Websites such as Groupon, LivingSocial and even Travelzoo have been getting in on the act, promoting local businesses and driving customers to their venues to sample anything from a falconry day to a three-course meal with champagne.

And it seems these are proving so popular that another established website has decided to jump on the bandwagon and see whether it can succeed where plenty of others have failed.

Gumtree is the latest site to launch a daily deals service for its customers but it claims its offering is different – consumers can use social media to communicate what they want to see.

Customers can give their view on the daily deals through its Facebook page, so they get exactly what they want out of the service.

Hamish Stone, head of marketing at Gumtree, explained: “Consumers are becoming increasingly savvy to the offers that are available, both on the high street and online, so it is vital to offer a unique and different platform in this competitive space.”

Daily deals have proved to be extremely popular in recent months, with local retailers reaping the benefits of the offering in post-recession Britain. However, only time will tell as to whether the long-term impact of the deals – getting repeat custom – is all it’s cracked up to be.

At the moment, local businesses pay a fee to the deals provider before they can advertise and promote their special offer. The deal, therefore, needs to be such that they still make a significant return after paying money out initially. With the voucher culture becoming ever-more prominent in the UK, it’s unclear as to whether people will ever be willing to pay full price for things again!

Related posts:

1. Now it’s Google vs Groupon
2. Spammed to death – how email marketing could be killing your business
3. Facebook and the death of the company website

Well, perhaps not for herself – it seems unlikely she would have had much to do with the establishment of the British Monarchy page on the social networking site. However, whoever has been given the task of looking after the page has certainly found out the internet is not always a friendly place.

More than 150,000 people have “liked” the page since it was set up on Monday, but the site has become a hotbed of political debate with the issue of republicanism, the Falklands and Cornish nationalism all featuring among the comments.

So how has the royal page decided to deal with this? With something of a softly, softly approach, it seems. Although offensive comments have been deleted, a large number of critical ones remain.

Speaking to the Guardian, a spokesman from Buckingham Palace said: “Spamming is a common problem on Facebook. The site has systems in place to report and block spammers and the web team is using the tools available to block offensive comments.”

So is this the right approach to Facebook criticism? In the case of the Queen, yes. The monarchy is unlikely to be abolished because of a few comments on a social networking website, while deleting them could lead to a bigger storm if people feel they are being gagged. Engaging with the posters would only legitimise the comments and besides they are plenty of pro-monarchy supporters willing to fight the Queen’s corner.

The lesson for firms to learn here is not to overreact to online criticism, although in some cases it may be appropriate for them to take a more proactive approach to things. Social networks are a great way for brands to spread their message, but companies have to remember they are a two-way street and, where appropriate, let people have their say.

Related posts:

1. Twitter looks to strike Facebook deal
2. Will businesses benefit from Facebook’s latest profile changes?
3. Facebook and the death of the company website

That’s the view of Richard Eyre, chairman of the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB). Speaking to the organisation’s Engage conference he explained sites like Facebook and Twitter are helping spread good news about brands and services.

“[Online] advertising has moved from being a dumb brochure to an excellent concierge. We’re putting trust, transparency and control in the hands of the user,” Marketing Week reported him as saying.

Of course, word of mouth is something the net has been doing well for a few years now, although firms are undoubtedly better at making use of it than in the recent past.

However, this on its own doesn’t make them the loyalty cards of the internet – obviously there needs to be some sort of two-way relationship there. Clearly social networks are an excellent way for companies to highlight special offers, but unless the promotions are specifically targeted at a firm’s Facebook friends or Twitter followers it would be hard to argue consumers are getting much out of it.

If social networks are to become the real online loyalty cards there will need to be a change in the relationship between customers, businesses and sites like Facebook. Foursquare has developed a way of ensuring its users are rewarded and could offer a template for future endeavours.

It encourages businesses to offer special discounts to their “mayors” – the person who has checked into a particular location the most in the last 60 days. This means people are rewarded for using Foursquare and visiting a certain establishment.

With Facebook looking to expand its presence in the smartphone market through new software, expect it to launch a similar service in the very near future. If it takes off, then social networks really will be the loyalty cards of the internet.

Related posts:

1. Twitter looks to strike Facebook deal
2. Twitter passes MySpace, lags behind Facebook
3. Are the social media advertising kooks worth a look in?

NMA reports that research carried out by YouGov has found that 42 per cent of people in the UK think online videos have an influence on buying decisions. However, 70 per cent of respondents claimed they had never shared a viral ad.

Depending on which way you look at it, that’s either really good news for the viral marketing whizz kids or it’s really bad news. Which view you take depends on how your look at that 70 per cent. Is a significant proportion of this group sharing viral ads without realising what they are? (Good thing.) Or do most of them feel the ads they do see aren’t worth passing on? (Very bad thing.)

As you’d expect, the firm that commissioned the survey, 7th Chamber, suggests it’s the former. However, even if it is the latter 30 per cent of people actively sharing virals is still a reasonable proportion of web users, especially when you consider the exponential rate at which such things grow.

Let’s take Facebook as an example. Studies have put the average number of friends at various levels, but for simplicities sake we’ll say it’s 160. If an average user posts a viral ad and just five per cent of his friends repost it that’s eight more links. It may not seem like a huge number but if those eight users also have 160 friends each then things start to take off. An additional 1280 people will see the link and if five per cent of them repost it another 64 links will have been created, bringing in an extra 10240 potential views.

Of course, the maths in that example has been simplified and the five per cent repost figure is totally arbitrary. However, it does give you an idea of just how many people can end up viewing an ad and why virals are something of a holy grail in the marketing world.

However, there still seems to be plenty of work to do. If the proportion of people sharing ads can be doubled, or even trebled, the potential audience will boom. Some of those 70 per cent who say they have never shared an ad will be unimpressed by efforts so far and firms need to up their games if they are to win this group over.

They should also make sure their ads are hitting the mark. The simplified example above assumed people have the same number of Facebook friends and respond to ads in a uniform manner. In the real world, this isn’t the case and companies need to ensure their viral campaigns hit home with those who have 100s of friends and only repost high-quality content.

When it comes to viral ads, the bottom line seems to be if it can be done, it can be done better.

Related posts:

1. Can T-Mobile’s Angry Birds ad really be considered a hit?
2. Facebook and the death of the company website
3. Spammed to death – how email marketing could be killing your business

This may seem somewhat unusual given the other defining characteristics, but there are plenty of examples – just look at the outpouring of anger whenever Facebook tweaks its design. It seems that although these people are quick to embrace the new, once they’re used to something they like it to stay the same. This is something US clothes retailer Gap has just found out to its cost.

Last week, the company decided to replace the logo had used for more than 20 years as it looks to freshen up its brand image. The firm quickly discovered that the new design (pictured above) wasn’t to everyone’s taste. To be honest, it’s a pretty basic logo – the font is Helvetica and the blue box appears to be a basic piece of clipart, but it seems likely the reaction would have been the same no matter what they’d chosen.

Comments from consumers on Gap’s Facebook site branded the image “cheap” and called for the return of the classic logo – a blue box with GAP written in white. The company backtracked and announced it would hold a crowd sourcing exercise, giving the public a chance to submit designs for, and vote on, a new logo. A great idea, right? Surely consumers couldn’t fail to love an image which they’d played a part in selecting? Well, as it turns out Gap hadn’t quite got the message its fans were trying to send – they didn’t want a new logo, full stop.

The firm has since backtracked again and announced they will be bringing back the blue box. Some will argue the whole thing was a publicity stunt and it’s certainly true the company would have been unlikely to suffer any long-term problems had they stuck with the new logo and waited for the anger to die down.

However, Mark Hansen, president of Gap Brand North America, sounded surprisingly contrite when he announced the move back to the original image.

“We’ve been listening to and watching all of the comments this past week. We heard them say over and over again they are passionate about our blue box logo, and they want it back,” he said.

He added the firm had “missed the opportunity to engage with the online community”, comments which should act as a warning to any company that has ignored the benefits of social media interaction.

Related posts:

1. UK airport shows how social media affects customer satisfaction
2. Are the social media advertising kooks worth a look in?
3. The Queen’s Facebook page could teach businesses a thing or two

There’s a little bit more to things than that, although not much. The pair post images and videos of them wearing the slogan-bearing t-shirts on social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter and people watch them. It may sound stupid, but Nissan have just hired the pair to advertise their new car.

So is the future of social media marketing really in the hands of teams of unknowns dotted around the world? Personally, I think the answer is a resounding no. However, that doesn’t mean they should be ignored totally.

Speaking to Fast Company magazine, Jason Sadler, founder of I Wear Your Shirt, explained what he sees as the benefits of their system.

“It’s so different than traditional advertising, like going to auto shows or getting bloggers to do reviews on the cars,” he said.

“We are real people and real customers. Let us actually get in the car and tell people what’s cool.”

He also points out that the service costs very little, and if a company makes a sale because of them the return on investment is very high and what’s not to like about that?

This particular service may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but it is an excellent example of the innovative new forms of marketing that are opening up. Social media allows you to reach customers in a way that has never before been possible. It may be unusual, but there’s no reason why unusual can’t be good.

Related posts:

1. UK airport shows how social media affects customer satisfaction
2. Gap logo fail shows why social media can’t be ignored
3. Just how social will Facebook’s social inbox be?

Fortunately, there’s always someone around to do research on this sort of thing. A study conducted at Colorado University revealed the number one reason people “unfriend” someone is because they had been subjected to a torrent of “useless” posts. The posts can controversial topics such as politics, race and religion, or mundane matters such as what your favourite band is.

Obviously, the more controversial the topic the more likely someone is to sever an online connection with the person whose update it is. However, when it comes to the duller things quantity becomes a big issue. As the researchers put it: “The 100th post about your favourite band is no longer interesting.”

And this is something businesses need to pay attention to. Once you’ve built up a sizeable following on Facebook, it may seem tempting to keep them informed of every little development, but as we’ve seen that’s a sure fire way to annoy them.

There’s no problem with posting several status updates in one day, but make them they’re interesting and informative. Furthermore, ensure the updates you post are not all “me, me, me”. Give consumers the chance to interact with you by asking them what they think of a development or offer. Not only will this give you a valuable insight into what’s going on in their heads, it’ll also help you check you’re not shouting into the void while everyone wishes you’d just shut up.

Related posts:

1. Twitter and Facebook might not change the world, but they could transform your business
2. Facebook and the death of the company website
3. Facebook and Skype? People need to think bigger than just better instant messaging

It’s this intrusiveness that makes behavioural advertising so unpopular. Yesterday, I talked about how some big brands seem to think they can get away with pretty much anything when it comes to online marketing, and the fact certain businesses seem happy to plunder what is arguably private information in an attempt to boost their sales is further evidence of this. Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on which side of the argument you’re on, the European Union looks set to take action on the issue.

Without going into too much detail, the practice of gathering browsing history data in order to target ads has already been given a clean bill of health under UK law. However, the European Commission feels these laws may not go far enough and could be in breach of EU rules, so it has referred the case to court. Ultimately, Britain could be forced to change the law and that could make behavioural advertising campaigns much more difficult to conduct.

However, it shouldn’t take a court ruling to highlight just how pointless the ads are in the first place. The train banners I was subjected to appeared on a football website which had never before carried anything by the firm in question. My suspicions were immediately aroused and, after a few clicks of the mouse, I discovered what had happened and opted out of the “service”. My opinion of the brand in question declined as a result.  Had the banners appeared somewhere else, a newspaper website for example, they would have been less obvious, but that would have made them no more effective – I would have simply ignored them.

Clearly neither result is what a brand would want from a campaign and it amazes me that businesses still seem to think online consumers can be tricked into engaging with them, especially as there’s no need to take this approach in the first place. The nature of the internet means people connect with things they like and brands they trust. If someone joins a firm’s Facebook page, then the company in question pretty much has a direct line into their lives and can keep the person informed about news and special offers. Likewise, a well optimised website will attract people who are searching for what it provides, generating traffic and customers. With this in mind, there seems very little point in snooping into people’s browsing habits in an attempt to attract consumers. If you’ve got things right, they’ll find you.

Related posts:

1. Spammed to death – how email marketing could be killing your business
2. Facebook and the death of the company website
3. What Ray Whinstone teaches us about the future of advertising

Figures released by research site Spam Ratings have revealed the UK’s top brands aren’t exactly covering themselves in glory when it comes to their email marketing campaigns. It found that 51 per cent of such firms breach best practice guidelines, meaning a staggering proportion of them seem happy to run the risk of annoying consumers. The guidelines, which were laid out by the Direct Marketing Association, state that businesses should gain “positive consent” for their emails – that is to say people should have to tick a box to opt in, rather than having to uncheck one to opt out.

Richard Gibson, chair of the DMA Email Marketing Council, had some damning words for businesses that duck the guidelines. “Email marketing that breaches the guidelines not only brings the medium itself into disrepute but also has the potential to massively damage a brand,” he said.

And it’s hard to argue with him. Consumers find spam just as annoying as the unsolicited junk mail which is pushed through their letterboxes on a daily basis. By constantly emailing customers, firms are acting in the same way as that dodgy takeaway no one ever visits. People aren’t going to order a meal just because 12 menus have landed on their doormat, and they’re not going to buy something from a website, no matter how reputable it is, just because they have 12 emails about it sitting in their inbox. In both cases the recipients are just going to get angry at the business in question, and that defeats the point of advertising.

Of course, email marketing is a very cheap way of doing things and it can be extremely effective. This makes it tempting to take a scattergun approach to things, but that’s exactly the opposite of what businesses should be doing. The other great benefit of online marketing is the ease with which results can be monitored. If you’ve just emailed your entire customer base with what you think is a fantastic offer and the click-through rate is pitiful you’ve certainly wasted money and you’ve probably alienated a significant number of people, yet a huge number of firms seem to be happy to do this again and again.

As the DMA points out, you want people to opt in to your internet campaigns, rather than feel they’ve been roped into something they’re not interested in. For that reason email marketing should just be one part of your overall strategy. There are plenty of other ways to woo online consumers and they are at least as effective as email. Search engine optimisation and a well-thought-out social media campaign will attract customers and also ensure they engage with a brand in a positive manner. That’s a combination more traditional channels can’t always offer.

Related posts:

1. Facebook and the death of the company website
2. Behavioural advertising – the black hat of online ads?
3. Just how social will Facebook’s social inbox be?

Although they’re often taken to be the same thing, the Web and the Internet are, in actuality, separate. In fact, if you own a smartphone you’ve probably already accessed the Internet without making use of the Web at least once today. An app which lets you check your email, for example, would fall into this category – and we all know how popular apps are getting.

So what does this mean for businesses? Should they simply shut down their websites now? Clearly the answer is no – that would be an overreaction to a trend which is still in its infancy. However, a new survey from Beyond suggests firms need to have a serious think about the way they are interacting with their customers. It found that more consumers (23 per cent) would prefer to receive information about companies and brands via Facebook than a business’s website (21 per cent).

It’s hardly a mind blowing fact, but it’s certainly an interesting one. So why are people so keen to stay in touch with brands via social networking sites? Well, the fact 23 per cent of people said they preferred to receive information through direct marketing may provide part of the answer. Consumers typically want to know two basic things about brands and companies – what special offers they have and news about products and features. If that’s what you’re interested in, why would you bother checking a company’s website on the off chance something had changed?

Facebook, like direct marketing, means customers don’t have to do anything to receive the information they’re looking for. That’s why it’s increasingly popular and that’s why businesses should be taking advantage of all it offers. If someone has a Facebook app on their phone and they follow your brand through the site, it essentially means you have a way of contacting them, in an unobtrusive manner, wherever they are and whatever they’re doing.

However, websites are clearly still vital. After all it’s the preferred information source for 21 per cent of people and that’s a significant proportion of customers. There are a couple of other things to consider too – not everyone who uses the Internet has Facebook and those who prefer to receive information via social networking sites may well have connected to a brand via their website in the first place.

Right now, having a high-quality, well-optimised website is just as vital as having an impressive presence on social networking sites. If you’re neglecting one at the expense of another, then you’re missing a trick.

Related posts:

1. Spammed to death – how email marketing could be killing your business
2. The Queen’s Facebook page could teach businesses a thing or two
3. Is Facebook an online loyalty card?