View here: http://watch.ctv.ca/news/power-play/feb-17/#clip621761

When researching, discussing or considering a company, product or service online:

★We don’t go negative

Consumers are more likely to share a positive opinion or experience with a company they are following than a negative opinion or experience.

★ Positivity trumps everything

Consumers are more likely to purchase a brand, product or service based on a positive review than be dissuaded from buying a brand, product or service based on a negative review.

★ Reviews rank #1 in influence

When researching a brand, product or service online prior to deciding to purchase, personal reviews are more influential than news/media articles, which themselves are more influential than blogs.

★ Quantity tops connections

Many reviews are more powerful than one, even if the one review is from someone in your social network.

Some interesting conclusions can be drawn from this for even the most conservative or hesitant of organizations. The first is that you must put a premium on engaging your followers, friends and fans to review, comment, post and share on your behalf – enabling them to create those positive reviews that mean so much. Secondly, do it often. Quantity matters.

For more information on this study contact Jennifer Shah, SVP Digital Integration

This could not have been clearer as when I assisted Mike Crawley in his recent campaign for the Liberal Party of Canada’s Presidency.  Mike was a candidate I was very happy to assist.  However, I knew on a traditional campaign level we would have an uphill battle as many key political influencers (i.e. members of the Liberal Caucus from the House of Commons and Senate) would be inclined to support former colleagues Sheila Copps and Alexandra Mendes.

In the past these Party elders could take and share information with those groups they influenced as they wished.  For many potential supporters, the most important contact they would have would be the phone call from their MP or a local Senator who would tell them why a certain candidate should be supported.  Many times, the voter would follow based on their trust in the source of information they were provided.  As such, the candidate who had the greatest number of caucus supporters would win their election contest as the influencers controlled many votes.

However, the game has changed in the age of social media. The local MP or Senator is just one voice in a new sea of online opinions and recommendations.  Watching Twitter at any given time during the campaign told me more about the amount of momentum the Crawley campaign was carrying than any conversation with “key influencers” in politics.  With hashtags like #cdnpoli, #lpc, #lpc12 and #lpcprez the level of online engagement during the campaign was stunning. The goal then was to ensure material was being provided that could influence the social media conversation – whether it be through positive media, blogs, supportive tweets or a candidate that actively engaged conversation – each carried the potential of reaching thousands of people.  As well, being aware of both the positive and negative issues being shared on Facebook and Twitter allowed us to fine-tune our messaging to address any concerns.

The power of these digital voices is not limited to politics and is, in fact, likely becoming more powerful in all aspects of our day-to-day lives.  We know that what is being said in the Twittershpere has the potential to influence opinions and actions so watching the ‘conversation’ becomes an essential part of any campaign – whether it be political, corporate or charitable.  Knowing how to participate in the online conversation is as important as prepping for any mainstream media interview.

Those who understand the communications tools of today (and keep pace as news ones are introduced tomorrow) are the ones who will succeed in business, politics and building support for the issues that you care about.

The Mike Crawley campaign is just one example – there are no doubt many others that we will find, watch and learn from.

But how do people view the government’s adoption of these social platforms? In August 2011, Fleishman-Hillard’s Vancouver office commissioned a national Canadian survey to find out.

More than half (54 percent) of respondents would likely engage more with government if there were ways to participate online. The results show that social media should be considered in every public affairs communications plan. For governments to reach the largest number of people in a two-way dialogue, being present in social media is no longer an option.

The responses varied by age as well as geography. Not surprisingly, the youngest respondents (18 – 35) are most likely to engage more through the internet. In terms of regional findings, BC residents are more likely to interact more with government if there are ways to participate online.

So what do these numbers mean for government officials trying to connect with their constituents? While social media engagement is by no means the solution to all public affairs issues, the results favour the adoption of social media: One-third (33 percent) of respondents have an improved perception of elected politicians who use social media, whereas only a quarter (14 percent) said social media use negatively affected their perception of the elected politician.

Our survey also shows that elected politicians and government services should employ a carefully formulated ‘digital’ strategy to communicate their position to the public. Decisions should be made based on both the geographic location of the audience, as well as the audience’s age.

Government has begun to realize the need for social media. In November 2011, the federal government released a set of guidelines for Twitter and Facebook use, to encourage the adoption of social media within civil servants and government services.

As you can see by Service Canada’s Twitter account – which has approximately 1,500 followers – social media is already being embraced by some government departments.

Service Canada on Twitter

In this day of multi-media, smartphones, and an increasing expectation for two-way communications, our survey shows that all levels of government should consider social media in their communications mix.

Contributions to this post also made by Jeremy Twigg.

Reaction within the social media ecosystem is mixed. There is the usual debate over privacy and big business taking over; as well as the natural comparisons with Facebook’s previous foray into integrating advertising into user’s content.  This intellectual debate, while useful and interesting – is muddying the waters from a business perspective, hijacking the story, and overlooking the needs of approximately 200 million people.

Otherwise known as the 25% of Facebook users who actively follow brands.

Who makes up this 25%? Well, advertising influences the majority of them; in fact, 75% of them cite brand outreach or advertising as the catalyst for them clicking the Like button in the first place. What do they want from the brands they follow? According to a recent survey from eMarketer, they want promotions, discounts, deals, contests, games and exclusive content.

So give it to them.

The opportunity to re-engage an active audience who has already expressed interest in you is like a second date. They already like you (yes, they really like you). Don’t waste that goodwill. Treat the opportunity as a way to convert this fan into a customer, or a customer into an advocate.

Don’t just talk – use the ad like an ad… be honest and transparent and offer something of value or interest. Recognize that you already know them and offer them something that they might want. Do it right and they’ll not only buy, comment, etc., but they’ll share it with their friends as well.

Now that you’re primed, let’s address the criticism first.

Twitter’s concern centers on the fact that the new interface “promotes Plus over relevancy” and is based on the fact that if you choose to see the Google + results of your search (and it is a user choice), they will appear higher than everything else – implying that they’re more relevant or recent. While Twitter results are still available – they have been knocked down and will no longer appear at the top of the window.

The next logical question is how does Twitter define relevancy in this scenario? Reviews, opinions and personal recommendations from people I’ve added to my Google + circles seem fairly relevant to me.

Other social networks are criticising Google for putting its social data above the competition, (i.e. Sites like Facebook). However, it must be said that Facebook has actively shut Google out of its network making it hard to call foul when Google couldn’t incorporate that data even if it wanted to.

Would they want to? Well that is another story.

While Google is God-like in its online footprint – it is not a benevolent being – it’s a business. Google has every right to promote its social network data, on its search engine, above the competition, if they choose to – and they have. Now what does it mean?

Google + search has some pretty interesting implications for corporate marketers, which is likely the real reason everyone is in a huff. Nothing makes a company grumpier than losing market share. Google’s made a pretty savvy assumption here and assumed you’d rather see information from people you know and trust and will click on it faster than content from those you don’t. And they want those people to be on Google +. Now when you ask Google for a review, you won’t just get consumer reports, you’ll also get reviews on that topic from everyone in your circles. Given that 90% of us trust recommendations from people we know, this is some pretty weighty stuff. Suddenly a corporate presence on Google+ seems like a much more worthwhile venture. Companies could widen their reach by encouraging customers to join their circles, and in the process emerge at the top of search results along with reviews from the people they’re most likely to trust – their friends.

Join me next Monday when I explore the impact of social search on SEO, executive visibility and thought leadership.  Until then enjoy your newly socially searchable Googleverse and follow us on Twitter @fleishmanCA.

Last Tuesday Google announced they would be adding posts, photos, conversations and profiles from their social network Google+ to their universal search results – something they’ve titled ”Google + your world” - implementing what is arguably, the single biggest change to their search engine in a decade. After losing social content share to Facebook year and after year, Google has put a very controversial stake in the ground with their +powered search.

Twitter has criticized the move and called it “bad for people” . EPIC wrote a letter to FTC crying foul. Users all over are complaining the changes will push Google + social content over relevancy. Given all of the backlash you’d think Google announced they would refuse access to cat memes.

So how does social search work? What implications will it have for SEO? Corporate branding? How will this impact social influence online? How does this fit into the rest of Google’s offering? How will competition and critics react?

So many questions and way too much to explore in one post so I’ll be writing a weekly series exploring each of these questions called “Searching in Circles” . Each Monday I’ll tackle a new topic and give you my take.  First up in the series – What is social search and how will it change the Googleverse? You’ll find my first post of the series below. Scroll and enjoy!

Searching in Circles Series: What is social search and how will it change the Googleverse?

Stay in our loop and follow us on Twitter @fleishmanCA.

Communications as the currency of Government

Currency has two meanings in this context.  First, like legal tender it is the way Government’s advance their policies, build support for their positions and ultimately win public.  Second, currency also denotes relevance, acceptance and popularity which become critical drivers for successful communications in the public sector.

Regardless of whether it is a Government department or an arms-length agency of Government you CANNOT separate Reputation from Brand.  They are the flip side of the same coin and need to managed a cohesive and integrated whole.

Trust must be earned!

Managing the client relationship and building trust over time requires a deliberate and specific approach.  You need to build and assign the right team to suit the client’s needs.

All relationships have to be built on trust.  But trust must be earned and it is earned with every interaction, every program, every strategy and creative and every account meeting.

But trust is a much broader issue.  Trust in all institutions, public and private, has been diminishing for many years now.  Studies in both Canada and the US show that regardless of the category, consumers expect a certain level of service and ethical behaviour from all organizations.

But these same studies show that the public and consumers have been consistently and all too many times disappointed, further fueling the erosion in trust.

Communications is not a panacea to solving this issue.  But it is the key tool and the leading edge of all organizational relationships.  It plays an important role in shaping strategies and tactics that over time earn back trust and re-instill confidence in our institutions.

Even with all this going for it, the Public Sector has an image problem, especially in the US and Canada.  It is often seen as the bastion of mediocrity.  A place where bureaucracy, short-term thinking and political expediency drive decision-making rather than sound business and marketing principles.

Much of this criticism one might suggest is fair but it can equally be applied to many of our large private sector institutions.  Is political expediency really that different than managing quarterly earnings to affect stock prices rather than long-term value?  Is short-term thinking really different when EBITDA drives marketing decisions rather than customer needs and expectations?

The point is not to be critical of one or the other, but to recognize that these business realities have always been there and as communicators and advisors we have had to navigate these waters over and over again.

So the challenge becomes how to operate and succeed in this complex, ambiguous, multi-dimensional and complicated environment.  Nowhere can you work on the diversity of topics that requires the strategic acumen to break through the complexity and competing needs of the marketplace.  Creativity that resonates and connects to a diverse set of audiences and stakeholders through multi-level approaches that demand inter-dependence. All of this has to be delivered through an integrated set of tactics across a broad spectrum of audiences and markets.

With the vast array of issues and programs that the Public Sector has to offer there is no shortage of opportunity.  The most important and rewarding part of Public Sector work is that many of the programs are either managing or promoting a “social good”.

Come back tomorrow for part two of this piece when advice for successful communications in the public sector is shared.