For many purchases consumers lean on their Circle of Trust to assist them in making the right decisions.  The Circle is not limited to friends and family members.  It can also include people who are perceived as experts or have experience with the product category.  By and large these people are grouped into three categories: owners, experts, and brand governors.

• Owners: People the shopper trusts because they have some experience with product or service.  This may be current ownership, past ownership, or they may own a competitive product.
• Experts:  Sources the consumer acknowledges as a trustworthy source within the product industry.  This could be a knowledgeable person they know who has a passion for the product category, or a source that reviews the product category (e.g. Consumer Reports, cNet).
• Brand Governors: People who don’t have any experience with the brand or product at all, but express an opinion.   Brand governors define a brand’s social relevancy, and they are difficult to affect because they address brands emotionally not logically. 

So how can a marketer get in the circle of trust? 

Well, first you need to begin with an understanding of how much a person’s social circle influences their purchase.   You need to look at this on two levels: brand and product.  In most low consideration categories, social has little to do with the purchase  (think about most groceries, many household products, and frequent retail experiences).  In these cases, social is more about aligning the brand with the consumer.  Creating social equity by becoming relevant within their lives, their passions.

Many marketers address social with this strategy.  Think about Kingsford Charcoal’s desire to own Tailgating or Mountain Dew’s desire to own gaming (even so far as to refer to their product as gaming juice) or Dove’s desire to be aligned with Real Beauty.  The goal of of these social initiatives would become an accepted brand within the social group for a given activity.

With many high-consideration products the social circle influences the purchase in several ways.  Some people within a person’s social circle may influence intrusively by lauding or complaining about their product experience, or the shopper may request or seek out information as a part of their purchase process.  Either way, social influence could play an important role in their final purchase.

Generating social influence is difficult for many marketers because it is not a channel they control.  Actually, social is more like a cloud than a channel.  We all are surrounded by opinions, advice, and recommendations.  Some of the social conversation is a result of an experience.  Some is from product news or an expert’s review.  And some buzzworthy stories are relayed through the cloud like lightning quickly passing from person to person. 

For a marketer to be successful in the social cloud, they need to be worth talking about, and not in catchy “ad speak”.  Rather, true authentic buzz is relayed through memorable stories.  Stories worth hearing.  Stories worth sharing.  Stories that are easy to remember. 

Given the diversity of a a targets’ attitudes and motivations, there needs to be a variety of stories, coming from everyone in contact with the product — with the brand.  Think about your story sources:

• Customers:  What are the product stories worth telling?  Is there a way you can fuel the conversation?  Are there interesting ways to recognize advocates or create advocates?  How are you converting dissatisfied customers into advocates?
• Experts:  Do you know the experts within your category (people who influence product purchase either directly or indirectly)?  How are you engaging them on a regular basis?
• Employees: How are your employees embracing their role in the company?  How can you genuinely fuel their passion?  A passion for the products they create?  A passion for the post-purchase or service experience?
• Shoppers:  How are you impressing shoppers within your category (even if they don’t purchase)?  How do you get shoppers to talk about their shopping experience?  How do you invite the shopper’s social circle into the process?

These sources are just a start of your social cloud.  To figure out your social cloud listen to the conversations, understand the motivations and attitudes of advocates and customers, and then fuel the conversation through persistent engagement.

The question is intriguing.  Marketers struggle with the valuation of social initiatives.    While no one questions the value of someone advocating your brand, people question the impact of a social campaign because …

• Social programs do not fit in a media model.
• Social is one discussion at a time, where traditional is about a mass broadcast.
• Social programs are about effectiveness not efficiency.
• It is difficult to relate social interactions to a sale.
• Social programs are about fueling a conversation, not controlling the message.

  … therefore we often ask the wrong valuation questions, because we are comparing social campaign to traditional campaigns – traditional measurement.  It is interesting people are not asking what a television viewer is worth.  Although we know what it costs to reach the viewer (CPP), we do  not valuate the viewer.  In other words, with traditional messaging we look at efficiency of distribution not a valuation of target impact.  When we gauge the success of a traditional campaign, we point to shifts in funnel measures, and there is nothing wrong with this.  However, we do not point to a specific commercial airing nor try to correlate it’s impact.   Enough about television, let’s get back to facebook.

I believe there is merit in the social valuation or what a facebook fan is worth.  The worth of a fan can be evaluated by looking at the cost incurred to generate a facebook presence and the brand value received from fans.  To accomplish I would recommend a three tier approach: recruitment, engagement, and advocacy.

Recruitment
Recruitment is the cost to attract people to your facebook page.  Some brands have the luxury of fans building their fan presence on Facebook (for example the two Coca-Cola fans who built the initial coke presence on Facebook).  However,

The value in recruiting can be assessed by the quality of fan.  Are you attracting people who have an emotional connection with the brand?  Or are you attracting people based on a non-brand premise like a contest or shared passion point?  Many brand run contests or sweepstakes to attract fans.   The value proposition for a contest is a false value rarely within a brand’s DNA, therefore most fans attracted in this manner are less likely to be engaged — unless there is another contest.

A shared passion point between the brand and fan (e.g. sports, entertainment, fashion).  An example for many marketers is their NASCAR sponsorship.  M&Ms sponsor a Kyle Busch’s Toyota car, and they also have a facebook page for the sponsorship.  It is no surprise the comments on the page center more around the driver than the chocolate covered candy.  Lucky for M&Ms the fans on the M&Ms Racing page  (6,653 fans) pale in comparison to the M&Ms page (545,688 fans).  

Measuring recruitment can be measured in Cost Per Fan Acquired (cost incurred /  fans added).  The CPFA will vary when you consider the following:

• Zero cost assuming fans are attracted to the brand.
• Cents per fan by using  an email campaign soliciting fans from an existing brand email list.
• Dollars per fan using a targeted online media campaign to attract fans.
• Cost of an item to attract fans.  For example Outback treated facebook fans to a free Bloomin’ Onion last year to fans and more recently Babies R Us offered a $5 gift card to attract fans (per BlackFin 360 nice blog entry about the campaign).

In general the less you pay will equate to a higher quality of fan, but it is still difficult to assess the quality of fan during recruitment — quality will be defined by engagement and advocacy.

Engagement
Engagement is the cost(s) to reach and engage the fanbase.   Reach is simply the cost to update your facebook presence.  The benefit of a facebook reach strategy is keeping the brand top of mind with fans — a tactic shared by other social channels like  Twitter or other direct channels like email.   The value of the facebook message (or call to action) will dictate whether the message will result in additional awareness or purchase. 

If reach is your only goal, then you might want to rethink your facebook strategy.  Facebook is about community.  It is about engagement.  The better facebook pages are built around engagement or getting fans involved.  Engagement is fueled by persistent community content and activities to get fans to take action — to respond — to feel.   Some examples include Dunkin Donuts (1,228,000 fans) or Tide (354,000 fans).   If you look at both facebook pages, there is nothing really profound — no “ah-hah” moment, because both sites do the little things well.  They pepper content with activities to keep people engaged with the brand, and fans respond.  Intermingled between the brand posts you will find fan shout outs about their affection for the brand.

Engagement should be measured through effectiveness of the facebook interaction.  Effectiveness can be valued through interaction rate or transaction. 

Interaction rate is the participation level relative to total fan base.   If a brand has 100,000 fans and in a given week 1,000 participate on the page then the interaction rate is 1%.   The interaction rate is an indicator to the health of the brand engagement.  Different factors will effect the interaction rate including how much natural brand conversation exists; the brand participation on the page; and the emotive attachment fans have to the brand.

A second measure is transaction.  Transaction can apply to a purchase or customer service response.    A non-intrusive to measure transactional impact for a purchase would be using coupons to determine if fans purchase the product (think about Outback’s Bloomin’ Onion coupons).  Another method to determine purchase frequency would be to survey purchase habits of fans.  For high-consideration purchases (e.g. autos, electronics) you would survey purchase consideration instead of  purchase frequency.

Customer service transaction incorporates facebook into your customer service strategy.  The goal would be to reduce the number of customer service calls by providing an interaction method on facebook.  Best Buy has been playing with this idea on Twitter (e.g. TwelpForce) and is using their facebook page in a similar manner.  The advantage of a customer service facebook page is the power of the community would assist in answering a customer’s question (instead of crowdsourcing you could call it “Crowdservicing”). 

Advocacy
Advocacy is a desired result for a facebook investment.  It also may be the toughest to measure.  The desire of any brand would be to have their band of fans spread how greatness of the brand/product.  Advocates are people we know.  They are people we trust.  The power of the advocate can be the most influential marketing force (nothing new – this is a Word Of Mouth fundamental truth).  However, measuring facebook advocacy impact is not easy.

Advocacy can be measure through brand exposure and purchase impact.  Brand exposure are the social impressions in a fans news feed that are generated from a page interaction.  They can be as simple as fanning a brand to ”Like” something to generating comments on the brand page to using a brand app. 

The brand exposure would be computed by taking the each fan interaction times the social exposure to their feed.  For example, if four fans comment on a topic we would calculate as follows: fan 1 has 110 friends; fan 2 has 150 friends; fan 3 has 300 friends; fan 4 has 250 friends.  The additive value for this brand exposure would be 810 brand impressions.  The likelihood of 810 friends seeing the interaction is remote, therefore this should be seen as an opportunity. 

Looking to the future, facebook should supply brands a threaded brand exposure view.  This is defined as the real brand exposure as oppose to the calculated opportunity as described above.  Facebook should be able to tell how many people are exposed to a friends brand interactions, and better yet, how many people acted on their friend’s brand interaction.   Friend to friends actions can include becoming a fan of the brand or ”liking” / commenting on their friend’s interaction.

The residual value of advocacy’s impact on purchase can be difficult to measure — but not impossible.  Many people are studying the effect of social buzz to purchase.  For example, a study done by Northwestern University’s Kellogg’s School of Management with Motivequest examined the link between online buzz and sales relative to cellular phones (“When talk matters — A Study of Online Performance and Firm Performance”).  The study found a correlation between online buzz and sales.  From this analysis Motivequest (with Northwestern University) created an Online Promoter Score.

What’s the right measure for your page?
These measures outlined will vary by brand, by page, by client.  Therefore I have to add the appropriate measure will depend on the objectives of the site.  A best practice would be to break measures into what you can effect and what is good to know.  Focus on measures that are actionable — that help you achieve you objectives.

Coca-Cola’s Expedition 206 Campaign is about to send a team of three people on a year-long global tour to 206 countries.  Per Reuters article Coke hopes to take advantage of the ubiquitous-ness of social media and ”deliver a year-long reality TV series without the TV.” 

For the people who do not get selected, they can live vicariously through the winning team.  They can follow the team on social platforms like facebook, YouTube or Twitter.  People can also offer suggestions to the team like activities to do or places to see within each country. 

The campaign made me contemplate if this was the best way to engage coke fans globally.  Sure the winning team gets a once-in-a-lifetime experience, but how enriching is the brand experience to the billion of global coke drinkers?  Or the 3.7 million fans on facebook?  What’s in it for them? Why should they care?  Is there a better experience to engage more people in Coke’s Happiness campaign?

Look, Coke isn’t the first marketer to generate a vicarious global brand experience.  Last year the Smirnoff 10 got the opportunity to go bar hopping world wide, and hang out with musicians, celebrities and the beautiful people.  And again, you wonder what the pay-off is for the people not on the trip.

4 Levels of Brand Experiences
Based on these initiatives I contemplated what are the different levels of brand experience engagements, and the overall value to a social network.  My objective in delineating different levels of brand experience engagement is not to say there is a “right” answer.  Rather, it can be used more as a brainstorming tool to explore more personal brand experiences that are more impactful to a larger portion of your fan base or target audience. 

The four levels I identified are:

1. Viewing the brand experience vicariously through someone you never met (or a celebrity) 
2. Viewing the brand experience vicariously through a friend
3. Sharing a brand experience virtually with your friends.
4. Sharing a brand experience physically (in the real world) with your friends.

The first level is like the current Coke campaign — people you never meet go on a trip, and you can follow their experiences.  The level of value and entertainment will be directly correlated to the attractiveness of the participants.  This is no different than any reality shows success.  The more interesting or provocative the participants, the more likely people will tune in and follow.  For this reason, a brand may use a celebrity instead of an unknown, because the celebrity is immediately identifiable, and you can forego character introductions or character building.

The second level is following a friend while they participate in a brand experience.  The friends social group may be more engaged in their experience, at least to a point.  Think of the last time someone shared their vacation pictures to Europe, Asia or any exotic destination.  Somewhat interesting to a point (depending on the stories), but lacks memorable or impact because you did not partake in the experience.

The third level is a distributed experience.  With social networks, wi-fi, and mobile tethering it is not a stretch for people to share the same experience in multiple geographic locations.  Imagine sharing New Years Eve with multiple friends across the country, tweeting about Super Bowl commercials, or star watching in the Academy Awards Show through a facebook chat.  

Some experiences already exist in a distributed manner.  For example, last August a group of friends participated in a virtual Fantasy Football draft.  About five people attended a draft party at my house, while three people participated remotely through chat, cell, and texting.  I found it interesting that the group dynamics didn’t change much for people who weren’t there. 

The final level is a an experience in the physical world.  These brand experiences are somewhat common.  Companies like House Party organize brand parties in homes across the country.   Brand parties are an excuse to get together with friends (like a Fantasy Football Draft parties are like a male Hallmark Holiday).  And unlike a jewelry, make-up or Tupperware party, there is no coercion to purchase items from the host at a brand party. 

Party Host, Wallflower or Party Crasher?
At all levels, brand integration is a challenge.  For example, how is the brand experience amplifying aspect of the brand?  Is the experience a reflection of the brand DNA or could any brand be inserted into the experience.  Integration is a key to memorability.  You don’t want the brand to be a wallflower within the experience.  The brand should be the ambiance.  The brand should be the experiential catalyst.  The brand should be the unforgettable reason why the experience exists.  The worst case scenario for a brans is there is no cognitive right to be in the experience — in this situation the brand would be seen as a party crasher.

An example of experiential synergy is Mountain Dew and gaming.  Imagine Mountain Dew hosting an all night gaming party across the country for the release of Madden 2010.  This is easy for Mountian Dew because the have spent years integrating their brand DNA with gaming (just think about gaming juice). 

Also, the more personal and shared the experience, the more the memorability will be amplified.  The closer a brand gets to a level 4 experience the more the experience will be amplified.  Past experience tells us there is a big difference between viewing pictures of a friend’s trip to Europe versus reminiscing with the same friend on a trip taken together. 

So is there a Level 4 Coke idea?
Most brands don’t have the luxury of a brand integration into a brand passion point like Mountain Dew.   Think about Coke.  I get the following equation: Global Brand = Global Trip.  Most people get it.  Executing a global social campaign makes sense for the brand.  So the current campaign is definitely on strategy, but is there a bigger global experiential idea that could get more people involved — that could show the global diversity of the coke lover — that was part of the Coke Brand DNA (e.g. spread Happiness which is the Coke tagline).

A step toward this would be to build on the current idea and increase the number of teams from one to 206.  Hey why not?  206 countries would equate to 206 teams.  Each team would cycle through each country sequentially, building upon the previous teams activities.  The breadth of diversity would increase.  The amount of friends would increase.  The social footprint would increase by over 200 percent.  The obvious drawback is funding.  But hey, Coke is a global brand with a global budget right?  In all seriousness, it would be expensive, but at the same time the bold action will bring more attention to the campaign and increase local relevance within each country. 

The global 206 still is primarily a Level 1 idea, maybe a borderline Level 2 idea.  So is there something deeper — in Level 3 or 4. This would require switching the emphasis to distributed experiences, and focus on single experiences that happen globally.  The challenge with a global experience is what experience is shared globally?  Maybe New Years?  Maybe the Olympics?  I don’t know the answer, but I feel there is a stronger Level 4 experience out there Coke create.

My recommendation is always strive to the more personal experience.  It may not make the headlines (or make a good viral video), but in the long-term brand health it will have a bigger impact on the bottom line.

Watching the Barney Frank confrontation the other day reminded me of advocacy.  Advocates are a powerful means of persuasion in marketing.  Typically an advocate will be more persuasive than advertising.  They are passionate about the product. They talk in consumer, not product terms.  Advocates are great — unless they are on the lunatic fringe.

Which brings me back to the Barney Frank Video.  I am sure the woman at the microphone is passionate.  She is advocating her position against the current health care reform.  Most people would find her not persuasive, and also may wonder what planet she spends most her time on.

Many brands have advocates who spar with advocates from other brands –  Apple versus Microsoft; Chevy versus Ford;  Bud versus Miller to name a few.  The question I have is — are your brand advocates persuading others to try the brand?  Or, are your brand advocates alienating people,  pushing them to other brands?

So, how do you tell the difference?  Below is a hypothetical advocacy continuum.  It spans from neutral brand opinion to a zealous point of view.  There are several factors that separate each level.  The first is personal identification.   As you move to the right on the continuum the brand and the advocates persona will merge.  For example, if a person is interested in a brand they just like it.  The brand does not define them.  While an evengalist will identify more with the brand and maybe see it as a part of their personality DNA (e.g. think Apple, Harley, Linux).

Another factor is empathy, or how accepting is the advocate of an alternative point of view.  Here I see the difference between an evangelist and zealot.  The brand evangelist will believe in and promote their point of view, and yet accept that there is an alternate perspective.  The brand zealot will talk in absolutes.  There world is black and white.  They feel they have made the right selection, and from their view alternative brands selections are wrong. 

The final factor is rational discussion.  A person passionate about the brand will talk about how the product benefits them.  A brand evangelist will be able to engage in a discussion aboutthe differences between their brand and the competition, and why their product choice is superior.  A brand zealot is just right, and may take the discussion into absurd, emotional realms which will alienate many people.

The goal of any brand should be to fuel the passion through information, experiences, and dialogue.   As marketers, our hope is to impart on advocates information they can internalize and use to persuade others to join the brand — to share their passion. 

I really do not have an answer on what to do with zealots ( anyone have suggestions?).  I would hate to shun anyone who is passionate about my brand, but you cringe at the idea representation which will lead to alienation.  Also, based on the words of Barney Frank — no one wants to have a conversation with a dining room table.