining the conversation and the agenda. It’s up to marketers to figure out the best ways to follow that agenda and to use the best tools to make it happen.

But then Elsner makes this bold statement that I’m not sure is totally accurate:

“Your smartest person is your most junior talent. The most dangerous, potentially, is the current CEO, because what they know doesn’t exist anymore.”

I don’t disagree that junior talent “gets” the modern communications environment more inherently than older employees. However … younger talent is prone to the opposite extreme: making assumptions based the latest trends for the youngest audiences.

When that happens, people can misread how industry changes affect consumers of all age levels, other demographics and psychographics.

In fact, in my work with numerous corporate clients, often the “smartest person in the room” is the one who’s over the age of 65. And why not? The reality is that irrespective of the seismic changes in marketing, there’s a lot to be said for 20 or 30 years of life experience to truly understand what makes human beings “tick” … why people are often so different … and what makes them choose to do the things that they do.

So the bottom line is actually this: Both younger and older marketers are important and can bring a lot to the table, and there’s more than enough respect to go around.

What people dislike most about B-to-B websites …

May 13, 2015May 13, 2015 Phillip Nones Branding, Business, Content Creation and Content Management, Creative and Production, Marketing Communications B-to-B, Business-to-Business, Commercial Marketing, Denny Hatch, Internet, Internet Advertising, marketing, Mobilegeddon, Online, Online Advertising, online resource, Web Communications

Too many business-to-business websites remain the “poor stepchildren” of the online world even after all these years.

So much attention is devoted to all the great ways retailers and other companies in consumer markets are delighting their customers online.

And it stands to reason: Those sites are often intrinsically more interesting to focus on and talk about.

Plus, the companies that run those sites go the extra mile to attract and engage their viewers. After all, consumers can easily click away to another online resource that offers a more compelling and satisfying experience.

Or, as veteran marketing specialist Denison ‘Denny’ Hatch likes to say, “You’re just one mouse-click away from oblivion.”

By comparison, buyers in the B-to-B sphere often have to slog through some pretty awful website navigation and content to find what they’re seeking. But because their mission is bigger than merely viewing a website for the fun of it, they’ll put up with the substandard online experience anyway.

But this isn’t to say that people are particularly happy about it.

Through my company’s longstanding involvement with the B-to-B marketing world, I’ve encountered plenty of the “deficiencies” that keep business sites from connecting with their audiences in a more fulfilling way.

Sometimes the problems we see are unique to a particular site … but more often, it’s the “SOS” we see across many of them (if you’ll pardon the scatological acronym).

Broadly speaking, issues of website deficiency fall into five categories:

They run too slowly.
They look like something from the web world’s Neanderthal era.
They make it too difficult for people to locate what they’re seeking on the site.
Worse yet, they actually lack the information visitors need.
They look horrible when viewed on a mobile device — and navigation is no better.

Fortunately, each of these problems can be addressed – often without having to do a total teardown and rebuild.

But corporate inertia can (and often does) get in the way.

Sometimes big changes like Google’s recent “Mobilegeddon” mobile-friendly directives come along that nudge companies into action. In times like that, it’s often when other needed adjustments and improvements get dealt with as well.

But then things can easily revert back to near-stasis mode until the next big external pressure point comes down the pike and stares people in the face.

Some of this pattern of behavior is a consequence of the commonly held (if erroneous) view that B-to-B websites aren’t ones that need continual attention and updating.

I’d love for more people to reject that notion — if for SEO relevance issues alone. But after nearly three decades of working with B-to-B clients, I’m pretty much resigned to the fact that there’ll always be some of that dynamic at work. It just comes with the territory.

CPR for Marketers? Marketing principles expand well beyond the 4 Ps.

May 6, 2015May 6, 2015 Phillip Nones Advertising, Business, Marketing Communications, Media Business, Digital Marketing, Jennifer Howard, Marcomm, Marketig Personalization, marketing, Marketing 4 Ps, Nick Necsulescu, Paul Dunay, Robert Lauterborn

In the world of business, we do like our checklists and bullet points.

It’s part of an impulse to distill ideas and principles down to their essence … and to promote efficiency in whatever we do.

It’s no different in the MarComm discipline. Nearly everyone knows about the “4 Ps” of marketing: Product, Place, Price and Promotion. The principle has been with us for nearly a century.

These days, however, the 4Ps of marketing seem inadequate. Stepping in to fill the void are additional attributes and angles that have been put out there by marketing specialists.

Several of these newer paradigms — one coined by Robert Lauterborn, a professor of advertising at the University of North Carolina, and another from technology marketing specialist Paul Dunay — consist of a group of marketing “Cs” ranging from five to seven in number: Consumer, Cost, Convenience, Content, Connection, Communication and Conversion.

Űber-marketing specialist Jennifer Howard has taken a different approach; she’s added to the original “4 Ps” by tacking on five new “Ps” covering the sphere of digital marketing.

Those new digital marketing attributes are Pulse, Pace, Precision, Performance and Participation. They go a long way toward filling in the yawning gaps in the original list of attributes.

Beyond the notion that anyone who can manage to come up with five additional attributes that begin with the letter “P” deserves a medal of sorts, Howard’s new terms happen to be worthwhile additions that help bring the principles into the interactive era:

Pulse – active listening and attention to customer, brand and competitor insights.
Pace – the speed at which marketing campaigns are carried out.
Precision – assuring that marketing messages are delivered correctly.
Participation – creating conversations with customers that enable them to “join the conversation.”
Performance – meeting expectations for results via measurable and accountable MarComm tactics.

If you’re thinking now that we can’t go much further than the “Ps” or “Cs” of marketing … not so fast!

In fact, we now have yet another set of marketing attributes being brought to the table – this time by database marketing specialist Nick Necsulescu.

Necsulescu focuses his approach on customer segmentation – namely, interpreting data and converting insights into customer-centric solutions. Recently, he’s been talking up the “4 Rs” of Marketing at various marketing trade events. For the record, the “4 Rs” of are these:

Right Customer
Right Message
Right Channel
Right Time

More broadly, Necsulescu sees the “4 Rs” as “personalization redefined.” He contends, “Of all the potential, new-age replacements for the four Ps of marketing, this set of ‘rights,’ in my opinion, is the most accurate.”

Necsulescu is particularly keen on three major customer expectations:

Customers expect instant gratification
Customers want to feel empowered
Customers are interested in self-service

In order to meet these new kinds of expectations, Necsulescu figures that marketers need to learn as many insights as possible on individual needs – the kind of information that determines what type of an offer should be presented and the message surrounding that offer. Also, to make sure the timing of the offer is well-targeted and that the offer is being presented through the most preferred channel.

That’s where robust CRM systems and databases come into play, with true 1-to-1 marketing tactics employed. The challenge is daunting … but in Necsulescu’s view, he doesn’t think companies have much choice in the matter.

So there we have it: We’re now dealing with Marketing Cs, Ps and Rs. A veritable alphabet soup of attributes — and all the implementation challenges that come along for the ride.

We may need a little CPR for marketing professionals, too!

Promo emails: What’s the right length … What’s too long?

April 27, 2015April 27, 2015 Phillip Nones Advertising, Business, Content Creation and Content Management, Direct Marketing, Marketing Communications, Marketing Research, Social Commentary Business, Direct Marketing, E-Mail Best Practices, e-Mail Communications, E-Mail Promotions, Fundraising, marketing, Who's Mailing What

I’m sure all of us receive some promotional e-mails with content that just seems to go on forever.

There’s no way that’s accomplishing the company’s marketing and sales goals.

But just what exactly is the right length of content in a promotional e-mail communiqué?

Assuming that “the wisdom of crowds” can get us pretty close to whatever that sweet spot is, looking at findings helpfully collected and aggregated by research firm and direct mail archive Who’s Mailing What! provide some pretty good clues.

WMW! tracks nearly 225 business categories, looking at the word count of e-mail messages deployed by companies active within each of them.

The average e-mail length for nearly all of the categories that WMW! tracks is substantially below 300 words.

[To compare, that’s shorter than the length of this blog post, which is around 300 words.]

And there are very few exceptions – fewer than ten, according to WMW. In those seven categories, customers and prospects are used to encountering more verbiage in order to remain interested in the message.

The few business categories with the highest average content length (350 or more words on average) turn out to be the following:

Business/financial magazines
Newsletters
Political fundraising
Religious magazines
Seminars and conferences
Social action fundraising
Special interest magazines

Incidentally, the two categories with the absolutely highest number of words are social action fundraising (nearly 650 words) and seminars/conferences (around 620 words).

… Which for those two categories makes complete sense. Donor prospects are going to need to read a good deal about a cause before opening their pocketbooks. And people are going to need details about a seminar’s content and quality before agreeing to pay the typically high fees charged to attend.

But for everyone else, short e-mail promos are clearly the name of the game. If word counts go much above 200, it’s probably getting a tad too long.

What are the latest trends in the popularity of different marketing communications channel tactics?

April 12, 2015April 13, 2015 Phillip Nones Advertising, Business, Creative and Production, Direct Marketing, Marketing Communications, Marketing Research, Media, Media Consumption, Social Media Advertising, Direct Marketing Association, DMA, DMA Response Rate Report, marketing, Marketing Channels, Response Rate Report

The DMA’s 2015 Response Rate Report provides answers.

Periodically, the Direct Marketing Association conducts field research to take the pulse of marketers and the various channels they’re employing to support their marketing campaigns.

In the DMA’s most recent survey, conducted online this past December and January, marketers were asked which one of seven channels they utilize in their campaigns. The seven choices listed were the following:

Direct mail marketing
E-mail marketing
Mobile marketing
Online display advertising
Paid search advertising
Social media advertising
Telemarketing

The results of the survey show that e-mail marketing remains King of the Hill when it comes to its popularity as a MarComm channel, with more than four in five marketers including the tactic as part of their promotional campaigns:

E-mail: ~82% use as a medium in promotional campaigns
Direct mail: ~50% use
Social media advertising: ~34% use
Paid search: ~30% use
Online display advertising: ~29% use
Telemarketing: ~17% use
Mobile marketing: ~10% use

Clearly, the research findings show that marketers are using multiple channels in their campaigns: Two-thirds of the survey respondents use more than one channel, and around 45% of them reported that they’re using three or more channels in their promotional campaigns.

Social media advertising is a new entrant on the list in the DMA research. It wasn’t even included in the DMA’s 2012 survey, yet today appears to be an important part of the channel mix.

On the other hand, mobile marketing remains a channel that isn’t being utilized by very many marketers — at least not yet. In a similar survey conducted by the DMA in 2012, its adoption rate was similar to what the 2015 survey has found.

The graph below compares 2015 and 2012 survey results. Aside from the lack of movement with mobile marketing, another interesting trend is the significant decline in the utilization of direct mail marketing. Back in 2012, it rivaled e-mail marketing in popularity. Today, only half of the marketers surveyed continue to use it as a marketing channel.

And a third big trend is the utter collapse of telemarketing as a popular MarComm channel — likely happening under the twin weight of high costs and massive phone message filtering.

In terms of future anticipated usage, the DMA research found that marketers are, in fact, warming to mobile marketing. It and social media advertising are the two channels that have the best prospects for new adoption, based on the future intentions reported by these respondents.

The 2015 DMA report is available for purchase here.

Hotel brands and social media: Leading and following at the same time?

April 8, 2015April 8, 2015 Phillip Nones Branding, Business, Marketing Communications, Social Media Accor, Best Western, Hilton, hotel brands, Hotels, InterContinental, marketing, Marriott, Social Media, Social Platform, Socialbakers, Starwood, Wyndham

If you want to see an industry that’s using social media to best advantage, you needn’t look any further than the hotel trade.

More than any other industry segment, hotel brands seem to have gotten a very good handle on the whole “local/global” concept.

Hotel properties that are part of a large chain or group originate from the main brand, of course. And yet, the nature of the business means that they are individual entities as well, across the country and around the world.

For this reason, many local hotels that are part of larger chains have established their own individual social profiles. That’s turned out to be a great way to attract more consumer engagement compared to social pages that are focused on global hotel branding.

Moreover, the social profiles of hotel properties are the perfect vehicle for promoting programs aimed at generating more bookings via local special offers, vacation deals and the like.

Recently, social media analytics firm Socialbakers researched some of the world’s largest hotel brand groups to determine the extent of their social media presence by looking at the seven most important platforms (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google+, Tumblr, Pinterest and LinkedIn).

As it turns out, seven hotel brand groups have at least 1,000 separate social profiles on these platforms. In the case of Hilton, it’s nearly 2,000:

Hilton Worldwide: ~1,850 separate profiles across the top seven social networks
InterContinental Hotels Group: ~1,550 profiles
Marriott International: ~1,300
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide: ~1,250
Wyndham Hotel Group: ~1,250
Accor: ~1,200
Best Western International: ~1,000

In looking deeper at the extent of the social profiles these giant brands, Socialbakers found some interesting details that may point to certain individual strategic differences. Among the findings were these:

. Facebook is the most popular social platform for everyone – no question – with at least 50% of each brands’ social profiles housed there.

. Twitter is the next most popular network, with profiles there representing between 20% and 40% of all social profiles for each brand.

. Starwood Hotels and Accor are somewhat less Facebook-centric than the others – and they also have a more significant presence on Instagram and LinkedIn than the other brands.

. Pinterest appears to be the least attractive major social platform for individual hotel profiles.

. Hilton and Marriott have the largest number of social profiles in North America.

It would seem that the big hotel brands are both leading and following when it comes to their social media presence.

While they may be ahead of the curve compared to many other industries, they are also following the lead of their own consumers – so many of whom rely on conducting their own online research and consulting user reviews to determine where they want to stay – not to mention the best room rates and deals they can find in order to do so.

How about you? Like me, do you follow certain individual hotel properties on social media, or instead do you focus on hotel brands more broadly? Please share your perspectives with other readers here.