From the sound of it, brands can expect to get their own version of the Facebook Timeline sooner or later. When that will actually happen remains a mystery, but a Facebook representative is quoted as saying:

“We are currently focused on Timeline for individuals and will consider how to make consistent experiences for Pages, but we have nothing to announce at this time.”

Like people, brands have ups and downs, and are probably going to want to review what is actually on these timelines very carefully, once they actually do come out (assuming that they do). It sounds like social media managers at companies could have their work cut out for them.

Obviously some companies will have bigger tasks with brand timelines than others, depending how long they’ve been around, should they choose to utilize the feature to its full potential. Keep in mind that for users, you can update the timeline as far back as your birth. I assume that for brands, they’ll be able to do so for as long as the brand has existed, and some brands have been around a really long time.

Take the New York Times, for example. It’s been around since the mid 1800’s. Imagine how rich and extensive their Facebook timeline could be. Brand timelines, for those companies who choose to utilize them to their full potential could provide limitless information and knowledge about brands in a way that we just haven’t really seen in the past.

Sure, they’re going to be PR-friendly. Brands will be in control, so you’re not necessarily going to get the really juicy stuff, although the ballsy brands will embrace the bad with the good and show some authenticity.

If you think about it, brand timelines could really change the landscape of what social media marketing looks like. If this were some standalone product out there from some unknown startup, I probably wouldn’t be so quick to make such a proclamation, but this is Facebook we’re talking about. 800 million users strong. Most brands already have Pages. Just as it is likely to do for users, the Timeline could change the game for brands.

Update: In the meantime, it looks like brands are already finding ways to get some use out of Timelines.

In fact, if the stats Higgins quoted are anything to go by, there’s still a noticeable amount of disdain and/or ignorance concerning blogs from the perspective of these brands.

As indicated, a large portion of bloggers discuss brands in their work. According to Higgins’ numbers, the amount is around the 2/3rds mark, meaning quite a few write and discuss brands in their posts. Furthermore, 1/3 of bloggers surveyed post product reviews, and another 1/3rd post about everyday experiences at stores and their commitment to customer care. Of course, a critical post about a store’s poor customer service can be very damaging to a brand’s reputation, so perhaps that explains the rift between the two entities.

That being said, that doesn’t stop various brands from approaching the bloggers, asking them to either review or discuss a consumable item of interest. Upon review, it certainly appears as if brands view bloggers as a necessary evil, although, the same is not always true of the people writing the posts. According to Higgins’ information, in 2010, 33 percent of bloggers boycotted brands, but in 2011, that number has been reduced to 25 percent. That, however, doesn’t stop the brands from approaching bloggers, as many bloggers are cited as being approached by various brands numerous times a week.

Adding additional fuel to the “necessary evil” fire is the fact that over 60 percent of bloggers discussed in Higgins’ presentation have complained about not being treated professionally by the very brands they write about. Of course, if your blog publishes a “_____ Company Sucks” post, it’s doubtful the brand being criticized in such a manner would be very genial in their discourse, although, one could argue these brands should perhaps address the problem being written about instead of reacting negatively.

Furthermore, only 15 percent of the bloggers discussed report favorable interactions with various brands, whereas 34 percent say these experiences unfavorable.

So what does all this mean? Should bloggers ignore brands altogether and focus on creating other quality content? Not necessarily. Being an authority in the field you are targeting means knowing about and discussing those entities who have influence within the same field. If your posts ruffles some feathers, then you’re probably doing it right — unless, of course, you are writing about falsehoods and/or are making up lies about the brand being criticized.

For 5 years, WebProNews has partnered with BlogWorld and New Media Expo, the world’s first and largest new media conference, in an effort to broadcast how new media can grow your business, brand, and audience. Stay tuned to WebProNews for much more exclusive coverage.

As you may know, Yahoo just fired CEO Carol Bartz. She had some choice words for the Board.

“For all the financial woes that forced CEO Carol Bartz to be fired on Tuesday, Yahoo still ranks high in the eyes of consumers, the spokesperson adds. “While the media focuses on Yahoo’s behind the scenes issues — dropping ad revenues, its Asian holdings, the flailing Microsoft search engine partnership — the public’s perception is clearly not fazed.”



”According to YouGov BrandIndex’s Index score tracking — the company’s main brand health indicator averaging measurements such as consumer perception of quality, value, impression, reputation, satisfaction and willingness to recommend — Yahoo has not only remained steady all year, but they are well ahead of Microsoft’s heavily-marketed Bing,” he explains. “While Yahoo’s Index score has been in the 40-41 range, Bing has been hovering around 8.8 to 11.”



By comparison, Google is well ahead in the perception race, clocking in in the upper 50′s score range,” he adds.

It will be quite interesting to see how brand perception continues into the future under the company’s new leadership. Currently, CFO Tim Morse is filling in while the company looks for a new permanent CEO.

Are the new domains a good idea? Tell us what you think.

ICANN is to start accepting applications for new gTLDs on January 12, 2012. The application period will run until April. They’re expected to roll out late next year.

The IAB, however, is calling on ICANN to withdraw this plan, saying it will cause “incalculable financial damage to brand owners, including the hundreds of media brands in its membership.”

The plan would allow brands to apply for domains that end in their name. Like “.webpronews” or “.pepsi” and so on. However, it would also open the door for cyber squatting, according to the IAB, as well as include what the organization calls “exorbitant fees for web publishers and brand marketers.”

The plan, the IAB says, would “come at an extremely high cost to publishers and advertisers, and would also offer ‘cyber squatters’ an opportunity to harm a brand’s integrity and/or profit greatly from their bad-faith domain registrations.”

IAB President and CEO Randall Rothenberg said, “ICANN’s potentially momentous change seems to have been made in a top-down star chamber. There appears to have been no economic impact research, no full and open stakeholder discussions, and little concern for the delicate balance of the Internet ecosystem. This could be disastrous for the media brand owners we represent and the brand owners with which they work. We hope that ICANN will reconsider both this ill-considered decision and the process by which it was reached.”

IAB – Interactive Advertising BureauThe IAB today called on ICANN to withdraw its controversial new domain-naming plan. Why their plan could be disastrous to media brand owners: http://ow.ly/63vMs 4 hours ago · 3 likes · 0 comments

The IAB’s words follow a similar campaign from the Association of National Advertisers (ANA). Earlier this month, ANA President and CEO Robert Liodice published a letter to ICANN President Rod Beckstrom outlining the organization’s concerns. In the letter, he says the plan is economically unsupportable, and likely to cause irreparable harm and damage.”

The ANA is made up up over 400 companies, which represent over 10,000 brands.

“At the same time, the Program contravenes the legal rights of brand owners and jeopardizes the safety of consumers,” the letter continued. “By introducing confusion into the marketplace and increasing the likelihood of cybersquatting and other malicious conduct, the Program diminishes the power of trademarks to serve as strong, accurate and reliable symbols of source and quality in the marketplace. Brand confusion, dilution, and other abuse also poses risks of cyber predator harms, consumer privacy violations, identity theft, and cyber security breaches. The decision to go forward with the Program also clearly violates sound public policy and constitutes a breach of ICANN’s own Code of Conduct and its undertakings with the United States Department of Commerce as most recently embodied in the Affirmation of Commitments.”

You can read it in its entirety here. Its a 9-page document.

Are these concerns overblown?

Sean Callahan at BtoB quotes Forrester Research analyst Jeff Ernst as saying, “It is too early to tell how big the malicious threat is. $185,000 is a lot of money to spend for a cybersquatter compared to a $10 dot-com domain name at GoDaddy.”

Beckstrom responded to Liodice’s letter, saying, “The June 2011 decision to proceed with the program followed six years of inclusive policy development and implementation planning,” and “One clear directive of the consensus policy advice on which the program is built is that TLDs should not infringe the existing legal rights of others. The objection process and other safeguards eliminate the need for ‘defensive’ gTLD applications because, where an infringement of legal rights can be established using these processes, an application will not be approved.”

Liodice responded to the response, saying, “We are not surprised by ICANN’s response although disappointed that ICANN chose to defend its process and deny any doubt as to consensus. Rather, ICANN needs to respond to the real concern from the brand owner community. There is no question that this Program will increase brand owners’ costs by billions of dollars. We should not be debating if 40 or 45 comment periods were held; instead, ICANN should be justifying its economic analysis regarding the Program against the staggering costs to brands. ANA welcomes further discussions and an opportunity for further economic study to quantify the need for more TLDs and what it will mean for industry and other stakeholders, such as the public interest community who will face the same brand dilution concerns.”

ANA’s General Counsel Doug Wood of Reed Smith LLP added, “Now is not the time for either side to ‘dig in its heels’ much less defend the process, especially in a depressed economy. ANA has raised real concerns regarding economic losses, brand dilution and resultant privacy / cyber-security harms. In light of our shared goals of a safe and stable global Internet, ICANN should return to the negotiating table and work with all concerned parties, including the ANA and its members, to resolve brand owners’ legitimate concerns in a manner consistent with ICANN’s consensus obligations.”

What do you think? Do you have concerns over ICANN’s plan or are these organizations overreacting? Share your thoughts.

Is Netflix headed in the right direction? Share your thoughts in the comments.

Their streaming catalog has certainly improved a great deal over the past year or so. No question. It’s got a long way to go to match their DVD catalog, but the company has certainly given people more reasons to use its streaming service.

In June, the announcements were things like: “New Look and Feel for the Netflix Website,” and “Temporary Removal of Sony Movies through StarzPlay.” In July, while the company did announce expansion into Latin America, came the big announcement of price changes, where members signed up for the popular unlimited streaming and unlimited DVDs (one at a time) plan have to pay 60% more to keep the same service (which is actually turning into two separate plans).

Backing up to June, the Netflix redesign turned into a PR nightmare on its own. Though Steve Swasey, VP of Corporate Communications was quoted as saying, “We know the vast, vast majority of people like this,” regarding the design changes, it was clear by reading comments all over the web that if that was indeed the case, the vast, vast majority wasn’t speaking up nearly as much as those that loathed or even slightly disliked the design.

It didn’t take long for users to max out the comments section of Netflix’s original announcement, mostly with harsh criticism of the design changes. We ran several stories related to the design here at WebProNews and received hundreds more. The comments on the removal of Sony movies reached into the thousands as well, though many of them were simply more complaints about that redesign.

Just before Netflix announced the price hike, they did cave a little bit on some of the complaints about the design. They said they’d bring sortable lists back. Then they dropped the price bomb effectively smashing what little love that may have earned back from the users who were upset about that.

Of course when Netflix announced the price hike, the negative comments poured in again on Netflix’s blog, once again maxing out. Again, we got hundreds more on our own coverage. Any guesses as to how many comments their Facebook update about it got?

Just shy of 80,000.

Of course Netflix knew there would be plenty of backlash. According to CNET, they had extra customer service reps working when they announced it. “We knew what the reaction would be,” Swasey told the publication. “We are not surprised. We knew that there would be some people upset by the service and with the price being adjusted.”

Since then, Netflix has just been pushing on, likely hoping the fury would die down.

This past week, Netflix announced that its Android app could support more devices, as previously it had only supported a few. Now it supports 22. The reviews for the app are overwhelmingly positive. At the time of this writing, it has 32,072 five-star ratings and 6,921 four-star ratings. Only 4,882 gave it a one-star rating, and you have to wonder how many of those are just bitter about recent events. Some of them were simply rated low because of the app’s incompatibility with some devices.

NetflixAndroid abound! You can now instantly stream movies & TV shows from Netflix on-the-go using your HTC Evo 3D, Droid 3, Galaxy S, HTC Thunderbolt, or Motorola Atrix phone — plus many others that are now supported. Check it out in the Android Market http://bit.ly/nfxandroid, and more info on our blog: http://bit.ly/NfxAdrd 1 day ago · 1,482 likes · 1,765 comments

Of course if you look at the comments on Netflix’s announcement about this, you’ll quickly find more jabs at the company’s decision to raise prices. “Perhaps you should spend more time on keeping current services working instead of setting up new services,” said Mitch Snyder, commenting on the Netflix Facebook post.

In afternoon trading on the day before the price hike was announced, Netflix stock was priced at 290.15. At the time of this writing, though up from yesterday, is still down at 277.30.

Many users have said they’d quit the service. They were saying that before the price hikes even – just because of the redesign. Many more indicated they would do so after the price announcement. An outage last weekend probably didn’t help too much, though Netflix is crediting 3% of users’ bill for the inconvenience.

“Netflix’s July 12th price change announcement hammered the company’s consumer perception down below its competitors where it still remains today,” a representative for YouGov BrandIndex tells WebProNews. “Two weeks after the Netflix price structure notice on DVD rentals and streaming, the Los Gatos-based company saw its consumer perception with adults sink rapidly below competitors Redbox, DirecTV and even bottom-score dweller Blockbuster, which resides in widely-held negative opinion territory.”

“The brand which seems to have benefited the most appears to be kiosk-based rental chain Redbox, whose perception has moved from a virtual tie with DirecTV to pulling away to higher positive score numbers.”

What should Netflix do to help its brand perception? Tell us what you think.

An interesting study by Netpop Research entitled Social Face-Off : A Comparison of U.S. and China Social Media Use finds that people in China are more involved in every type of social media activity of which they studied.  First, some general facts about the two internet communities: of the broadband users age 13 and above, the Chinese have a much younger, more educated internet population than the U.S.  They also spend more time online per weekday.

Not only is China spending more time online, but while they are online they are interacting with social media at a much greater rate than the U.S.  When Netpop measured the “contribution” percentage in each country, they found that 93% of the 411 million Chinese broadband users contribute to social media compared to only 73% of the U.S.’s 169 million broadband users.  “Contributors” are people involved in one or more activity such as posting to a social network site, posting to a blog, updating their location, uploading videos and much more.

People who can be described as “heavy contributors” (engaging in 6+ social media activities) are 2 out of every 5 in China.  Only 1 out of 10 can be described this way in the U.S.

Here’s the really interesting part – China completely dominated the U.S. in participation in every social media activity except “posting to social network sites,” which they only lead by 2%.  Americans love their Facebook, and our status-update-happy culture is the only thing that kept this statistic close, I assume.

One of the major discrepancies is the amount of micro-blogging happening in each country.  Netpop points out that Twitter is the only major micro-blog in the U.S., while the Chinese regularly use sites like Fanfou, QQ Micro-blog and Souhu Micro-blog along with Twitter.  Really, the only crossover in the sites considered in this study are Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, Picasa ans YouTube.

The find that would be most interesting to brands and advertisers involves relative amounts of “opt-ins” to connect with brands via social media channels.  In China, apparently 92% of its broadband users choose to connect to brands via social media.  Only 72% choose to in America.

Americans are about as likely to sign up for an emailing list, but the Chinese are much more likely to connect in other ways like becoming a fan on Facebook and following on a micro-blog – which looks to be the largest way that brands connect to the people of China.

What accounts for this giant discrepancy in social media connection between the two countries?  Netpop says that more Chinese have the “go-getter” personality and that they see social media as a way to get-ahead:

The data also underscore how much larger and more active Chinese netizens are than their American counterparts. True, Chinese Internet users are younger in age, but demographics alone cannot explain such differences. Psychographics also provide clues. In the United States, we find ambition – or the desire to “get ahead” – motivating social media use in a small and discrete segment known as the “Go‐Getters.” By contrast, Go‐Getter qualities are expressed in two of the three Chinese segments. Chinese netizens, in other words, are more likely to use social networking to get‐ahead, perhaps reflecting a more eager and opportunistic outlook in general.

“Consumers remain willing to engage with marketers via the inbox, Facebook and Twitter,” said Jeff Rohrs, principal of ExactTarget’s Marketing Research and Education Group.

“However, consumers understand now more than ever that they are in control of marketers’ messages and will punish irrelevant, voluminous or boring messages by cutting off marketers means of direct communication.”

Highlights of the study include:

*81 percent of consumers have either “unliked” or removed a company’s posts from their Facebook news feed.

*41 percent of consumers have “unfollowed” a company on Twitter.

*71 percent of consumers report being more selective about “liking” a company on Facebook versus last year.

*77 percent of consumers report being more cautious about providing their email address to companies versus last year

Using their home field advantage, Facebook increased their grip on the number one spot, adding 5 million fans since October, which is more than many of these top pages have cumulatively.

Biggest Movers

November’s biggest movers were:

• Subway, up 8 to #46
• Google Chrome, up 8 to #34
• Playstation, up 6 to #23
• Monster Energy, up 5 to #16
• Converse, up 4 to #12

Biggest Losers

The fan pages falling the furthest this month (without falling off the list) are:

• Chick-fil-a, down 7 to #41
• Nike, down 6 to #50
• H&M, down 5 to #29
• Buffalo Wild Wings, down 5 to #40
• Puma, down 4 to #45

New to the List, Falling off the List

This month, 7 newcomers replace 7 other brands who fall of the list. The 7 newcomers are:

• Newcomers: Nike Football, Lacoste (returning after falling off in October), Hollister, Mountain Dew, Burberry, Dippin’ Dots, and American Eagle.

The 7 brands falling off the Top 50 list are:

• Falling Off the List: Chase Community Giving, Big Prize Giveaways (thankfully), Kellogg’s Pop Tarts, Krispy Kreme, Mozilla Firefox, Adidas Football and Kohl’s.

Without further adieu, here are the Top 50 branded Facebook fan pages for November 2010.

Next month, we’ll see who ends 2010 as among the Top 50 pages. It will be interesting to compare that to me first list, done at the end of 2009. Any predictions?

Comments

Facebook users who like a brand’s page on the site are thirty-three percent more likely to buy a product, and 92 percent more likely to recommend a product to others, according to a new report from DDB and Opinionway.

The report also found that brands should closely monitor their content and communication on their Facebook page because those same fans quickly disengage.

More than a third (36%) of brand fans have unsubscribed from a brand’s fan page, and that and that number could increase as Facebook markets mature or if brands fail to correctly identify frequency of communications or fall short of providing quality content and sustaining interest.

“Fan status is indicative of high purchase intent, especially when compared to any traditional form of advertising, and is an even greater predictor of advocacy with over 90% noting that being a fan has a positive impact on recommending a brand to friends," said Catherine Lautier, Director of Business Intelligence at DDB.

"But unsubscribers, at 36%, are something to watch out for. And though the majority of fans now unsubscribe by deleting a brand from their friends list, brands, when trying to measure the value of their community, are going to need to be more mindful of those who just hide the brand’s message in their newsfeed," said Lautier.

“Consumers use Facebook to interact with friends, be entertained and express themselves through their public affiliation with brands – factors that combine to create a potent viral marketing platform,” said Jeff Rohrs, principal, ExactTarget’s research and education group.

“By engaging consumers on Facebook in a way that keeps them entertained, brands have an unprecedented opportunity to mobilize Fans and get introduced to their friends."

Forty percent of Facebook users become fans of a brand to receive discounts and promotions, while 37 percent use the site to manage their social life.

Nearly two-thirds of U.S. consumers and three quarters of Millennials have created a profile on Facebook and the most common reason for using the site is to reconnect with old friends and friends who live far away (63%).

Other highlights from the study include:

*30 percent of consumers use Facebook to occupy their down time citing it as a “guilty pleasure,” and 31 percent say they monitor the amount of time spent on Facebook because of its addictive nature.

*Women are more likely than men to use Facebook for maintaining personal relationships (63 versus 54 percent), connecting with old friends (68 versus 56 percent) and managing their social lives (41 versus 34 percent).

*Consumers’ capacity for exposure to brand messages via Facebook is limited—half of all fans “like” only one to four brands and only 17 percent of consumers say they’re more likely to buy after becoming a “fan” on Facebook.

“Facebook provides a unique opportunity for marketers to creatively connect with motivated audiences online,” said Tim Kopp, ExactTarget’s chief marketing officer.