By: Daniel Alexander-Head: Engagement Strategy Director

The last couple of years have been a pretty scary time for a lot of marketers and researchers with the spurt in growth of Social Media. It was easy for us to get comfortable in the processes and procedures that we developed over the last few decades – we controlled the agenda, broadcasted our messages and spent money to buy the silence of zombie-like customers who absorbed everything we said and acted on everything we asked. It almost seems a shame someone had to come and ruin the fun by not only giving customers a voice, but also making the individual as powerful as the world’s largest brands. No longer can we give customers lousy service and disrespectful attitude, as United Airlines discovered after trashing Dave Carroll’s guitar and then ignoring his requests for compensation, costing them an estimated US$180m. Or how Nestle are being forced to review where they purchase their palm oil after Greenpeace advocates sabotaged the official Nestle Facebook page.

So with all this happening, it is little wonder that brands have been fearful of being involved in Social Media. However what is the cost of not being involved?

Despite the negative issues Social Media can have on business, there are some brands, as the Altimeter report suggests, that are making good use of Social Media and recognise that they need to empathize with their customers and become involved with them beyond simple financial transactions. More and more brands realize that they need to be able to converse with what may be frustrated customers in order to form better services, deliver on expectations and create meaningful relationships.

Starbucks and Dell are well documented for their successful efforts to understand their customers and improve on deliveries, whether it be service or innovative products. Others, such as Nike, have created multimedia platforms that use gaming and social collaboration to deliver to niche consumers. Nike Plus is an environment that allows people to track their running times, routes and compete against themselves and others as well as design in real time their ideal Nike shoes.

Recently Pepsi, after 23 years, pulled its commercials from the biggest annual advertising space , the Superbowl, in favour of using a collaborative social media site to give people the opportunity to submit philanthropic and innovation ideas and have the public vote which is the best idea.

Facebook host a quandary of branded pages as companies reach out to their customers and fans – Redbull, Vitamin Water, Heinz, Pringles… all looking to connect people. Some companies have relied totally on connecting customers, such as the peer-to-peer bank Zopa.

It would appear that brands are discovering that it is no longer about them, but rather about their customers and that it is time to work with them towards a shared ideal. This extends to research agencies that have for a long time acted as a veil between brands and their customers. Customers would be contacted to participate in research but agencies would not want them to know who the research was being conducted on behalf of and rarely would the participants see the outcome of their efforts. There is little wonder that response rates dropped so dramatically over the years.

Transparency with participants in research is paramount to ensure that the industry becomes sustainable. Companies are recognizing this hence one reason in the recent surge of research communities and research panels that allow brands to talk directly with their customers and provide a circle of information back to the participants, explaining how their opinions are being used. Market research is starting to transform from being a dirty word amongst the public to one of curiosity and, dare I say, excitement.