Location-Based Social Networks

I'm sure by now, we have all heard of some location based social networks such as Foursquare and Facebook places. Not only do these applications benefit consumers; they benefit companies as well. Customers can leave positive feedback and tips about companies on Foursquare, which in turn can encourage business. There have been several companies that have taken advantage of this social media outlet, and formed campaigns around them. One such campaign was the @CatchAChoo campaign by Jimmy Choo, a high end fashion company based in London, that used Foursquare as a way to promote their products. The campaign started in order to introduce and promote the company's newest sneaker line in an innovative, engaging way. The main goals of the campaign were to increase the conversation about the Jimmy Choo brand both online and offline, increase customer interaction and word of mouth conversations about the new line, as well as monetary goals. The social media agency that created the campaign was a company called Fresh Networks, also based in London. So how did Jimmy Choo pull off a campaign on Foursquare? They used several means of social media- Foursquare, Twitter, and Facebook, all of which were integrated together to form the total campaign. This really encouraged customer interaction. The main basis of the campaign was that there was a pair of the new sneakers in a bag that would be placed at various locations around London. Followers of their Facebook and Twitter pages were given hints as to where the sneakers might be, and then the sneakers were "checked in" to those places on Foursquare. One of the main reasons that Jimmy Choo used all of these forms of social media was to also involve customers that weren't in London because with the other two outlets, they were able to follow the campaign as well. Once a person approached the Jimmy Choo employee with the bag of sneakers, the campaign was over, and the winner got a free pair of the sneakers.

So...sounds like a great idea and all, but how did it work? Well, there were several, very concrete results. First of all, the sales of the sneakers rose 33% following the campaign, and positive mentions of the company online increased by 40%. During the campaign (which lasted 4 weeks), there were 111 check-ins on Foursquare and 4000 Twitter mentions of Jimmy Choo. Obviously, the campaign reached its goal of increased customer interaction; one article stated that 1 in 17 Foursquare users in London were participating in the campaign. The CEO of Jimmy Choo, Joshua Schulman, stated:

"The Jimmy Choo Trainer Hunt, CatchAChoo, has been a real success in terms of achieving our key objectives for the campaign. The campaign not only generated successfully traditional offline media coverage, it also spread the online word-of-mouth about our new Jimmy Choo Trainer collection.

We have been pleased at how it has increased the level of interaction with our brand, and with trainer sales in-store increasing as a direct result of the campaign, we are very pleased that FreshNetworks' strategic approach has helped generate real ROI."

One thing that companies are often scared of when it comes to using social media as a means to advertise and promote their products is that they don't understand how to see real life results. This is understandable, since social media is more intangible and  it can be hard to measure monetary value and growth. However, companies need to develop a means of measuring their return, like Jimmy Choo did, before they launch any sort of social media campaign. One of the goals of the @CatchAChoo campaign was to increase online conversation of the company, which it did. It is important to establish goals and ways to measure if these goals are completed or not beforehand. 

So what do you guys think about companies using social media and location-based social networks in order to advertise their products and services? Would you do it even if it didn't show concrete ROI?


(The link to the campaign video can be found here)

Facebook vs LinkedIn

An article titled "7 Reasons Why Recruiters Like Facebook More Than LinkedIn" on Mashable.com this week pointed out that while LinkedIn is a great resource for employers and recruiters, Facebook is actually preferred in order to interact and find potential candidates. There are several reasons listed as to why Facebook is the top choice:
1. It's more engaging. While LinkedIn has the options to follow companies and generate discussions among networks, it can't compete with the level of engagement that Facebook offers via photos, events, wall posts, and company promotions. LinkedIn is more of a professional, one-sided conversation whereas Facebook stimulates conversation among employers and candidates.
2. It's where the action is. Think about how fast Facebook has grown in the last several years and how often it is used in comparison to LinkedIn. I know that personally, I check my LinkedIn once every few days, but I tend to check Facebook every day. For our generation, Facebook is simply more used than LinkedIn. Most people will set up a LinkedIn account, but then not use it very often.
3. It's free. While LinkedIn and Facebook are both free for us as candidates, LinkedIn costs money for employers. Therefore, Facebook is a more economical choice for employers because anyone can join free of cost. Facebook also offers the employers more free features such as videos and pictures, which generates interest and conversation amongst followers of companies.
4. It's a bigger network. Let's face it, no one can compete with the sheer numbers of Facebook. According to this article, Facebook boasts 800 million users, while LinkedIn has about 120 million. The larger of a user base there is, the more people a company can potentially reach.
5. It's more open. As was stated earlier, Facebook is free for everyone to join and every member enjoys the same benefits. LinkedIn offers benefits as well, but there are differences offered by a free account or a Premium account (for which one must pay).
6. The "Like" button. The "Like" button is a more recent invention by Facebook in order to engage users even further than before. When someone "likes" a company page, their friends will be able to see what they have "liked", which could potentially generate interest among even more users.
7. It's better for branding. I took this section to mean personal branding. LinkedIn seems to be more professionalized, but Facebook is where employers can see a candidate's true colors. This way, an employer can see the complete picture and personality of who they are interested in hiring, instead of the information given on LinkedIn. (This also means that we must be very careful what we put on Facebook and what other people put up about us as well).

The article brings up the point that a lot of students and recent grads are creeped out by employers because they feel it is a more personal site and shouldn't be used in job consideration. What do you guys think? Would you feel comfortable sharing information with employers over sites such as Facebook and Twitter, that are more personal, or a professional site like LinkedIn?