Instagram as a social media marketing tool has its strengths and weaknesses.
Instagram is inferior to Facebook by far. Facebook boasts a whopping 1 billion users while Instagram trails with only 300 million (still, more than Twitter's 284 million user base).
However, a common mistake most small businesses make is underestimating the potential of Instagram and how useful it can be in promotion regarding social media marketing. Instagram is free to use and should not be overlooked by businesses looking to expand, especially those with target markets in a younger demographic.
A creative way for businesses to engage with youth through Instagram is generating a popular hashtag (or using an already popularized one) and creating a new wave revolving around the trend of their own product in the process. Instagram has done wonders for many businesses including Siskool Clothing, who started up all their business' social media marketing for their clothing items through Instagram only.
Therefore it is clear that Instagram should not be overlooked by anyone when regarding or considering social media marketing, whether a big businesses or a sole trader, Instagram can provide a reach over a demographical target market specific and tailored to the product being sold by the business, regardless of what it is. Instagram users can seek out products through the use of #hasthags, key words and followers.
Facebook has proven again and again it has the potential to be a super-weapon in the world of social media marketing tools and platforms. Facebook's popularity reward system is more complex than that of Instagram's and Twitter's. As mentioned in the previous post dedicated to Youtube, this can be perceived as both a strength and a weakness. So which is it in most cases?
The answer to that question truly does depend on what content is in question, when it is posted and who it is posted by.
For example, almost anything posted by Kim Kardashian, Drake or Kylie Jenner will be seen by millions regardless of any of the factors mentioned above with no exception. That is purely because of who is posting it, and for them the popularity rewarding system enhances their ability to market just about anything through and on social media.
Likewise, on the other side of the spectrum if a Facebook account belonging to someone with less than 100 friends was to post the most most relevant or best content for its time it would still most likely inevitably be forgotten about with no real recognition or gain of traction.
Popularity rewarding mechanism
On a smaller scale, these examples are evident in most teens everyday lives. If an average Facebook user was to post a photo at 4:00am on a Tuesday, chances are that the same photo will receive significantly less comments, likes and general recognition than if the user had uploaded it around 6:00pm on a Saturday.
Therefore, it is clear that unlike Youtube, Facebook does not have the search aspect which means posts will not be lost. Posts will most likely be lost eventually. But for the people with the upper hand this is a pure advantage, as it strengthens those already strong and cripples the weaker marketing contenders. E.g. if Coca Cola were to launch a commercial on Facebook they are already at a huge advantage as opposed to a commercial released by a local Cola producer.
It is in this sense that Facebook can truly be regarded as both a strength and a weakness.
Is Youtube the most effective platform for social media marketing overall?
Youtube is the most effective platform to utilize in regards to video commercials in social media marketing campaigns. This is because there is no time factor in Youtube's platform, if the video in question is relevant to the key words searched it will show up. Simultaneously, Youtube does not lack what Facebook and Instagram have in the popularity rewarding department.
What is meant by this is that Facebook and Instagram reward popular posts by keeping them in the 'spotlight'. For example, if person A likes photo A, person B is more likely to be exposed to photo A rather than photo B (which was not liked by person A). Although this can be perceived as a strength or a weakness depending on who is utilizing the platform and what they are utilizing it for.
However, as previously mentioned, Youtube is the stronger platform because it incorporates the popularity rewarding concept through promoting certain videos that are gaining traction to their homepage and also recommending videos to users based on their choices alongside having a search option.
This sole reason makes Youtube a powerhouse when it comes to video advertising and marketing, because if the video gains enough recognition it will be promoted both publicly and privately, while at the same time still being presented when subjected to a search by any user, anywhere at any time.
Two years ago, Mexican Grill food chain Chipotle launched their awareness campaign through a touching video via Youtube. The aim of this video and overall campaign was to raise awareness regarding the condition in which animals are harvested by almost all businesses.
The video (above) addresses touchy subjects such as chicken's being pumped with hormones, cows being over milked and slaughtered inhumanely, and the general non natural and cruel containment of all animals harvested for their products.
The video is wrapped up by a short yet sweet offer of an alternate option (as opposed to slaughtering animals) which sees the scarecrow resort to growing and using fresh fruits and vegetables cooked to perfection and placed inside of a burrito sold instantly.
Although the video addressed extremely sensitive areas, all of which are still relevant in 2016. Were Chipotle wrong to address these issues? Did it backfire? The answer is evident in the same objective measures this blog has used to previously measure success rates of videos on Youtube. Today, the commercial has almost 16 million views, more than any other Chipotle advertisement. The video has almost 100,000 likes, and a mere 3,500 dislikes. So how and why was the video so successful in such a grey area like this one?
Scarecrow discovers chickens being pumped with hormones
The video presented itself in an extremely elegant and classy manner. Not using actual animals was an extremely smart move by Chipotle as it could've presented the content heavier than it needed to be and turned potential consumers away. Another tactic the video displayed was the touching music playing at the right times in the background.
Scarecrow decides to grow chilli
Chipotle decided to ride the wave. Their next move was to continue what the video had started by having a smartphone app developed. In the app, the player has to lead the scarecrow and put an end to unfair treatment and confinement of animals used by fast-food chains as produce.
In 2014 during the World Cup, feminine product brand Always posted a commercial video to Youtube titled 'Always - #LikeAGirl'. The advertisement video featured women and men asked to perform certain tasks on camera 'like a girl'. These tasks included running like a girl, fighting like a girl, throwing like a girl and many more. All the teenagers and adults mocked the actions. Next, Always asked a series of female children to complete the same actions like a girl. However, unlike the adults, all the children completed the tasks normally and did not know what was meant by the phrase "like a girl".
The purpose of this commercial was to raise awareness, both for the brand and for the cause of the brand. But how successful was this commercial? Especially during the World Cup, which is the most expensive time slot for international advertising? How well did the commercial do when contrasted to other advertisements of the same line?
At the time of the World Cup, the video racked up a huge 53 million. Today the video enjoys the success of nearly 62 million views. The average amount of views for a commercial during World Cup period is over 10 million views less than 53, and the same commercials competing with #LikeAGirl were not extremely successful in maintaining a steady increase rate of views.
To answer the questions raised regarding the #LikeAGirl campaign, the commercial was genuinely successful in not only presenting a well planned and compelling advertisement, but also meeting the requirements in regards to objective measurements determining success. These objective measurements include Youtube views, comments, subscribers and likes.
In regards to subjective measurements many key factors such as content of comments and like to dislike ratio also suggested positive results. The only negative comments in regards to the #LikeAGirl campaign mainly consisted of people dissatisfied with the company's efforts in what they percieved to be the wrong issues (e.g. should focus on more important issues). Regardless, almost everyone exposed to the well executed social media marketing campaign were on board.
In May of 2015, TOMS decided to launch a social media marketing campaign via Instagram.
#withoutshoes
As the photo suggests, Instagram users worldwide were encouraged by TOMS to post a photo barefoot while supporting the hashtag n the caption, and in return for each photo posted the brand promised to donate one pair of shoes to a child in need.
Naturally, the campaign took off. Hundreds of thousands of people were posting photos barefoot whilst simultaneously popularizing the shoe brand. participants of the social media campaign had from May 5th to May 21st to post. Giving Instagram users just over two weeks to engage was a risky move on behalf of TOMS.
On one hand, by limiting the time frame of the campaign they were naturally limiting their own boundaries of growth, if the campaign's timeframe was infinite it is not unlikely that people would still be posting and raising awareness of both the cause and the brand, even after the hype begins to die down.
#withoutshoes takes off
On the other hand, however, limiting the campaign was necessary. At the end of the day TOMS is a for-profit organization, and although giving away shoes is a noble act the company has to eventually make money. But was limiting the timeframe of the campaign also subtly a smarter move from TOMS regardless of profit?
It is evident the campaign was a success, judging by the vast number of participants uploading photos branding the hashtag as well. However much of the success TOMS enjoyed post campaign comes from the fact the campaign was so short lived. Ultimately, the 16 day span participants had to abide by in order to fully engage meant almost everybody who was going to post a photo decided to post the photo within this timeframe. This prevented people from putting off uploading photos supporting the campaign, and instead encouraged them to do it asap (when they found out that there was a timer ticking)
Celebrity Richard Branson loses his shoes for #withoutshoes
Due to everyone uploading photos for the campaign, from the 5th to the 21st of May, Instagram was saturated with photos of bare feet, captioned #withoutshoes. Due to this saturation, people who otherwise may never have stumbled across the social media marketing campaign were also exposed to it, and ended up posting themselves in hopes of being responsible for donating a pair of shoes to a child in need.
#withoutshoes continues to raise awareness
#withoutshoes from Africa
#withoutshoes takes over Instagram
All in all, was #withoutshoes a success when compared to other social media marketing campaigns? The answer is simply yes. The leading cause which determined TOMS' success regarding the campaign includes their ability to offer anyone (customer or not) to do something they perceive as a good deed for free. Another contributing factor to TOMS' success is the ease of engagement. TOMS' followed the path of a revolutionized method of brand image enhancement.
Decades and even years ago brands had to set up shop in shopping centers and hassle customers into partaking in their campaigns through registering and providing information and time. Taking a photo barefoot however takes seconds of a potential consumer's time, and even less time to hashtag #withoutshoes and help TOMS grow as a brand.
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as ALS, is a disorder leading to the deaths of neurones. In comparison to other disorders and conditions, the percentage of people suffering from ALS is reasonably low; making it hard to raise money for the cause. Usually disorders, conditions and illnesses do not receive the awareness necessary for funding when the population of people suffering from said illness is low.
Despite this unfortunate norm, the ALS foundation decided to take action and revolutionize social media marketing. Instead of using platforms to sell products, the ALS foundation marketed their cause by adopting a local challenge and popularizing it in their own fashion.
Before the ALS foundation, the challenge was merely: 'The Ice Bucket Challenge' and, as the name suggests, simply involved pouring a bucket of ice over your own head. For no reason.
The Ice Bucket Challenge
It didn't take long for the ALS foundation to realize the true potential behind what seemed to be a very local and short-lived fad.
ALS flipped the Ice Bucket Challenge into more than a dare. The foundation urged those willing to take on the challenge to remember the feeling their body's experienced the split second of the icy water came into contact with their skin. This brief feeling of shock and surprise is, according to the ALS foundation, supposed to replicate the feeling of not being capable of moving.
"Imagine if that one second of shock lasted a lifetime" said some people prior to or after pouring the icy cold water upon themselves. The challenge took off mid 2014, and went viral internationally. The ice bucket challenge even saw celebrities and notable figures participating, donating and encouraging others to do the same.
The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge goes viral in August 2014
Donatella Versace takes on the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge
But how successful was the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge in meeting the campaign's goals? In 2015 The ALS foundation stated they had raised over a whopping $115 million, and have planned out five stages for spending their money. $77 million is the budget for stage one, which is purely researching the disorder. Of that $77 million the foundation have currently spent $47 million. This money raised is only from foundations themselves, and does not even attempt to cover people's individual donations to the disorder outside of commercial foundations.
Although technically the ALS foundation didn't use the Ice Bucket Challenge as a form of marketing a product or service, they used it to promote a noble cause, and added depth and value to an otherwise fun yet frivolous activity. The challenge truly went viral, over 17 million people uploaded an ALS Ice Bucket Challenge video, and over 440 million people viewed these videos.
The ALS foundation proved to millions of social media users and marketers everywhere that social media marketing campaigns can be both positive and socially conscious. The ALS foundation opened the eyes of millions of people who were unaware of the threats of ALS.
