Nonprofit Social Media Marketing

Posts tagged ‘rachel harper’

Delayed Gratification

Social media wordcloud

One of the most irksome aspects of marketing is its difficulty in measuring Return on Investment. Essentially, marketing needs to pay for itself and then some in order to make an organization more profitable. So some businesses see mediums like social media and other relationship building strategies as useless  or wasteful because they don’t see fast results. To reiterate, this type of marketing builds relationships with your stakeholders and will pay off in the long run (making it difficult to measure ROI). So here is an awesome Forbes article I found explaining why this type of marketing is worth the dough. I’m not trying to be lazy, but I would write my own article about this if I hadn’t found one that so eloquently and adequately explains the benefits of social media marketing. Enjoy.

The Hidden Benefits of Social Media Marketing

Advertisements

PETA v. WWF – Whose Use of Internet Marketing is Superior?

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) are two global organizations that fight for animal rights. Each uses internet marketing in order to further their causes, but which utilizes the internet more efficiently? I will explore a variety of techniques and criteria to determine who has the most effective internet marketing and why.

       SociPETAal Media

WWF and PETA both have Twitter and Facebook websites. However their presence and actions on each differ greatly. PETA has about 1.66 million likes on Facebook, 364,482 Twitter followers, and tweets every 5 hours on average. On the other hand, WWF has about 653,000 likes on Facebook, 912,280 followers on Twitter, and tweets on average every 2 hours. PETA has tweeted 46,753 times. WWF has tweeted 4,961 times. What’s interesting is that WWF has a greater Twitter presence and PETA has a greater Facebook presence. PETA even posts much more on Twitter, but WWF still wins when it comes to followers. A look at YouTube will give us a better sense of overall social media presence. PETA has over 47,000 subscribers and almost 28 million views. WWF comes in much shorter with 7,615 subscribers and almost 3 million views. As you can see, there is a correlation between subscribers and views, but it doesn’t change the fact that PETA has 9 times the amount of views as WWF. Overall, PETA prevails when it comes to social media usage due to its successful Facebook and YouTube accounts.

WWF

Website

PETA and WWF are global charities and thus have well-established websites. But with the help of some analytics, we can see whose site is most effective. Marketing Website Grader, gives PETA a score of 94. PETA has a blog, RSS feed, mobile site, Facebook page and Twitter page. On average PETA posts a blog once per hour, blog posts are tweeted eight times, and they’re shared on Facebook ten times. Additionally PETA has 5,360 pages indexed by search engines and almost 25,000 linking sites. Alexa shows PETA is ranked 14,319 globally and 5,156 in the U.S. against other websites.

Unfortunately, WWF does not rate as well. WWF received a 71 from Marketing Website Grader, a much lower score than PETA. WWF has a mobile site, Facebook page, Twitter page, but no blog or RSS feed. These greatly impact the effectiveness of the website. WWF has 10,700 pages indexed by search engines- twice the amount of PETA- but only 16,000 linking sites – almost 10,000 less than PETA. Alexa ranked WWF 29,673 globally and 7,153 in the U.S. Both of WWF’s Alexa rankings are worse than PETA’s. Thus, when it comes to website effectiveness, PETA wins again due to their higher website ratings and number of linking sites. Because PETA has better social media and website presence, it is the winner in this evaluation against the World Wildlife Fund.

I do not own the below graphs. Graphs provided by Alexa.com.

BOUNCE

Alexa’s graph shows each website has a very similar Bounce Rate. PETA is red. WWF is blue.

PAGEVIEWS

Alexa’s graph shows PETA’s website has a larger daily reach percentage. PETA is red. WWF is blue.

REACH

Alexa’s graph shows PETA’s website has a larger daily reach percentage. PETA is red. WWF is blue.

TIME ON SITE

Alexa’s graph shows both websites are similar on average Time on Site. PETA is red. WWF is blue.

TRAFFIC RANK

Alexa’s graph shows PETA has a larger daily traffic rank. PETA is red. WWF is blue.