Web 2.0 and Brand: Theory and Practice. A brand-led approach to the use of web2.0 technologies in university’s web presence. Dean Russell and James Souttar, Precedent Communications 22 July 2008
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Web 2.0 and Brand: Theory and Practice.
A brand-led approach to the use of web2.0 technologies in university’s
web presence. Dean Russell and James Souttar, Precedent Communications22 July 2008
Choosing our web2.0 technologies.
The cloud
Our audiences and their relationship
with us.
brand intimacy
brand engagement
Intimacy of
relationship with brand
Level of engagement with brand the SAFE matrix
Intimacy of relationship
with brand
Level of engagement with
brand
HighLow
Low
the SAFE matrixHigh
increased efficiency
improved learning
greater
reachdeeper
understanding
The adoption of a particular technology should be assessed by the benefits this provides to the organisation & brand communication based on each communication type, as outlined below.
the SAFE matrix
By assessing a technology based upon its communication purpose, it is possible to place it within the SAFE matrix framework usually falling under a single quartile.
Banner
ad
Second
life
Online
learning
the SAFE matrix
Intimacy of relationship
with brand
Level of engagement with
brand
High
HighLow
Low
Website
Selecting and comparing
technologies.
CSF model for ‘Sensory’Critical success factor
Weighting of importance (multiply by rating)
Technology - can be multiple columns for comparison(rate out of 10)
Tech 1 Tech 2 Tech 3
Target audience reach
10% 3 (0.15)
Innovation curve 55% 9 (6.3)
PR/Publicity value
30% 9 (1.8)
Measurability 5% 2 (0.1)
Total 100% 8.35 (min target = 6.5)
CSF model for ‘Awareness’Critical success factor
Weighting of importance (multiply by rating)
Technology - can be multiple columns for comparison(rate out of 10)
Tech 1 Tech 2 Tech 3
Target audience reach
55% 7 (4.9)
Alignment/integration with other activities
20% 9 (0.9)
PR/Publicity value to the organisation
5% 2 (0.1)
Measurability 20% 8 (1.2)
Total 100% 7.1 (min target = 6.0)
CSF model for ‘Functional’Critical success factor
Weighting of importance (multiply by rating)
Technology - can be multiple columns for comparison(rate out of 10)
Tech 1 Tech 2 Tech 3
Increase efficiency/reduce costs
20% 6 (1.2)
New approach/solution
30% 9 (2.7)
Increase communication effectiveness
30% 8 (2.4)
Measurability 20% 3 (0.6)
Total 100% 6.9 (min target = 7.0)
CSF model for ‘Educational’Critical success factor
Weighting of importance (multiply by rating)
Technology - can be multiple columns for comparison(rate out of 10)
Tech 1 Tech 2 Tech 3
Improve learning experience
35% 7 (4.9)
New approach 10% 5 (0.5)
Increase learning effectiveness
35% 5 (0.25)
Measurability 20% 8 (1.2)
Total 100% 6.85 (min target = 7.0)
CSF model for ‘Sensory’Critical success factor
Weighting of importance (multiply by rating)
Technology - can be multiple columns for comparison(rate out of 10)
e.g. Second Life There.com
Whyville
Target audience reach
60% 5 (3) 3 (1.8) 7 (4.2)
Innovation curve 10% 7 (0.7) 5 (0.5) 4 (o.4)
PR/Publicity value
20% 9 (1.8) 3 (0.6) 2 (0.4)
Measurability 10% 6 (0.6) 4 (o.4) 1 (0.1)
Total 100% 6.1 (min target = 6.0)
3.3 5.1
Demonstrating our difference.
Evaluating the impact on our brand.
Implementation and measurement.
Buzz monitoring tool
Brand launch blog statistics• Total Views: 25,372
• Best Day Ever: 8,089 — Monday, February 4, 2008: launch day
• Comments: 435
The future?
Mobile technologies
New technologies
The brand ‘experience’ will become more important than the brand ‘message’
The future?
Feedback, comments, queries
or questions.Dean Russell & James SouttarEmail: [email protected]: +44 (0)20 7426 8900
www.precedent.co.uk
Related Documents
