Talking to customers: characteristics of effective social media conversations

Peter Kerkhof

p.kerkhof@vu.nl

@peterkerkhof

2007 1st iPhone 12 million Facebook users Daily 5000 tweets worldwide 4000 tweeps in NL

2011 130 million iPhones Half million new Android

devices daily 62 million iPads 1.7 million tablets in NL 800 million Facebook gebruikers Daily 250 million tweets 1.3 million active tweeps in NL

2007 1st iPhone 12 million Facebook users Daily 5000 tweets worldwide 4000 tweeps in NL

Brands on Twitter

19% of all tweets is brand related

20% of all brand related tweets contains positive or negative sentiment

55% positive, 33% is negative

2011: 10 million brand experiences per day

(Source: Jansen et al., 2009)

The Yelp effect

= +4.5% revenues

Business communication 2.0

Less about advertising

Using editorial content for business purposes

Engaging in public conversations with consumers

The decline of advertising

Advertising: Growing irritation Declining credibility Declining

effectiveness

The decline of advertising

Series1

0.22

0.130.1001

Old estimate 1962-1981 New estimate 1940-1979New estimate 1980-2004

Advertising elasticity: % growth in sales after +1% growth in advertising expenditures Source: Sethuraman, Tellis & Briesch (2011).

Advertising elasticities 1962-1981

The rise of content marketing

“the art of communicating with your customers and prospects without selling. It is non-interruption marketing. Instead of pitching your products or services, you are delivering information that makes your buyer more intelligent. The essence of this content strategy is the belief that if we, as businesses, deliver consistent, ongoing valuable information to buyers, they ultimately reward us with their business and loyalty.”

http://www.junta42.com/resources/what-is-content-marketing.aspx

The rise of content marketing

40 billion dollar, 26% of US marketingbudget (Custom Content Council, 2012)

Content marketing in print

Content marketing on TV

Digital content marketing

Video

Websites

Apps

Online magazines

Blogs

Brand pages in SNS’s

Microblogs

Utilities

E-mail newsletters

Communities

………..

Hennig-Thurau et al. (2010): The Impact of New Media on Customer Relationships, Journal of Service Research, vol. 13(3), pp. 311-330.

Social media

Less control

Empowered consumers: A skeptical crowd Access to information about

product quality from trusted sources

Instant access to own media Instant acces to company

social media sites

Overcoming skepticism & distance

1-to-1 relational communication, with a skeptical audience

Create relevant content & conversations that…….. Help Solve problems Inform Educate Entertain

Establish immediacy & closeness in conversations

Immediacy

Immediacy in business: be fast

Immediacy in psychology /communication: “communication behaviors that enhance closeness to and nonverbal interaction with each other” (Mehrabian, 1971)

Teacher immediacy: the degree of perceived closeness between teacher and student (Gorham, 1988; Christophel, 1989)

Mediated immediacy (O’Sullivan, Hunt & Lippert, 2004)

Mediated immediacy: “communicative cues in mediated channels that can shape perceptions of psychological closeness between interactants” (O’Sullivan, Hunt & Lippert, 2004, p. 471)

Mediated immediacy behaviors: approachability and regard for other approachability: you can approach me

self-disclosure, expressiveness, accessibility, informality, similarity, familiarity, humor, attractiveness, and expertise

regard: I am approaching you personalness, engagement, helpfulness, politeness

Effects of mediated immediacy

Higher course motivation, more teacher liking (O’Sullivan, Hunt & Lippert, 2004, Study 2)

Linguistic immediacy cues exert stronger effects than presentational cues (O’Sullivan, Hunt & Lippert, 2004, Study 3)

More self-disclosure on a health forum, more social trust, more positive outcome expectations (Lee & LaRose, 2011)

Relational maintenance in online PR (Kelleher & Miller, 2006; Kelleher, 2009)

Corporate blogs: Being open to dialog Using invitational language Providing prompt feedback

Leading to higher credibility & trust through …… conversational human voice communicated relational commitment

Conversational human voice

“an engaging and natural style of organizational communication as perceived by an organization’s publics based on interactions between individuals in the organization and individuals in publics” (Kelleher, 2009, p. 177)

Communicated relational commitment

“a type of content of communication in which members of an organization work to express their commitment to building and maintaining a relationship” (Kelleher, 2009, p.176)

Our studies (w. Camiel Beukeboom & Sonja Utz, VU Univ.)

Experimental studies

Online customer care: customer complaint + various responses Study 1

Immediacy low vs. high Apologies vs. redress Control group

Study 2: Immediacy low vs. high Apologies vs. refutation Company size (small vs. Large)

Crisis communication: Study 3: immediacy + content

Immediacy low vs. high Apologies vs. denial

Study 1

Low immediacy “Based on your story, we would like to offer our sincere

apologies for the inconvenience. We would like to get in touch with you about this problem.”

High immediacy “My name is Thomas de Vries. (…) Based on your story, I

would like to offer my sincere apologies for the inconvenience. I would like to personally get in touch with you about this problem.“.

Apologies vs. redress

Control group: no company response

Study 1

Dependent variable: corporate credibility

Mediators: conversational human voice communicated relational commitment underdog effect (Vandello, Goldschmied, & Richards, 2007)

Control group: cognitive responses

Study 1

Communicated relational commitment: (F(1, 118) = 14.45, p < . 001; Mlow immediacy = 3.81, Mhigh

immediacy = 4.61)

Conversational human voice (F(1, 118) = 7.81, p < . 01; Mlow immediacy = 3.63, Mhigh immediacy

= 4.12)

Underdog effect: (F(1, 118) = 4.63, p < . 05; Mlow immediacy = 4.72, Mhigh immediacy

= 4.30) (F(1, 118) = 5.65, p < . 05; Mapology= 4.74, Mredress = 4.28)

Study 1

No other effects of apologies vs. redress

No interaction effects

Indirect effects of immediacy on corporate credibility (bootstrapping)

Study 1

No other effects of apologies vs. redress

No interaction effects

Indirect effects of immediacy on corporate credibility (bootstrapping)

Positive cognitive brand responses

High

imm

edia

cy /a

polo

gies

Low Im

med

iacy

, apo

logi

es

High

imm

edia

cy /r

edre

ss

Low im

med

iacy

/red

ress

No re

spon

se0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Study 2: What if distance is already low?

Include a manipulation of organizational size /closeness “Company A is international market leader in navigation-

and communication systems. Company A has offices on every continent and about 7000 employees worldwide…”.

“Company B is a small family company in navigation- and communication systems. Company B is located in Eindhoven and has about 40 employees at this location…”.

Immediacy high /low; Apology vs. refutation of complaint

DV’s: Brand trust, communicated relational commitment, conversational human voice

Study 2

Conversational human voice & communicated relational commitment Main effects of immediacy Interaction immediacy x company size

Brand trust: Interaction immediacy x company size

Small Large1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Low immedicayHigh immedicacy

Study 3

Bloggers’ comments: low immediacy It took too long

H&M talked to journalists, not to fans

Communication was highly standardized “You know whats funny? that you are just simply pasting

the same response to every comment about this shameful situation you are in. Why dont you post something where you actually admit and explain…”

Corporate tone of voice

No apologies were made

Study 3

Participants read an online news story about the event, followed by one of four responses

Immediacy (low/high) & denial vs. apologies

Denial vs. apologies: Apologies are less often used but are more effective since

they signal taking responsibility more effective in the case of integrity violations

Denial is often used but less effective (Kim, Avery & Lariscy, 2009)

Study design (low immediacy/apology)

Study design (high immediacy/denial)

Study design

Dependent variables: Negative /positive cognitive responses Communicated relational commitment Conversational human voice Attitude towards the response Corporate credibility Crisis responsibility

Study 3: Immediacy effects

Conversational human voice (1-5)

Communicated Relational commitment (1-5)

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Low immediacy

High immediacy

Study 3: Immediacy effects

Personal Corporate0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

% Negative cognitive responses

Study 3: Apologies vs. denial

Credibility (1-7) Responsibility (1-5)

Att. Response (1-5)

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

ApologiesDenial

Predicting corporate credibility

Regression analysis: predicting corporate credibility

Corporate credibility

Prior brand commitment 0.31**Conversational human voice 0.47**Attitude towards the response 0.03nsCommunicated relational commitment -0.06nsNegative cognitive responses 0.11nsPositive cognitive responses 0.13nsCrisis responsibility -0.01ns

R2(adj)=.37***

Conclusion

Effects of immediacy Direct on credibility Indirect through

Communicated relational commitment Conversational human voice

Immediacy helps to narrow the gap between organizations /brands and consumers