Is bribery necessary for social media success?

A few weeks ago Wrigley’s gum launched an ambitious social media marketing campaign for its new brand of chewing gum – 5 gum. I love it when I see established Aussie brands experimenting in social media, because there’s not a whole lot of precedent, yet there’s an army of critics ready to pounce on perceived “failures”. So it takes some courage to push a high profile campaign. The 5 gum campaign targeted urban influencers (designers, artists, musicians etc), challenging them to ‘remix’ content and add their own unique flavour. The formula had been successful for other brands. However, Wrigley’s campaign seemed to be missing one key ingredient… a trigger point. A reason to participate. While most branded social media campaigns provide users with an incentive (aka prize) to participate, Wrigley’s took the brave decision of encouraging organic (and unmotivated) participation. It’s a decision that seems to have backfired. A month later and the campaign site has less than 10 remixes submitted. The organic path hasn’t created momentum. Which beggars the question… is bribery necessary for social media success?

Before attempting to answer the question, it’s worth looking at some of the highest profile (but not necessarily successful) Australian campaigns of the last few months, and their approach to facilitating consumer participation in social channels. Just how high is the bribe factor in each? Let’s take a look:

V Australia

V Australia’s 4320LA campaign gave 3 Aussies the chance to win a round the world trip courtesy of the airline. The catch was that they first had to spend 3 days in LA and Tweet every single minute they were there. I’m guessing the aim was to get people talking about the ‘crazy’ feats of the lads, but with just a couple of hundred Twitter followers, I’d doubt it achieved that.

Bribery factor: Strong. It’s a round the world trip for goodness sakes.

iSpy Levis

iSpy Levi’s is a crafty little campaign devised by Levi’s’. It’s a Twitter based campaign that sees a Levi’s agent roaming the street with free pairs of Levi’s to give away. The agent gives clues as to their current location, and the first person to ask them gets a free pair of jeans. With over 1,500 followers the campaign has attracted a niche following.

Bribery factor: Moderate. With the cost of designer jeans these days, a free pair of Levi’s is not to be sneezed at.

Tooheys 6 Beers of Separation

Toohey’s 6 beers campaign is essentially a reality TV program, but has clearly been designed for online consumption via MySpace & YouTube. The program aims to validate the ’6 degrees’ theory that no more than 6 connections separate every person in the world. Four Australians were chosen to meet a celebrity via no more than 6 connections.

Bribery factor: Strong. International travel and celebrity hook ups are strong motivators.

Panasonic

Through the month of July, Panasonic ran a promotional campaign across Twitter & Facebook giving followers a chance to win a Wii every day for performing a variety of wacky challenges. With almost a thousand Facebook fans and over a thousand Twitter followers they’ve achieved some success.

Bribery factor: Moderate. Who doesn’t want a Wii?

The Best Job in the World

The mother of all Aussie viral/online PR campaigns. I doubt I need to re-tell the story here to anyone.

Bribery factor: Super duper strong! Dream job. Fifteen minutes of fame. A $150,000 salary. ‘Nuff said.

Looking beyond our shores, the trend of consumer bribery is also evident. Ford’s Fiesta Movement is one of the highest profile social media campaigns ever seen, handing 100 agents a new Fiesta for 6 months in exchange for regular discussion around the product. Moonfruit’s Twitter campaign is another high profile example, in which consumers were given the chance to win a MacBook’s for including the hashtag #Moonfruit in their Tweets. Again, bribery is the core tactic to get consumer’s talking about the brand.

So… is bribery in fact necessary for social media success?

Not quite.

As far as I can see there are two exceptions to the bribery approach:

• Not-for-profits
• The anti-campaign

Not-for-profits

Some of the best social/viral campaigns to have come from our shores have eminated from the not-for-profit sector. Greenpeace’s send-a-whale campaign is a perfect example, which has attracted the involvement of over 125,000 people lobbying against Japanese whaling practices. Amnesty International have followed a similar path in generating over 10,000 butterflies to raise awareness of victims of sex slavery during the World War era. Earth Hour has had success in building huge follower communities in networks such as Facebook & Twitter. The viral success of not-for-profits is certainly not motivated by bribery of a monetary nature…

However, I still suspect bribery to be an underlying factor in consumer participation… emotional bribery. Contributing to what is essentially an online petition is perhaps the easiest possible way to ease one’s social/humanitarian conscience. It allows people who are otherwise inactive in supporting such causes to feel as if they’re contributing to a better world. In speaking with people working within not-for-profits, it seems as if there is little transferral from basic online behaviours through to actions that really add value to the organisation (eg. donations, volunteeting, activism).

So the online viral campaign serves as an emotional bribe. A convenient and low-committment method to appease the average person’s social conscience.

The anti-campaign

By now, the social media purists may well be tearing their hair out in frustration at this post. The mere mention of the words ‘social media’ and ‘campaign’ is an oxymoron to them. To the purist, social networks are all about people, and marketing initiatives should be focused on a long-term commitment to developing relationships and customer retention. Which is exactly the opposite of a campaign approach, built upon bribery to gain attention/interest. Stephen Collins & Jonathon Crossfield have both written excellent posts from a purist perspective. And I must admit, I am probably 90% purist myself. But I also need to be practical to do my job…

The longer-term strategic approach is completely unreliant on bribery. Rather than ‘buying’ consumer word-of-mouth, the aim is to earn it through regular positive interactions. Marketing at its’ most basic level. Satisfy a customer and earn referrals as a reward. Ingenious!

Telstra provides a good example of an Australian organisation implementing the long-term approach. Their Twitter based customer support service is very much focused on longer-term marketing goals such as customer satisfaction & retention. And with over 1,500 followers it’s clear that they’re doing something right. So bribery certainly isn’t linked to their success. Likewise, many local telecommunications companies are active within the Whirlpool forums with similar intentions – generating positive word-of-mouth by connecting with customers one-to-one and resolving their problems.

But… the fact is that relatively few senior marketing decision makers are ready to make a total leap of faith into social media (and the resourcing required to sustain it). And it’s probably unfair to expect them to. Baby steps are necessary. Few organisations can go from social ignorance to a full-blooded commitment. It’s a massive quantam leap. So the social campaign (and the related bribery based tactics) provides a ‘comfort zone’ for marketers wanting to test the waters. Campaigns are what they know. Thus, the social media campaign becomes their entry point into the social web.

And for the anti-campaign-ers out there, Panasonic provides a nice little case study on corporate progression in social networks. After dabbling with bribery related tactics (as described earlier), they have recently announced the launch of an online customer support strategy within social networks.

There is hope.