Richard Telofski

Introduction

Social media is an environment that is seemingly tailor-made for NGOs and activists to exploit. Among other characteristics, social media are accessible to almost everyone in the developed world. Social media are pervasive; more and more people use social media every day. Social media are inexpensive. And social media skew young.

Because of these factors, economically, demographically, and psycho-graphically, social media are perfectly positioned for NGOs to leverage in their campaigns against business. Because of these reasons, and because NGOs are among the chief anti-corporate campaigners out there, companies want to know more about what these atypical competitors, these “irregular competitors,” are doing from within social media.

Today, I am going to give those corporations a “mini-heads-up” and give a little bit of insight as to what two NGOs are up to in social media. This heads-up will be limited to the examination of “reach.” The NGOs examined will be:

• Greenpeace US
• Friends of the Earth US (FOE)

I’ve chosen to examine these two NGOs for six reasons.

1. They’re both about the same age, and therefore have the same opportunity at notoriety, and reach.
2. They’re among the largest of the tens of thousands of NGOs on the planet.
3. Because of their size, these NGOs would tend to have the most potential for influence on the companies they target.
4. These two are among the most active of all NGOs in terms of anti-corporate activism.
5. In an effort to compare “apples to apples,” I chose these NGOs because they operate within similar issue arenas, such as the environment; their Venn diagrams of issues coverage overlap, not completely but highly.
6. Again with attention to an “apple to apple” comparison, both NGO operations cover the same geography. Each NGO has an international organization, but in this article I will only be looking at their U.S. operation.

Factors

Reach is significant in social media. Yes, I know that some of my social media colleagues don’t regard “reach” as important in social media as it is in traditional media. But I submit that reach is very important, especially so in a medium that is perfectly positioned for NGO goals, as noted above.

One of the elements which produces the social media”reach” of an organization is its size. The bigger the organization then the more well-known will be its brand. And the more well-known its brand, then the more followers, friends, fans, and/or subscribers that brand should have in social media. The more followers, friends, fans, and/or subscribers had by that brand, then the more opportunities for the brand’s message there are to be transmitted and discussed and forwarded and discussed again and back and forth and so on. Social media is a medium of discussion and “pass along.” So, if the originator of a message, like Greenpeace US or FOE US, has more followers, friends, etc., than a similar organization, well, then there are simply more opportunities for message propagation not only at origin, but also further down the chain of the social web.

So, let’s go ahead and do a bit of analysis on the social media reach of these two NGOs.

Findings

Below you’ll see a table which details, for each NGO, the number of Facebook fans, the number of Twitter followers, the number of MySpace fans each has, along with similar statistics for each NGO’s YouTube presence.

NGO Social Media “Reach” Comparisons

As of January 14, 2010

Discussion

You can see that Greenpeace has FOE beat hands down, across all categories. This could be a function of Greenpeace being a more established organization, with a brand that is a global icon. People like to follow the leader, and they’ll do so in social media as in any other aspect of life.

The number that particularly stands out in the table above is that MySpace friends number. Since MySpace is a site heavily trafficked by music lovers, this differential would indicate that Greenpeace has some particular strength with music fans. That’s something for corporations in the crosshairs of Greenpeace to keep in mind, i.e., targeting (or not) the music lover segment in future PR battles. But there’s a big disconnect between that MySpace fan number and that Twitter number. The Greenpeace twitter number is only a bit over 10% of their MySpace number. I think they’re missing something there. Greenpeace could be leveraging that MySpace following into their Twitter effort and using it for effect in various campaigns. And the same idea could be applied to Facebook. With only about a third of the following on Facebook as they have on MySpace, Greenpeace doesn’t seem to be doing much in the way of cross-pollination. This lack of cross-pollination should be something kept in mind by targeted corporate communications personnel. Now, let’s chat about FOE.

What I find especially disappointing in these FOE numbers is the level of Twitter followers that FOE has. I have more Twitter followers than that. They simply aren’t leveraging their Facebook and MySpace presences to increase their level of Twitter followers which, if FOE had more Twitter followers, could make it easier and more effective for them to spread quick, mini-blog type messages during hot and fluid campaigns. And speaking about their Facebook and MySpace followings, for an organization the size of FOE US, those following levels are terrible. Numbers of that level indicate that FOE isn’t doing an adequate job in developing their social media campaigns. Perhaps FOE isn’t taking social media seriously? Something else for targeted corporate communications personnel to keep in mind.

What about the FOE YouTube numbers? Well, it seems abundantly clear, about 20 times more clear, that Greenpeace is giving viewers a lot more to look at than is FOE. Perhaps FOE isn’t as visually oriented as Greenpeace. Again, you corporate communications managers take note.

So, what can we conclude from all of this?

Conclusion

The take-away, for corporate opponents of these “irregular competitors,” is that between Greenpeace US and FOE US, in social media Greenpeace would be a more formidable foe than would FOE itself. In social media, by comparison, FOE isn’t much of a foe. With such low numbers, for corporations in a social media PR battle with FOE US, corporations should concentrate very heavily on creating, discussing, and propagating their message in social media. FOE has a relatively underrepresented presence there, and any corporation locking horns with FOE US should take advantage of FOE US’s relative absence and comparative disengagement with the medium.

For corporations with high Twitter follower numbers, they should especially concentrate in that mini-blogging venue, both preemptively and reactively. It’s apparent that FOE US doesn’t realize their weakness there in that social venue. And any corporation that has ever been engaged in a “battle” with FOE US, or anticipates one in the future, should act now to build their following in Twitter, so that FOE may be “out-Twittered” if and when the time comes.

Share on Facebook