According to Hitwise, Britons are out-Twittering Americans. Interestingly, 70% more people in Britain use Twitter than in the USA.  The micro-blogging tool has experienced a 485% traffic growth rate in 2008 alone.   Some interesting nuggets from the study include:

• Broader age range appeal: Twitter has grabbed a broader age range than social networks such as Facebook and Bebo. 

• Key adopter segments: It has captured important early adopter segments such as the 25-34 (the majority of its users) and 37% of its users are in the 45+ age bracket.   (Many of these Twitter users would be the C-level executives in your own firms or target consumer groups).

• Gender parity: Twitter’s UK users are split 50/50 in gender, allowing it to avoid niche sector cul-de-sacs of gender imbalance online and offline, and giving marketeers more to work with in one source.

• London bias demystified: Only 15% of the Twitter UK micro-bloggers are from London, eroding some of the myths that early adopter tribes are prevalent in global commerce cities such as London or colonise creative class and entrepreneurial hotspots.

 
I find this fascinating stuff.

What reasons do you think might partially explain the British propensity to Twitter?  Having just returned from the USA, I can vouch that Americans are less apt to text than Britons (possibly for economic reasons).  Could it also be echoes of cultural stereotypes about how different (but similar) cultures approach communications tools?  Maybe something else.

What are your thoughts on why the British are out-Twittering Americans?  More important, how can these learnings be applied to your communities, core programs and clients?

In the past week, Wimbledon and Euro 2008 have provided us with dramatic moments in sport.  While staring at Nike logos on Nadal’s forehead and Federer’s more subdued logos, I began thinking about new ways to measure the presence of various brands at such sporting events.  What does a logo screaming past at 200 mph at the British Grand Prix deliver for a client?  What do Wimbledon sponsors see in terms of real gains in sales, foot traffic and awareness?   We have been helping clients get a better understanding of the impact and value of their sponsorship programmes but the media terrain (and measurement tools) have evolved.  

There is no question that global media events such as the Olympics and Super Bowl offer considerable gravitational pull for advertisers and viewers, and have spawned many memorable (measurable) ads.  Brand equity is built through association and awareness.  These ads also have, to a degree, transcended their marketing function and have become cultural signposts, reflections and barometers.  (They also cost a lot of money; 2009 ads are estimated to cost almost $3 million for a 30-second commercial).

This summer of 2008, things seem different in terms of event sponsorship.  Over the years, the raising of the money stakes in sponsorship also has amplified the political elements of such media partnerships.  This year, the 2008 Beijing Olympics is gaining attention for the committee’s heightened efforts to block advertising from non-sponsors.  This is nothing new, in protecting sponsors to give their brands room to breathe.   

But the political stakes seem raised with the Olympics hosted in China.  Global brands such as Coca Cola, have found themselves in hot water from Chinese consumers. Even the Dalai Lama has been forewarned not to use this global attention on Beijing as a pulpit for Tibetan independence.  Still others have already been reprimanded for profiting from unauthorized marketing activities.  And even the ‘Great Firewall of China’ has been thwarted.  On a more basic level, even Olympic spectators are being targeted for monitoring what foods people can (not) bring in to eat in the events, their attire and other efforts. Phrases such as "ambush marketing" and "managing intellectual property" are interwoven with the event like the intertwined olive leaves perched on the winner's head.  Media, messages and events involving different cultures can quickly find themselves on a slippery slope. 

So, what can a brand do?  As we eagerly await more global sporting events (in an already busy sporting summer), here are some questions to ponder:

How, as an advertiser can you best protect the integrity of your marketing campaign from being spoofed?  Will the Beijing Olympics authorities be able to block unwelcome marketing efforts across traditional and new media?   What does this mean for the future shape of events marketing and media measurement?

A recent Ofcom report argues that social networkers fall into distinct groups.  They include the largely male 'Alpha Socialiser' to the age agnostic 'Followers' who are more peer-influenced.  This neat segmentation of groups falls flat in a host of ways since we know that new media literacy skews towards the younger adults.  And any marketeer will tell you that such simple categories are more complex and consumers cannot be easily ring-fenced.

What I found most interesting in this report is the finding that 22% of adult Internet users aged 16+ have their own online profile.  That tells me that 78% of adults do not, and may help to explain why social media strategies find different levels of acceptance within marketeers, clients and consumers.  Think about it.  If the bosses holding the marketing budgets are not online advocates, not familiar with a widget vs a wicket, and do not recognise a Bebo from an ASBO, then you have an issue gaining legitimacy (and the funds that follow) for viable social media strategies -- especially in a challenging economic climate.

Instead of the obvious -- that 22% of adults have an online profile -- think of the converse.  That 80% of adults do not have a profile despite the fact that Britons spend the most time on social networking sites in Europe.  Regardless of whether you are in Brixton, Bruges or Brasilia, social networking sites have been colonised by early adopters.  The same holds true for your brand.  To get better buy-in on digital media, social networking sites and new PR evaluation tools, take a hard look at those who make the marketing decisions in your outfit.  In which profile do they reside?

When I was doing public affairs for Patagonia during the 1990s, we were under constant bombardment by consumers not pleased with our strong stances on social and environmental issues.  I had bomb threats, death threats and people picketing the building.  Back then, I looked to the press for damage control of my corporate reputation, not my corporate blog.  How times have changed.  Now, companies need to keep a close eye on social media to impact their brand, bottom line and even employee relations. 

Being nimble, adaptable and agile is not just for upstart companies.  It works just as well with those who built their brands largely on 'old media'.  The Wall Street Journal has a recent article on the basic strategies available to companies for addressing negative customer and employee-generated content on the Web.  As the article reveals, even a small investment in creating forums for employees and customers can pay big dividends.  Read how established brands such as Proctor & Gamble and McDonald's are building buzz about their brands while creating key feedback loops, without forgetting what built their businesses in the first place. 

I'll take detergent gripes over death threats any day.

Recent research from the Pew Internet & American Life Project Survey (March 2008) indicates that over 60% of Americans access data and information when ‘mobile’ through their mobile phones or PDAs.  The report also reveals that it would be harder for most people to give up their mobile phones than TV’s or the Internet.  In order of difficulty in giving up are (1) Mobile phone; (2) Television; (3) Internet; (4) Landline Telephone (5) Email.  

What does this mean for marketeers and media targeting consumers ‘on-the-go’? A 2006 Nokia report on mobile television offers some insight.  Contextual targeting, mobisodes and localized content are some of the approaches for ‘snackable content’.  Or, look to the surge in location-based travel services, providing site-specific content.  Or, look to a virtual travel mashup that taps into the convergence of GPS, love of travel and casual gaming.     

What should you be doing? 

No need to dump the email blast just yet but consider the following:  1)  The mobile phone has released consumers from being bound by place. With it, consumers have gained a sense of control, security and confidence.  2)  Multi-media approaches are now mandatory for marketers and media broadcasters.  3)  Mashups of the virtual and ‘real’ are now part of media content generation. 4)   Marketers should recognize that email and the Internet are competing for attention with an interdependent and complementary device: the mobile phone.

When not working at Metrica, I work on an LSE PhD research project on food-based entertainment.  Celebrity chefs are, plain and simple -- culinary prophets (and profiteers).  They have built their brands on the buying habits, book sales and the broadcasting of their recipes and charisma.  What many marketing professionals often overlook is the success of chefs in leveraging social media to build their brands.  Look at the level of activity on the Jamie Oliver forum fans.  Problems in the kitchen?  Solved.  Stumped about how to cook a sturgeon?  Let others help.

Other businesses are using social media as important feedback loops. See the Patagonia weblog for ideas on how to bring together employees, friends and family. But opening up this ‘always on’ line of global exchange can backfire as well. Read this post from MIT Convergence Culture Consortium on how quickly a company can get burned worse than a Gordon Ramsay sous-chef.  

What are other recipes of success through a social media strategy?