Research by NMA in to 500 brands in the 2009/10 Superbrands list has identified 74% don’t tweet. Of the 130 Superbrands, only 50 used the site daily, with 29 tweeting hourly.
Twitter currently has millions of users, has grown more than 2000% this year, and is working successfully for brands like Innocent Smoothies who use their 20,000 strong following to speak daily with their customers. Why then are brands like Proctor and Gamble, with a huge product offering, not yet engaged?
James Nunn, brand communications manager for P&G Grooming, who heads the company’s social media strategy in the UK told NMA that P&G was looking at all forms of social media and wanted to “work out strategy rather than have separate P&G brands doing it ad hoc”.
This is contrary to Innocent’s non-defined approach:
“If we’d had a set strategy at the start and defined some sort of ROI, then it wouldn’t be successful because Twitter doesn’t deliver on that,” said Dan Germain, Head of Creative. “For us it’s just another channel for talking to people.”
Who’s approach is right?
Tempero on Google+
I think that a brand/company like Innocent is always going to find it a lot easier to embrace using any form of social media. I guess it comes down to two things: level of fear/risk and company infrastructure. It doesn't suprise me that a huge company like P&G want to work out a social media strategy before jumping in.