.
Feedback

Is Your Social Media Behavior Annoying?

Is your social media behavior annoying? If it is, you need to start producing content that is relevant and valuable to your target audience

Most people annoy someone with their behavior. Often, we don’t know our behavior is annoying to others. Yet,some don’t care if their behavior annoys others. One interesting thing about social media is that it gives people the opportunity to be annoying on a very large stage. Whether you are using social media for personal or business communication, annoying your audience will not win you any friends. When using social media for business, a good impression and a strong relationship are important. Therefore, you should ask periodically, is your social media behavior annoying?

Personally, I find people who carry on loud conversations by cell phone in a quiet restaurant very annoying. In fact, I find it annoying when people have loud phone conversations in any crowded place. I don’t want to hear their conversations (especially when they are heavily laced with profanity), and I’m guessing the same is true for everyone else in the room. People find different things annoying. Often, the only way to know we are annoying someone is for somebody to tell us.

Several recent studies have identified some of the social media behaviors that are most annoying to audiences. Their importance lies in the fact that 65 percent of people who are annoyed or irritated by the social media behavior of a business say they would stop using a brand if annoyed. Are you losing customers and prospects because of your social media behavior?

One study (conducted by Vanson Bourne) found that unsolicited social media marketing is the most irritating social media experience for audiences. Although most respondents to the survey said they did not mind social interaction or messages from brands they have already bought and followed online, receiving messages from a business they did not follow would irritate 40 percent of the respondents. In fact, less than half (48%) said they want to receive marketing messages at all.

On the other hand, the same survey found that 68 percent of consumers had researched a product or service recommended by a friend online. Fifteen percent of those people made a purchase based on the recommendation. This indicates that although people do not want to receive marketing messages from businesses, word-of-mouth-recommendation is alive and well.

Another study, conducted by MediaBrix in October 2012, found that people also find content that is nothing more than a disguise for advertising annoying. Some consumers are beginning to push back against this type of content. The study found that 86 percent of consumers surveyed reported encountering video ads disguised as content. What is more, nearly all of them (85%) said disguised ads have changed their opinion of the brand negatively or had no effect.

The content found annoying by respondents to this survey who had encountered it included:

  • Sponsored video ads that appear to be content (86%)
  • Advertorials (66%)
  • Infomercials (61%)
  • Facebook Sponsored Stories (57%)
  • Twitter Promoted Tweets (45%)

The MediaBrox study also found that a large proportion of marketers believe these advertisements are effective.

A third study, conducted by Edelman Berland for Adobe in late October 2012, documented a significant difference of opinion between consumers and marketers about the type of advertising believed effective.  

The message for businesses from these three studies seems clear – consumers do not want advertising via social media. Advertising to them via social media is irritating. Contacting consumers who have not chosen to follow you on-line is annoying to them. Disguising advertising as content is also irritating. If you are practicing any of these social media behaviors, you are annoying your audience. Stop annoying people. More and more people who are annoyed by businesses are pushing back and harboring bad feelings about them.

Is your social media behavior annoying? If it is, you need to start producing content that is relevant and valuable to your target audience. You also need to focus your content sharing on people who want to hear from you and stop spamming strangers.

By Vickie Pittard, Partner
Little Black Dog Social Media & More

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Sonoma Valley Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Ralph Hutchinson May 18, 2013 at 08:51 pm
I still say the People will be wise to these bush league tactics and the residents of Sonoma willRead More vote against the destruction of the Plaza and our small town feel. We won''t sell out like Napa or Healdsburg and certainly we're not like the 101 corridor.
Ralph Hutchinson May 17, 2013 at 09:38 am
Another Cuban party perhaps in the works at the Kenwood Ranch, chompin on contraband cigars, etc?Read More Grand prize trips to Cuba with Californians Building Bridges and rub elbows with fatcat Politicians? Or maybe Kings tickets?
Ralph Hutchinson May 17, 2013 at 11:37 am
What kind of conflicts of interest are present with Nancy Simpson? She is on the County Landmarks,Read More formerly affiliated with Sonoma Valley Visitors Bureau and Wendy Peterson? Are all these agencies and bureaus interlocked some receiving TOT tax revenues, and all standing to benefit from anything Darius Anderson can build?
Ralph Hutchinson May 17, 2013 at 11:32 am
Is Darius really after a casino in Sonoma either at General Vallejo State Park next to his RamekinsRead More location or up valley at Sonoma Development Center?
Ralph Hutchinson May 17, 2013 at 11:31 am
Ms. G doesn't even live in Sonoma does she? Isn't it Cloverdale? Wasn't she a big proponent of theRead More bypass in her town?
sal nero May 15, 2013 at 08:11 pm
The Sonoma Sun's website (but not SunFMTV) has been down for hours. What's happening ?
Ralph Hutchinson May 15, 2013 at 03:25 pm
Did Darius Anderso agree to buyout The Patch and have the archives and comments removed as part ofRead More this new software update? Afterall "Cows Not Casinos", Measure A Rosewood Hillside hotel, and Measure C Hospital Eminent Domain would be better if the People of Sonoma forgot all about it and let his hotel venture fly easier.
sal nero May 15, 2013 at 03:20 pm
When Bolling "lost" his comments on Sonoma Valley Bank and then the whole archive heRead More blamed a glitch yet they have never been restored. That has benefitted the Hotel Index-Tribune and allowed a cover up of key historical dates and facts. Please hurry and restore the Patch's missing blogs and comments ASAP so that the confidence the Sonoma Patch has attained is not damaged. Thanks
Ralph Hutchinson May 15, 2013 at 03:09 pm
The comments to various articles and blogs are also completely missing. Please restore asap.
Dee Baucher May 18, 2013 at 09:37 am
I write about the issue of the BRACA test, because I am someone who developed breast cancer, and whoRead More needed the test. Even though I already had breast cancer, the decision of whether to have a bilateral mastectomy (rather than just a removal of the cancer with a "lumpectomy" or the removal of only one, effected, breast) was dependent upon the results of that test. If I had a genetic marker that indicated I was likely to develop more breast cancers, there would be no reason to avoid having both breasts removed at once. Even though my doctors recognized the importance of getting this test done before surgical decisions were made, the insurance company was resistant to providing coverage for the test. There were many heated phone conversations with the insurance company, and many letters of documentation before I was finally allowed to have the test. The basic test for BRAC I and BRAC II (the 2 main genes identified) cost $3,000. However, there are even more specialized tests for the smaller BRAC genes (rare genes that are less common) that cost thousands of dollars extra, and would have been helpful because of my family history. I was not able to fight with the insurance company for permission to obtain those extra tests, since I was already weak and ill from the chemotherapy, at that time. It is not reasonable or acceptable for women to have to fight to get necessary tests performed, because of excessive charging for those tests, and resistance of the medical insurance companies to provide coverage to obtain them. This situation needs to be changed. I hope that Angelina Jolie's story will bring attention to this issue, and will help our Supreme Court to recognize the unfairness in allowing a company to lay claim on a "patent" of our genes. The main research to provide the exact mapping of our genes was provided by the "Human Genome Project", which was primarily paid for by the US taxpayers, via that extensive NIH study. The Myriad company did some further research to refine knowledge on the BRACA genes; but they should not be allowed a total patent which blocks all other US labs from performing tests on that same part of our DNA. That is unreasonable in terms of the amount of profit they are claiming, and unfair to US humans who should be able to claim ownership of their own DNA.
Dee Baucher May 18, 2013 at 08:50 am
I am not used to Hollywood-types having the type of integrity and honesty, that Ms. Jolie displayedRead More with her NY Times revelation. I commend her for having the courage to act proactively with surgical removal of her breasts, in addition to the planned removal of her ovaries. She lost her beloved mother to the disease, and she clearly understands the devastation that would befall her own children (if she were to develop the types of cancers that her genetic makeup render her vulnerable to). I agree with her decision, and hope that I would have the same strength, if confronted with the genetic evidence that she was able to have documented with the BRACA testing. Unfortunately, many women who would benefit in the same way, from advance knowledge about their genetic vulnerability to those cancers, are denied the ability to get the tests. The company that "owns" the test, by virtue of their assertion that they "own the patent" on that identified portion of our DNA, charge $3,000.00 for the test. That cost is too high for most women in the US to easily afford, and our health insurance typically refuses to cover the test for most women. There is currently a case before the US Supreme Court challenging the idea of a medical company owning our genes. Many of us are hopeful that the court will halt this company from claiming this patent, so that laboratories all over the country can provide the test to us inexpensively, and therefore it will be available to all who should have it. The costs for the type of very sophisticated plastic surgery/ breast reconstruction that Ms. Jolie underwent, are also extremely high. It is doubtful that insurance or Obamacare will provide coverage for that type of costly prophylactic surgery. Those are battles that women will need to fight in the future, when more women become informed about their personal risks and choices.