Web 2.0 and Brand: Theory and Practice.

A brand-led approach to the use of web2.0 technologies in university’s

web presence. Dean Russell and James Souttar, Precedent Communications22 July 2008

Choosing our web2.0 technologies.

The cloud

Our audiences and their relationship

with us.

brand intimacy

brand engagement

Intimacy of

relationship with brand

Level of engagement with brand the SAFE matrix

Intimacy of relationship

with brand

Level of engagement with

brand

HighLow

Low

the SAFE matrixHigh

increased efficiency

improved learning

greater

reachdeeper

understanding

The adoption of a particular technology should be assessed by the benefits this provides to the organisation & brand communication based on each communication type, as outlined below.

the SAFE matrix

By assessing a technology based upon its communication purpose, it is possible to place it within the SAFE matrix framework usually falling under a single quartile.

Email

Banner

ad

Second

life

Online

learning

the SAFE matrix

Intimacy of relationship

with brand

Level of engagement with

brand

High

HighLow

Low

Website

Selecting and comparing

technologies.

CSF model for ‘Sensory’Critical success factor

Weighting of importance (multiply by rating)

Technology - can be multiple columns for comparison(rate out of 10)

Tech 1 Tech 2 Tech 3

Target audience reach

10% 3 (0.15)

Innovation curve 55% 9 (6.3)

PR/Publicity value

30% 9 (1.8)

Measurability 5% 2 (0.1)

Total 100% 8.35 (min target = 6.5)

CSF model for ‘Awareness’Critical success factor

Weighting of importance (multiply by rating)

Technology - can be multiple columns for comparison(rate out of 10)

Tech 1 Tech 2 Tech 3

Target audience reach

55% 7 (4.9)

Alignment/integration with other activities

20% 9 (0.9)

PR/Publicity value to the organisation

5% 2 (0.1)

Measurability 20% 8 (1.2)

Total 100% 7.1 (min target = 6.0)

CSF model for ‘Functional’Critical success factor

Weighting of importance (multiply by rating)

Technology - can be multiple columns for comparison(rate out of 10)

Tech 1 Tech 2 Tech 3

Increase efficiency/reduce costs

20% 6 (1.2)

New approach/solution

30% 9 (2.7)

Increase communication effectiveness

30% 8 (2.4)

Measurability 20% 3 (0.6)

Total 100% 6.9 (min target = 7.0)

CSF model for ‘Educational’Critical success factor

Weighting of importance (multiply by rating)

Technology - can be multiple columns for comparison(rate out of 10)

Tech 1 Tech 2 Tech 3

Improve learning experience

35% 7 (4.9)

New approach 10% 5 (0.5)

Increase learning effectiveness

35% 5 (0.25)

Measurability 20% 8 (1.2)

Total 100% 6.85 (min target = 7.0)

CSF model for ‘Sensory’Critical success factor

Weighting of importance (multiply by rating)

Technology - can be multiple columns for comparison(rate out of 10)

e.g. Second Life There.com

Whyville

Target audience reach

60% 5 (3) 3 (1.8) 7 (4.2)

Innovation curve 10% 7 (0.7) 5 (0.5) 4 (o.4)

PR/Publicity value

20% 9 (1.8) 3 (0.6) 2 (0.4)

Measurability 10% 6 (0.6) 4 (o.4) 1 (0.1)

Total 100% 6.1 (min target = 6.0)

3.3 5.1

Demonstrating our difference.

Evaluating the impact on our brand.

Implementation and measurement.

Buzz monitoring tool

Brand launch blog statistics• Total Views: 25,372

• Best Day Ever: 8,089 — Monday, February 4, 2008: launch day

• Comments: 435

The future?

Mobile technologies

New technologies

The brand ‘experience’ will become more important than the brand ‘message’

The future?

Feedback, comments, queries

or questions.Dean Russell & James SouttarEmail: dean.russell@precedent.co.ukTel: +44 (0)20 7426 8900

www.precedent.co.uk