FreshNetworks Blog

The latest wave of the GlobalWebIndex report from Trendstream shows that use of social media among consumers has become mainstream. In the most active markets that they explored (Brazil and India) almost 90% of consumers are taking part in social media on at least a monthly basis. Even the least active markets they explored (Spain and the Netherlands) had more than 50% of consumers taking part in social media on a regular basis. This is the third wave of the report and is based on a panel of 51,000 users across 12 countries.

The clear message from the report is that social media is now mainstream across all of these markets, even those where consumers are least active in social media. It is also a reminder that in terms of proportion of consumers who are active in social media, the leading countries are not those that you might expect. The US comes 5th in the report and the UK 7th.

Across the board, the change in behaviour is not just uptake but also the rise of real-time social media. Micro-blogging (think Twitter), social network profiles and commenting are among the fastest growing activities and are all examples of people interacting with each other in real-time rather than contributing content that is primarily for people to find and use at a later date. They are providing real-time opinions and real-time information that others are then interacting with and using.

And whilst the growth of social media shows greatest penetration in markets like Brazil, India, it is in the UK, US and Canada that real-time interactions are strongest. This may be that Twitter and other similar tools have grown more quickly in English-speaking markets, but given the depth of involvement in markets such as Brazil, India, Russia and China it is to these markets that we should look for innovations through 2011 in the real-time social web.

You can read the latest GlobalWebIndex report below:

We’re full of excitement as our co-founder, Caroline Plumb, is off to India with David Cameron as part of a UK Trade and Investment (UKTI) delegation to promote UK exports and investment in India.

As Caroline will be representing a social media agency, she will be promoting the use of  social media technology for businesses – an area  in which the Indian business community seem to have already made good headway.

Caroline’s invitation to join David Cameron’s delegation to India is an exciting prospect given that India has topped a recent survey about businesses who use social media for new customer acquisition.

The survey, commissioned by workplace solutions provider Regus, revealed that 40% of businesses around the world have successfully leveraged social media for new business development.

India topped the chart for the country with the highest percentage of companies using social media for new customer acquisition, followed by Mexico and then Spain. Rather surprisingly, only 35% of US companies and 34% of Canadian companies have successfully leveraged social media to develop new business:

• India – 52%
• Mexico – 50%
• Spain – 50%
• Netherlands – 48%
• China -  44%
• South Africa – 43%
• Germany – 41%
• Australia – 41%
• USA – 35%
• Canada – 34%

With 67% of companies in India also using professional social networking to source information about new customers, clients or competitors, compared to the global average of 54%, it seems that Indian businesses are leading the way in implementing a social media strategy that successfully helps with new business development.

Business leaders in each country were also asked whether they believed that social media was an effective enough marketing channel to be awarded its own portion of marketing budget. More than a quarter of businesses worldwide confirmed they have set aside a proportion of marketing budget specifically devoted to social media activities, proving the benefits of social media for commercial organisations.

More about David Cameron’s India trade mission

David Cameron will be accompanied to India by six Cabinet members and around 60 CEOs, including Michael Queen of 3i, Philip Dilley of ARUP, Andrew Moss of Aviva, John Varley of Barclays,  John Griffith-Jones of KPMG, Graham Mackay of SABMillar and Vittorio Colao of Vodafone, as well as our very own Caroline. You can see the full list at the link below.

Foreign Secretary William Hague, Chancellor George Osborne and  Business Secretary Vince Cable are also among the British government representatives travelling to India.

Read more about David Cameron’s UKTI delegation to India.

I watched the Panorama documentary on the BBC last night about Primark. For those not in the UK, Ireland or Spain, Primark specialises in fast and cheap fashion. They make cheaply priced versions of high-street and cat walk fashion and aim to get it to their stores within weeks of the original outfit first being seen. They claim their cheap prices are due to cost effective production, fast stock turnaround, the fact that they do no marketing and the volumes that they sell. The BBC tonight claimed otherwise.

The documentary followed Primark’s supply chain back to it’s origins, in India. Here, rather than being ethically produced as the company claims, some of Primark’s suppliers are outsourcing production to forced and child labour.

The veracity of the BBC’s claims don’t matter. Programmes like this can be damaging for a brand. The story was leaked to the press beforehand, and tomorrow I’d expect that most newspapers in the country cover the story for people to read on their way into work.

In this kind of scenario, it’s critical how a brand responds. The way Primark were allowed by the BBC to respond, was typical for this kind of TV investigation. They didn’t get right of reply, couldn’t appear on camera to discuss the issues, answer questions or give their perspective. Rather parts of their response to the allegations were shown at the end of the show, although I gather from Geoff Lancaster, Primark’s Head of External Affairs that they were not given any meaningful right of reply to the show. This is disappointing.

This approach to engendering a debate is very traditional. The brand is not really allowed to engage with the programme, with the issues it raises or with the people that watch it. They just get to tell us what they’ve done. After tonight’s show I, like many people, logged on to forums on the BBC site and across the web. The programme had raised lots of really interesting and complex issues. Was Primark really to blame, how did we react to their response to the programme, had we ever really thought before how clothes that are this cheap were made, should we boycott Primark or campaign for them to change their practices.

In none of these discussions was Primark’s point of view presented. The programme prompted a fascinating discussion. I think there is a real debate to be had. We need to understand how our clothes are made and the processes and checks that the brands make. If, as Primark claimed, it is true that only 0.04% of their produce was potentially outsourced to child or forced labour I’d love to hear more.

I have lots of questions for the brand and would love to hear their perspective. Sadly they weren’t given the opportunity to hear mine or tell me theirs. This is a real shame. Information is critical and when you are wanting to influence and change people’s minds you really need to be the one contributing to and even controlling the information they hear. An honest and open conversation would make a real difference.

At the end of tonight’s show, a range of Primark customers were talked to and shown the footage of the factories and production of the garments. Asked how they would respond they all rejected a boycott. Saying this would  achieve nothing. Rather they wanted to engage with the brand and discuss the issues with them, influencing them to be more ethical.

Customers have changed; they want to engage. Programmes like this often don’t allow brands to truly start to engage. It would be great if they did, and if the brands continued this engagement afterwards.

An interesting panel session discussing whether collaborative innovation is something that the western world is privileged and developing countries cannot. Sam Pitroda commented that innovation has always been used to solve rich people’s problems, despite them not really having any problems at all. This may be true. Indeed the brain drain from countries such as India is in part reflecting the fact that the brightest brains in India are not solving their own domestic problems, but working in Wall Street banks.

This thesis is opposed to some extent with the oft quoted phrase amongst western politicians and leaders that we need to innovate in order to compete with the likes of India, China, Brazil and others. This view seems counter-intuitive. Global businesses, as Helen Alexander for the Economist points out, operate globally. They cooperate across boundaries and are intrinsically set up to make the best of the resources available to them, wherever they might be.

Our sister company, FreshMinds Research, did some work a couple of years ago for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the UK on the science and technology links that existed between India and the UK. We found that those that were most successful were often those the governments knew nothing about. Perhaps Helen Alexander was right when she said the best thing the government could do for innovation was to stay out of the way.