Mediaboss Marketing

The perspective is from Kalimantans local community.

Carbon offset is currently starting to be promoted as an effort to offset our sins to our environment by doing good deeds.

An example is by planting more trees in terrestrial areas and mangroves in coastal areas. Other than that, there is also a concept of environmental services by safeguarding the rainforest and as compensation for that, there will be some funding by converting the potential carbon absorbed by the rainforest into some money to develop the livelihood of the local community to build their lives without harming the forest.

Kalimantan is one of the worlds lungs covering 40.8 million hectares. It lost 2.7 million hectares of forest by 2009 and an additional 2.2 million hectares by 2016. According to WWF, Borneo could lose 75 percent of its forest by 2020 due to the alarming level of deforestation on the island. The threats are coming from some unethical activities such as illegal logging and forest land clearing for the monoculture industry. These activities then lead to the growth in illegal wildlife trade, as the cleared area of the forest then allows access to more remote points in the forest.

The local community, as the frontliner, is also struggling in their lives to be the saviour of the forest. They have no other options to fulfil their lives other than approving the offer to work on such destruction to the forest. On the other hand, some NGOs are doing some public awareness to save the forest and promoting some alternative livelihood.

However, no community development has a major impact. Organic farming, for instance, is not effectively impacting the livelihood of the community as there is no proper market for the product. Therefore, the scheme of environmental service incentive and carbon offset seem very interesting to be promoted to the local community. But, is that scheme working effectively to promote pro-environmental behaviour by the locals?

According to social marketing theory, to promote such an initiative, the target audience should think, want, need and/or desire rather than moving directly to persuasive efforts. The fact is, the local community knows this concept by only the potential of money resulting from this program. In the end, it is more on business marketing rather than promoting the value of safeguarding the forest. The marketing technique being used leans heavily on money-oriented. Therefore, sustainability concepts or pro-environmental perspectives are still far away from being known by the local community. For instance, the carbon offset business is now developing to sell the package of carbon offset and ask them to buy more rather than the message to reduce and limit their offset activities. So, it is more profit-oriented. Environmental service incentive itself is so far being seen by the locals as the ordinary program, where they will do only with the money and will have no guarantee of continuing the behaviour if the program is over.

Finally, this program, either from the government or the business sector, should implement the concept of social marketing by building awareness and let the community set the perspective on the idea of environmental preservation first.

Moreover, the business sector that promotes carbon offset specifically should integrate the value of reducing the negative activities that lead them to offset the carbon rather than dismiss the message and let the company or customer buy more carbon packages. At this stage, it shows how important it is to include the sustainable message in each product they market as part of the sustainable marketing effort.

Read the original:
Are Carbon Offset and Environmental Service Incentives Saving the Environment? - Indonesia Expat

In todays day and age, markets can change direction in the blink of an eye and huge trends can show up overnight only to die down a few weeks later. Plus, customers are better informed and require more than just your good intentions to pay attention to your brand.

Therefore, businesses must adapt to the crazy fast pace of the market and find new ways to cope with the coming and going of the trends. Thats where marketing automation truly shows its value as it takes over routine tasks and frees up time for ingenuity, creativity, and strategy.

But you cant have marketing automation without the right tools. Luckily, the offer is incredibly diverse with smart automation tools that can help improve the customer experience while also shedding hours off your schedule. However, it can be a bit confusing when trying to decide which tools work the best for your needs.

For instance, did you know you can use social media monitoring tools to automate and enrich your campaigns? Heres how:

Social listening is the process of monitoring what people are saying about topics of interest to you online. With the right tools, you can learn more about your customers opinions about your brand, products, and more.

You can check brand mentions across all platforms, so you dont waste any marketing opportunities. Brand mentions mean people are talking about you, therefore, you have to make sure youll be a part of the conversation.

Plus, you can use social media monitoring tools to take a peek at your competitors strategies and campaigns. After all, inspiration can come from a wide range of sources, right?

Overall, social listening is great for your marketing because it keeps you up to date with popular topics and lets you know whats trendy on the market.

Monitoring tools bring huge loads of data that you can use in all sorts of marketing campaigns and strategies. However, it takes time to understand what each tool brings and how to make the most of it.

Luckily, some of these tools also have analytics built into the system, which means you can create default and customized reports to better understand trends and currents. With the right data, social media can paint an accurate picture of your customer, which is incredibly valuable information especially in todays day and age.

Customer support is the one service you know for sure it can improve your chances on the market when done right. When customers and interested buyers reach out, you must reply quickly and swiftly to keep their satisfaction levels high.

Luckily, nowadays you dont have to hire a call center company to cover basic interactions. Intelligent chatbots are not new technology, but small and medium-sized brands are not extremely keen on using them.

However, with minimal initial investment and the data provided by social media monitoring tools, you can set up user-friendly chatbots that can take over routine questions and even basic actions. Plus, chatbots can stay active 24/7 and they use AI algorithms to learn from the collected data how to better talk with your customers.

Quick note: There are plenty of AI tools you can use to up your marketing and social media strategy. Also, these tools are quite affordable even for small brands, so theres absolutely no need not to use them.

Automation is a great way to make sure your campaigns are moving forward while you are taking care of the creative side of marketing and social media. So get all the tools you need before starting your journey to conquer the world!

Share This ArticleDo the sharing thingy

About AuthorMore info about author

Analytics Insight is an influential platform dedicated to insights, trends, and opinions from the world of data-driven technologies. It monitors developments, recognition, and achievements made by Artificial Intelligence, Big Data and Analytics companies across the globe.

Read the original:
How to Automate Your Marketing With Social Media Monitoring Tools - Analytics Insight

This week, Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen testified about the tens of thousands of pages of internal documents she leaked exposing how Facebook prioritized profits over the publics safety and called on lawmakers to regulate the social media network.

By bringing to light the consequences of Facebooks algorithms, Haugens testimony has forced corporations to rethink their relationship with Facebook and use of consumer data, according to digital media experts at Olin Business School at Washington University in St. Louis.

Most advertisers who invest in Facebook or other social media platforms are aware of the ways in which these technologies collect and use customer data to improve the ROI (return on investment) of advertising dollars. In fact, these capabilities are positioned as a selling point, said Michael Wall, professor of marketing practice and co-director of the Center for Analytics and Business Insights at Olin Business School.

That said, other aspects of how Facebook and others drive great returns for their advertisers have been hidden within their algorithms. The whistleblower has changed that. Advertisers are now aware, and they will now be faced with decisions related to both the ethical use of data and being values-based.

According to Wall, business leaders should be thinking hard about how their firms many of whom have become dependent on platforms such as Facebook for business growth will use customer data responsibly.

Certainly, the amount of users on these platforms is appealing in that it enables marketers the ability to reach a lot of consumers. That said, the real value is driven by the algorithms within these platforms that track everything we say and do to pinpoint which of those users should see our content, when and how many times, Wall said.

This raises ethical questions about what is appropriate to not only track, but also share with third parties some of whom use the data to advertise and track consumers beyond the original platforms. Its easy to focus on Facebook given its behemoth size, but any company using consumer data is at risk of causing harm to its consumers.

Every organization with access to rich consumer data, using Facebook as an advertising vehicle or not, must at least from time to time confront the dilemma: should some information be used to improve the profit line in the short run even though it might not be in the best interest of a consumer? said Yulia Nevskaya, assistant professor of marketing at Olin Business School.

It is a difficult situation to manage for a brand, given that the interests of a particular manager might not always align well with a long-term success of a brand. Implementing data-drivenandvalues-based culture and decision-making is key.

This is not the first time Facebook has found itself in the hot seat for its handling of user data, misinformation and other threats to American democracy. The more customers, companies and government have learned about social media, the more pushback has been generated from each stakeholder, Wall said.

Change is already underway. For example, Apples recent feature with its iOS 14.5 update notifies customers that apps are tracking their data and gives consumers the ability to block said tracking.

This was a massive blow to Facebook, among others, who rely on that tracking to drive more advertising revenue, Wall said. Apple isnt the only one. Google is also preparing to block third-party cookie tracking. These industry actions, coupled with government policies such as GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) and the California Privacy Rights Act, will make the use of customer data more difficult in years to come.

Limiting the use of consumer data or cutting ties with Facebook altogether may seem like an unfathomable choice for businesses. However, taking a stand now could pay dividends down the road.

Research over the last several years has shown that customers prefer buying from companies that are aligned with their personal values, Wall said.

In 2018, Nike was one of the first major brands to take a controversial stand with its Colin Kaepernick commercial. Since then, many more companies have taken stands on social issues that align with their brand values, such as racial injustice, voting rights, gun laws, climate change and LGBTQ rights.

As a marketer, my position is that brand equity is ultimately not driven by advertising. Furthermore, it is something we certainly cannot control. Instead, our brand is something we steward, Wall said.

This stewardship is driven by choices we make, which drive the actions we take, and together they lead to consequences in the market. Leaders must make tough choices about near-term growth and long-term growth. The wrong choices today may enable more profit today but may also lead to decreases down the road.

Social media are new, powerful and complex players and we, as a society and as individuals, have to get tooled very quickly to live with them, Nevskaya said.

Social media shapes our world, our information bubble and our choices. We now know that our Facebook feed is carefully calculated by algorithms that decide which political opinions, sources of information and products are most likely to elicit a response from us, she said.

Facebook and other social media companies possibly with the help of regulators have a responsibility to confront the ethical dilemma of their business. At the same time, consumers need access to reliable information about the ways in which social media impacts their lives.

Consumer literacy should be taken seriously and implemented in a comprehensive way, starting at an early age, Nevskaya said.

Over the last two decades, as the situation with Facebook illustrates, companies and organizations developed extremely sophisticated tools to advertise and promote their products and ideas, Nevskaya said. Gone are the days when a television ad for a major brand consisted of mostly repeating the name of the brand many times in a loud voice, which marketers believed would make the consumer remember the product and buy it.

Consumers are smart, but they need to be fully aware of the new methods, how exactly their personal information is used by organizations and to be offered very concrete tips on navigating modern marketing.

Read the original post:
WashU Experts: Facebook controversy raises ethical questions for corporations - The Source - Washington University in St. Louis - Washington...

On Tuesday, Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen testified before a Senate panel. The hearing's focus was advertised as "protecting kids online."

"I believe that Facebook's products harm children," she said in her opening statement, saying that the documents she published proved that Facebook's "profit optimizing machine is generating self-harm and self-hate especially for vulnerable groups, like teenage girls." Facebook spokesperson Andy Stone noted on Twitter during the hearing that Haugen "did not work on child safety or Instagram or research these issues and has no direct knowledge of the topic from her work at Facebook."

Researchers have worked for decades to tease out the relationship between teen media use and mental health. Although there is debate, they tend to agree that the evidence we've seen so far is complex, contradictory, and ultimately inconclusive. That is equally true of Facebook's internal marketing data, leaked by Haugen, as it is of the validated studies on the topic.

The leaked Facebook research consists of opinion surveys and interviews. Facebook asked teens about their impressions of Instagram's effect on their body image, mental health, and other issues.

That reliance on self-reporting the teens' own opinions as a single indicator of harm is a problem, says Candice Odgers, a psychologist who studies adolescence at University of California, Irvine and Duke University. That's because teenagers are already primed by media coverage, and the disapproval of adults, to believe that social media is bad for them.

Odgers was a coauthor of a study conducted in 2015 and published in 2020 that found exactly this. "If you ask teens if they are addicted/harmed by social media or their phones, the vast majority say yes," she tells NPR. "But if you actually do the research and connect their use to objective measures ... there is very little to no connection." With the exception of a small increase in behavior problems, her study found no real world connections between smartphone or social media use and several different measures of psychological distress and well-being. "At the population level," the paper concluded, "there was little evidence that digital technology access and use is negatively associated with young adolescents' well-being."

Odgers' paper was peer-reviewed. It had 2,100 participants. It's just one of hundreds of studies published over decades on children and adolescents' media use and well-being. This research started with radio, moved on to television, video games and now social media. All along the way, large peer-reviewed studies have found few correlations. "It's mostly null," Odgers says.

The Facebook research was not peer-reviewed or designed to be nationally representative, and some of the statistics that have received the most attention were based on very small numbers.

According to Facebook's own annotations of the leaked slides, the finding broadly reported as "30% of teen girls felt Instagram made them feel worse about their bodies" was based on 150 respondents out of a few thousand Instagram users surveyed. They only answered the question about Instagram's role if they had already reported having body image issues. So the finding does not describe a random sampling of teenage girls, or even all the girls in the survey. It's a subset of a subset of a subset.

In another of the Facebook surveys, out of more than 2,500 teenage Instagram users surveyed in the U.K. and U.S., 16 total respondents reported suicidal thoughts that they said started with Instagram. Because of the way this data was sliced and diced in Facebook's internal slides, those 16 people, less than 1% of all respondents, became the ultimate source of stories that reported 6% of teens in the U.S. and 13% in the U.K. blamed Instagram for suicidal thoughts.

Vicky Rideout is an independent researcher who has published more than two dozen studies on young people and media use. She says it's "a useless distraction" to compare the confrontation with Facebook to the showdown over Big Tobacco, as senators have been doing at these hearings. That's for two reasons: because the evidence is nowhere near as strong, and because social media unlike cigarettes can be beneficial as well as harmful.

One of Rideout's 2021 studies on teens, unlike Facebook's internal findings, used a nationally representative sample and used a recognized scale to measure depression. In her study, 43% of respondents said using social media usually makes them feel better not worse when they're depressed, stressed, or anxious. Less than half as many, 17%, said it usually makes them feel worse. The rest said it makes no difference either way.

Rideout's research suggests that there is a small group of severely depressed teenagers for whom social media has a bigger impact for better and for worse. She thinks they should be a focus of future research.

Both Rideout and Odgers say that rather than get stuck in an endless loop of doomscrolling over small, inconclusive results, the public conversation on social media and teens needs to move toward solutions. They would like to see companies like Facebook put resources toward designing and testing positive interventions.

Some ideas researchers are currently looking at: connecting young people with information about mental wellness or health; promoting accounts that have been shown to make people feel better about themselves; or prompting teens to check in with peers who are having a rough day.

"There really are a lot of teens suffering from depression, and they really do use a lot of social media, and social media really does play an outsized role in their lives," says Rideout. "If there are concrete steps that Instagram or any other social media company can take to elevate the positive and diminish the negative aspects of their platforms, that's something we should support."

Editor's note: Facebook is among NPR's financial supporters and since publishing her book, The Art of Screen Time, Kamenetz's husband took a job with Facebook. He works in an unrelated division.

View post:
The impact of Facebook and Instagram on teens isn't so clear - NPR

Despite the "bombshell" testimony of theFacebook whistleblower Frances Haugen, which scorched the social network before Congress on Tuesday, advertisers appearto be sticking with the social media giant. Major agencies and brands continue to take the path of least resistance with Facebook, giving the company the benefit of the doubt, even as members of Congress questioned the companys credibility.

Its been a punishing few weeks for Facebook: There was a series of Wall Street Journal reports based on files Haugen obtained before leaving the company earlier this year. The Facebook files and Haugens testimony touched on several issues that advertisers have been working on, hand-in-hand with Facebook, for years, problems like political polarization amplified by algorithms, hate speech, and the effects of social media on teen health.

Advertisers have been trying to understand what the Facebook disclosures mean for the industry. But even the research about kids on Instagram has not quite deterred advertisers. What its going to take is a lot more platform scrutiny in order to have your general brands react, said Chelsea Gross, a senior principal analyst at Gartner.

In the meantime, representatives of major ad agencies, including IPG Mediabrands, Omnicom Media Group, and WPP, said they have been informing their brands about the issues with Facebook. They continue to work with Facebook on priorities, like setting brand safety standards.

Subscribe to Ad Age now for the latest industry news and analysis.

Advertisers also remember the brand boycott from July 2020, which raised many of the same issues being highlighted by Haugen. More than 1,000 brands joined the boycott, organized by the Anti-Defamation League and NAACP, to protest hate speech and disinformation. The action led Facebook to make commitments that it is still working on, like standing upbrand safety tools in News Feed and auditing its community moderation reports. The boycott did not dent Facebooks $85 billion in revenue in 2020.

"I don't even think a boycott does anything," said one media buyer. "They are so big and so much of their money comes from small and local advertisers. I think it is better for national brands to work with Facebook to help them solve these issues."

Ad Age spoke with a number of ad executivesin recent days who said that most brands are not looking for new fights with the worlds largest social network. Advertisers needed to look no further than the outage on Monday to prove the importance of Facebook. On Monday, Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp were down for six hours, throwing chaos into the ad plans ofmore than 10 million advertisers.

On Tuesday night, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote a lengthy post on his Facebook page responding to the claims made by members of Congress, critics and Haugen. At the heart of these accusations is this idea that we prioritize profit over safety and well-being, Zuckerberg said. That's just not true.

The argument that we deliberately push content that makes people angry for profit is deeply illogical, Zuckerberg said. We make money from ads, and advertisers consistently tell us they don't want their ads next to harmful or angry content. And I don't know any tech company that sets out to build products that make people angry or depressed. The moral, business and product incentives all point in the opposite direction.

On Tuesday, Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut said that Haugens revelations were a bombshell. The whistleblower revealed information about Facebooks internal research that showed how Instagram could harm teens. Facebook ultimately disclosed the studies publicly, with its own annotations explaining the context. The findings were relevant to advertisers, showing that ads for products related to dieting and body image made some teens feel worse about themselves. Facebook researchers also found that teens were less trusting of influencers, and wanted more authentic peers or authority figures to help them with sensitive personal issues.

Read this article:
Facebook advertisers see no choice but to stick with the platform - AdAge.com