There are a number of factors that would lead you to expect that brands operating in Australia would be investing heavily in social video content and leveraging the large user communities in the top sites, such as YouTube.

These factors are:

1. The simple fact that Australians are demonstrating a huge appetite for online video.  Close to a billion, yes a billion, videos were consumed by Australians in the month of January 2010. A billion in one month, or 33.3 million per day, or 23,148 per minute.
2. Video and mobile. 42% of online Australians use a smartphone, according to Nielsen.  Everything is going mobile, therefore brands need to provide content that works well on mobile devices.  The answer is video.
3. Because the average online Australian spends more than 6.52  hours per month in social media (Nielsen).
4. Video content is three times more clickable than text – this is an anecdotal fact that I hear quoted regularly. I don’t have a source for it, I’m afraid.
5. YouTube is emerging as one of the leading search engines.
6. The media landscape is shrinking, presenting fewer opportunities for brands to engage with their target audience.  Therefore, brands have to seize the initiative and begin creating their own branded content.  That content could take many forms; educational and how to guides; infotainment; news; opinion; video based campaigns and so on.

The fact is that 65 per cent of the brands that we studied did not have an official brand presence in the top social video sharing sites. That figure is a little disappointing but not tragic – the bad news is that more than (just over) 50 per cent of the corporate channels were inactive, which we generously defined as having not been updated for more than 2 months.

Now, this inactive issue is one we have encountered before.  It points to the issue of brands engaging without the necesary resources or strategy or integration in place.  We’re not saying this stuff is easy but I strongly feel that no presence is preferable than an inactive / dormant account.

Here is the full presentation and a link to the press release on our local website:

One of the challenges when conducting this research is identifying a credible list of companies that can act as the sample for the research.  In this case, we used the Nielsen Top Advertisers Report for 2009.  We worked with Nielsen to make sure that they were comfortable with our methodology for the study.  It’s important to stress that the study does not assume any direct link between media spend and social media strategy or between advertising content and social media.

It’s possible that the methodology caused us to miss video content that is being produced by these brands because it is served via their own corporate website, or a third party channel provider (such as Viocorp) or Facebook.  That could be the case but it still represents a missed opportunity.  If you’re creating video content then you may as well make it available via the most popular online video service, even if your primary video channel is hosted elsewhere.

The research is far less rigourous and detailed than anything that Nielsen would do (for obvious reasons) .  Having said that, we do feel that the research produced some interesting findings.  It can act as a benchmark for brands in Australia that want to assess their social media engagement and presence against industry as a whole.

We’ve worked on quite a few of these now.  It follows our study into the use of social media (Facebook, Twitter, blogs) by twenty top Australian brands and an evaluation of online newsrooms.  For both of these studies we drew the sample companies from the Interbrands Best Brands report.

I’d say that few young people want to become MPs because generally speaking MPs are seen by teens as crusty, out of touch oddballs at worst or chino wearing try hards at best.  I am not sure if this video will help… but social media certainly provides an opportunity for politicians to connect in a more meaningful way with this constituency.

In a great article for The Guardian, Catherine Bennett, writes that (the video)…“gives the impression of an unusually intelligent alien who has made a careful study of human beings, without ever having had the opportunity to meet one.”

Gordon and the Labour Government have since come under fire for 1. announcing the video on YouTube (as opposed to in Parliament) 2. trying to gain political advantage on an issue that effects all MPs and 3.  presenting a proposal that will clearly get voted down.

Oh dear… check it out:

I think some small changes could dramatically improve the video.

I would have had Gordon sitting in his actual (natural) work environment. That would prevent the body sways. It might also be advisable to present this in more of a Q and A format so that its more discursive – YouTube isn’t well suited to speeches.

The Downing Street YouTube channel needs a host – someone to take the audience into the heart of the Government and someone that the audience can relate to.  This host would interview the MPs by asking the questions that the audience want answered. These stage managed presentations don’t feel very authentic at all.

The tone of the expenses video is far too earnest and self important and the randomly interspersed smiles are disconcerting. Gordon has undoubtedly received a lot of training and its not reasonable to expect this stuff to come naturally to everyone but some simple changes could dramatically improve the content.

Comments have been suspended but were initially open, according to Bennett’s article.

In other half-baked YouTube video news…

Last week we had the worldwide President of Dominos Pizza on YouTube responding to the fall out caused by another YouTube video, which was created by two employees in North Carolina.  Dominos received a lot of positive coverage for their handling of the crisis but I felt all of the good work on YouTube was undone by that fact that Mr. Doyle did not respond direct to camera. I reckon he looks well shifty.

The title of the video is unfortunate.

Here is some off-camera action from Gordon Brown this time. More good work undone…

I am living overseas but I think Gordon Brown’s chances of returning the Labour Party to Government in 12 months time are very slim.  Will the Labour Party risk it? I can’t help feeling a bit sorry for the guy and I am definitely on his side of the political spectrum but I sense that there is strong support for change across the country.  Gordon’s tenure has been somewhat tenuous from the start – remember his shall we, shan’t we have an election stumble?

1. Wayward Dominos’ employees in Conover, North Carolina
2. The UK Labour Government’s political smear campaign

I have heard much discussion about the brand and political impact of these unfortunate exposes and lots of experts talking about the need for the victims (or culprits) to engage social media to clean up the mess caused by these indiscretions.

All of this is interesting to a point.

I have heard commentators sprouting the following nonsensical claims; that organisations will withdraw from social media programs as a result of the Dominos experience – in particular. And that Dominos in particular needs to get out there – i.e. into social media – to address the issue. Something that they eventually did.

Let us face the facts.

• Employees in fast food restaurants mess with food.
• Political smear campaigns are as old as politics.

The community is so obsessed with social media at the moment that we are failing to address or consider the underlying and age-old stories and issues here.

Social media has become the story – for everything. Its like a veneer that corporations and institutions can paint over their shoddy and unethical practices to make everything alright.

We’ll quickly move onto the next thing but I doubt that much will change at Dominos or within British politics.

Social media can be a means to an end (i.e. changing stuff) but its not an end in itself.

This represents a step change in US/ Iran relations and is a natural extension of the use of social media by the Obama team. This is sure to stimulate a lot of online activity and no doubt cynicism but I find it very exciting that the US Administration is proactively and publicly reaching out to nations that have previously been positioned by the US Government as ‘evil’ with a constructive message of reconcilliation and hope.

The objectives of the research were to:

• Capture data on the frequency and type of new media used by Australian Federal politicians, parties, interest groups and activists
• Provide an analysis of the new media used to identify the range of viewpoints and the level of interactivity and community engagement attempted or achieved

Overall, the level of engagement achieved had been minimal due to the failure of the politicians to use the power of social media to engage and interact. Only one of the 226 politicians studied allowed negative comments to appear on their site (this was Malcolm Turnbull). In all other cases, comments sections were either not available or carried purely fan mail i.e. positive/supportive messages. Very small numbers replied to questions submitted via Websites and social networks, completely missing the opportunity to engage in conversation and drive advocacy.

Some figures:

• Less than 6% of selected Federal politicians had a new media presence assessed as “fairly interactive” (i.e. involving links inviting people to comment, ask questions or leave messages)
• 185 elected Federal politicians had new media sites which were completly one-way information dissemination with no opportunity for comment or input by members of the public
• Web and other sites of 70 elected Federal politicians comprised a single page and were judged to be a ‘token effort’
• Only three (1.3 per cent) were classified as “very comprehensive”, assessed on the basis of multiple pages plus links to other information such as blogs, podcasts or YouTube. The Kevin07 site was one of the three.
• Two Websites were judged to be amateurish and the majority were based on templates
• There were just 15 blogs but on average Federal politicians used 2.24 types of digital media

One of the key conclusions drawn from all of this is that “new media have not created a new public sphere of political discussion and debate where citizens can participate as equals as envisioned by Habermas (1989)”.

I take issue with this conclusion. It’s clear from the data that new media hasn’t been given the chance to create ‘a new public sphere of political discussion’ because it has been poorly applied and executed. In other words, new media hasn’t failed but our politicians and their advisors have. John Howard provides a case in point. He made little or no attempt to adapt his message or presentation for YouTube and opened his maiden YouTube appearance with ‘Good Morning!’.

There was much talk after the presentation about the fact that the majority of people that visited these types of sites where politically active and that it’s not actually these people that influence the outcome of elections.

My colleague, Ed, made a good point after the event. He said that he agreed with this conclusion but that the experience of US pollies had shown that social media could be used effectively as tool for mobilising a community of politically active advocates and supporters i.e. it does have an important role to play/does add value.

I would argued that politicians, in general, need to change the tone of their message and the way it is presented (Infotainment). This would help to engage the politically apathetic and help voters feel that they were interacting with a real person with a personality.

The report touched on the contribution of prosumers or citizens in terms of video commentary and other types of media. Macnamara made the point that much of this content was spoof material and he said that the jury was out as to whether this represented genuine political discourse. I don’t think there should be any question that it does.

My other observation related to the number of times that the audience made a point based on an assumption that only young people use social media.

Overall, it was an informative session in an academic setting and food for thought.