Before that first cup of coffee and the morning newspaper; you’ve probably checked your smartphone, taken your tablet from the bedside table and logged on. More and more brands are using social media as an inexpensive marketing tool. So, which brands are leading the pack in Africa?
Our methodology considered African brands and international brands operating in Africa. They had to be present on: Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Initial data from socialbakers.com—a social media and digital analytics company—was compared with howwemadeitinafrica.com and africantoptwitterusers.com. The list was compiled on November 8.
The following indicators were considered, according to a percentage ratio: Facebook likes; the number of people ‘talking about’ the brand, which was also considered as a percentage of Facebook likes; Twitter followers and tweets and the number of YouTube views and subscribers.
Facebook likes are accumulated on an ongoing basis, whereas ‘talking about’ illustrates user-engagement, over a month, without any long-term following. In short, the ‘talking about’ as a percentage of Facebook likes category resolved the temporal discrepancy.
In 2011, Portland Communications and Tweetminster analyzed more than 11.5 million geo-located tweets, unearthing that Africa’s wealthiest countries dominate social media. South Africa, Kenya, Nigeria, Egypt and Morocco make up the top five in order of Twitter activity.
FORBES AFRICA found that although South Africa dominates Twitter activity; Northern Africa is the continental leader, in terms of brands with the greatest social media footprint. Seven of the top 20 brands are located in Egypt; four are located in South Africa and Morocco; three in West Africa and one in both Algeria and Kenya.
Social media was used extensively during the Arab Spring uprising, which erupted in December 2010. The fact that social media usage remains high in Egypt and Morocco and could be the lasting legacy of this historic moment in world and online history.
The telecommunications sector—be they manufacturers or service providers—has latched onto the internet capabilities of most mobile devices; 57% of tweets from Africa, are sent from a mobile phone, according to Portland Communications.
“…Telecommunications are intricately connected to the daily life experience of today’s consumer. Almost everything we do is supplemented by our mobile phones in some way… For this reason, consumers are always looking to get the best value from their telecommunications providers and they’re interested in what these companies have to say,” says Catherine Scott, social media manager at Quirk.
Twelve of the brands on the list were from the telecommunications sector; two from media and finance; one from retail and the food and beverage sector. Surprisingly, the fourth leading brand is a non-governmental organization—One Campaign, which works towards eliminating poverty in Africa.
The question remains: is customer engagement with these brands based on compelling content; mass-media marketing or the opportunity to voice discontent?
The brand with the highest number of Facebook likes and user-engagement by means of the ‘talking about’ category was Vodafone Egypt with 2,071,890 and 153,115 respectively. It also has the highest ‘talking about as a percentage of Facebook likes’ ranking, at 49%. Al-masry Al-youm, an Egyptian media channel, has the highest number of Twitter followers—979,455; yet Safaricom of Kenya had the greatest number of tweets—148,208. Tahrir Channel, of Egypt, has the greatest number of YouTube subscribers (97,782) and views (25,527,629).
Many a dinner table may speculate if social media can kill the mainstream media advertising star; the list indicates such a possibility.
Is the success of social media due to the vision of early adopters; its capability to mobilize social causes or the work of smart agencies, be they advertising or strategic? Could social media mean the death of the billboard? Take a look at the numbers.

#IsTheBillboardDead?

The bid came on Twitter from a self-proclaimed expert in social media. His account had just 15 followers, so the expert bit seemed implausible.
“I will give you another 5,000 twitter followers,” his tweet stated. It was going to cost a mere $5.
“It’s my lucky day”, I thought, as I clicked on the link to his website, which offered packages with four orders in the queue. His website was crammed with praise and good reviews from previous so-called follower buyers. A quick internet search brought up many more saying: “Buy Twitter followers—1,000 quality followers for only $14—save now. One hundred percent money back guarantee!”
Always being one for a good deal, I happened to spot 22,000 Twitter followers for only $20. A few clicks later, I’d  have my own Twitter empire and fame, beyond my wildest dreams.
It’s the new big deal in social media—the purchasing of Facebook friends, likes and Twitter followers. It creates illusions of influence and grandeur overnight yet with little substance.
The other week I received an e-mail from a young businessman claiming 25,000 followers on Twitter. I fed the account details through a website called StatusPeople.com, an application that analyses accounts for their follower validity. There we had it! The tool identified the Twitter feed as having an almost 80% fake follower rating—these are ghost Twitter accounts set up by someone with merely a name and at best a photo. These accounts are inactive in terms of tweeting and are designed to be fillers. They are registered in bulk to sell to someone looking for large numbers of followers overnight.
I ran a few prominent Twitter accounts through the Status People application to get an indication of how many fake accounts exist in the Twittersphere. Surprisingly, a lot. First up was Pastor Chris Oyakhilome from Nigeria, better known as ‘Pastor Chris’ or ‘Christ Embassy’ to his followers both in real-life and on Twitter. With more than one million followers, the Status People application indicates that 47% of his followers are inactive and 18% are fake, which means that the remaining 35% are legitimate and active Twitter followers. Would this be a case of ‘many are tweeted, yet few are active?’
In South Africa, I analyzed some of the bigger twitter accounts. South African cricketer Graeme Smith has a 230,000 Twitter following, of which 53% are inactive and 27% are fake, which doesn’t leave many to influence or tweet after the match.
Then there is @GarethCliff, the South African Idols judge and breakfast radio host, with a 340,000 Twitter following. He has a 44% inactive following and a further 17% are listed as fake, according to the application. By no means do I believe that any of the above mentioned accounts bought followers, especially Cliff—who has an army of fans the length and breadth of the land, however public personalities have been known to leverage their Twitter accounts for promotional purposes as an added-value service, imaginably, leaving their clients expecting.
South Africa’s Woolworths retailer was not spared when @JustinHarrison—sporting more than 680,00 followers, of which 78% are considered fake by the Status People application—unleashed a public relations nightmare on the retail giant after claiming so-called racially discriminatory employment practices, which were ceremonially dismissed by the retail giant. Nevertheless, this led to a mainstream media and Twitter onslaught which lasted for weeks and resulted in Woolworths disabling their Facebook wall due to the public outcry on their social media platforms.
Remarkably, even with the high amount of ghost Twitter followers involved, this matter managed to gain remarkable media exposure and in monetary terms what can cost one man, may mean earnings for another.
Ad Dynamo, a contextual advertising company which focuses on mobile and online platforms, introduced a new marketing service called  ‘sponsored tweets’. According to the company, Twitter users who have signed up to Ad Dynamo’s sponsored tweets service become paid publishers by responding to briefs prepared by advertisers.
“The advertiser can review the tweeter in advance of authorizing and paying for their tweet—looking at the user’s recent tweets, profile, and so on.  Each tweet purchased by the advertiser is overlaid against the advertiser’s Twitter account, enabling them to review the increase in followers, retweets and mentions against each individual tweet purchased. This enables them to measure the effectiveness of each tweet purchased and of each Twitter user that submits a draft to the advertiser,” says Ad Dynamo spokesperson, Richard Bell.
For the unseasoned marketer, this could prove to be dangerous ground initially, as those with massive followings on Twitter could charge a premium, for brands to get exposure to thousands of followers, only to find that these are ghost accounts. Ad Dynamo assures me that they have integrated post-campaign analysis to monitor the success of individually paid tweets, however, this is very much after the fact as opposed to a pre-screening.
So what value do advertisers receive if the perceived amount of targeted followers is actually an inaccurate number? Very little one would imagine.
As exciting as these thousands of newly-bought followers might be for anyone’s ego, it’s a bit like hosting a dinner party for blow up dolls, and for advertisers it would be much the same experience. Tweets are being read by fewer people than expected and will receive virtually little engagement or response. So, what is the point of all of this?
This will be one of the bigger stepping stones in the development of social media, much like when the first cellphone and modem came along—we didn’t really know what to do with it or how to use it effectively. The accurate measurement, use and credibility of social media will be the next big breakthrough, apart from figuring out how to develop a sustainable business model around these platforms, and maybe make some legitimate friends.

Buy A Friend

At the beginning of last month, social networking giant Facebook filed for a $5 billion initial public offering (IPO) with the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC). Facebook is earmarked to raise about $10 billion from the offering, making it the biggest technology IPO ever. In 2004, Google managed to raise $1.9 billion and was valued at $23 billion. Only three companies have breached the $10 billion barrier: Visa Inc, General Motors and AT&amp;T Wireless.
Facebook is being valued between $75 billion and $100 billion, and if all goes to plan, the stock is expected to commence trading in May. The offering will make many of the internet company’s 3,000 employees Silicon Valley’s newest millionaires.
Chief executive officer and founder Mark Zuckerberg, aged just 27, owns 28% of the company. This IPO will propel him into the multi-billionaire league, making him the fourth-wealthiest man in the United States—remarkable for a guy who started the company in his Harvard University dorm room in 2004. Despite going public, Zuckerberg will retain effective control of Facebook through his holding of 57% of voting shares.
Investment banks will also be laughing all the way to the bank. They stand to make $100 million in fees, which will be a welcome boost for revenues, given the currently tough trading conditions being experienced by banks around the world. Morgan Stanley, the number one underwriter of US IPOs for three consecutive years, will lead the offering and will share the spoils with Wall Street’s usual suspects: Goldman Sachs; JP Morgan; Bank of America; Merrill Lynch and Barclays Capital.
Facebook boasts more than 845 million active subscribers, with over 10% of the global population using the platform to chat, play games and swap 250 million pictures daily. In 2011, the company reported revenues of $3.7 billion, 85% of which was generated from advertising. In the same year, the company reported profits of $1 billion. In a letter that accompanied the filing to the SEC, Zuckerberg said: “There is a huge need and a huge opportunity to get everyone in the world connected, to give everyone a voice and to help transform society for the future.”
The Arab Spring, which started in 2011, is testament to the transformation Zuckerberg talks about. Protests were co-ordinated through Facebook and social networking sites.
In the aftermath of the Arab Spring, many African leaders and governments are only too well aware of the power that the electorate wields through social media. In fact, China blocked Facebook in 2009 following riots in Xinjiang which the authorities attributed to Facebook.
African governments will be wary of social unrest following the Arab Spring and their broken promises to their electorates. However, African governments are unlikely to go the China route and block Facebook and other social networking sites.
South Africa’s president, Jacob Zuma, recently opened a Facebook page to allow voters to communicate with him directly to voice service delivery concerns, which were taken into account during the state of the nation address last month. This was a welcome development and hopefully, many more African leaders will follow suit.

Tag: Social Media

FORBES AFRICA SOCIAL MEDIA

#IsTheBillboardDead?

Buy A Friend

Facebook Friends Finance