Online marketing organization structure question?


As a more crowdsourced way of answering this question on the G Plus community on the best team structure to launch an online community I got few replies from community managers on this question – I hope that’s useful. Certainly (2) looks worth a glance;-)

1.
That’s an interesting question which one rarely gets chance to reflect upon, as usually that set up is already in place. Taking advantage of the ability to plan the team structure I would cross-check your strategy by looking at how you meet your aggressive targets by looking at it from the end customer point of view. For example take an example like Zappos where the customer care people have a dual role of dealing with direct customer issues by phone but also reflecting on activity through their social media activity as a way of reaching out to existing and potential customers. If I was a customer of your new community therefore I wouldn’t care if I spoke to the engagement person or the acquisition person I just want to know that I am valued and for that to be evidence in my online relationships within the community – for example when I feedback a suggestion about a possible improvement to the community that it is publicly reflected upon by the community staff and acted upon if it meets your cost/benefit objectives.

2.
Some years ago I managed the department handling community and customer facing roles for a company with a rapidly expanding website and customer / reader base and few budget constraints.
We adopted a strategy of aiming to avoid having conflicting demands on each member of the department. We divided the department into teams based on the source of pressure. So we had:
- a team who responded to customer email their targets included real-time response to customer email where possible
- a team dealing with discussion moderation who responded to reports and requests from discussion board users, their targets included real-time response to discussion board problems
- a team who seeded content between discussion boards and editorial content, their targets incorporated rolling editorial deadlines through-out the day

It worked very well.

3.
Community first. Commerce second. Good conversations create transactions.
Oh. And re-read www.cluetrain.com

4.
Hmmm – The terms being used sound very process/tech focused rather than community member-focused.
I’d suggest having a team with a “infrastructure” component (that focuses on platform, channels, process mgt) and a “segment/subcommunity” component (that focuses on serving particular groups of members).

But there are many ways of doing things.

5.
Also – goals. I’d like to submit that you can’t really move forward on any online community campaign without recognizing the goals and reasons behind
your campaign. Is it to drive sales? Drive traffic? Raise awareness?
Knowing your goals helps to put the right people in place.

How to Build an Online Community Using Rich and Social Media


The summary for my BrightTALK webinar on 12 October 15 November, below. I believe we already have 70 150 subscribers, so please join the party – starts 9am!

I will look at both how to use rich and social media within your community to add more engagement; and how to use social tools externally to reach out to potential new members. But the business bottom line is that you’re investing time and money in using the new tools because they add value for the end user, so they feel amazing, and come back for more.

I’m a great believer in only using social & rich media where it supports the growth strategy to build your online community. Set in this context the kind of tools and when you deploy them depends on what’s going to appeal to community members. For example a B2B community for accountants may initially involved relatively little rich social media, except for the opportunity to share the content externally.

It’s all too easy for community managers to launch communities with all the bells and whistles, without considering whether they are wanted by members in any depth. As well as strategy this underlines the need for proper analytics which show where you’re being successful, and where you need to make greater efforts.

I should know, having set up a YouTube channel at Shopping.com it gained a lot of appreciation from my colleagues, but attracted few visits as it was tactically rather than strategically led. So please learn from my experience, and consider the strategically-led approach to using rich media within your community, and externally to reach out to new members, outlined in this webinar.

Please don’t let engineers take charge of the product


And here’s why, from Douglas Edwards, Google’s brand manager from 1999 to 2005, who’s just written a book about his experience which he relates in this extract from an interview with FastCompany.

I mean, don’t engineers realize that most people run on different ‘software’ than code? And that this human software has its own inherent logic, which is different from the the logic of code?

“User interface was one realm where the communications team and the engineering team met each other halfway. Can you give an example of how you humanized Google?

“Here’s an example: the automated spellchecker. So Google had the capability of detecting if someone’s typed query was likely misspelled.

“The engineers said, ‘Great, if somebody misspells something, we should automatically correct it, do the correct search, and then tell them that they misspelled it, so they know we fixed it.’ The problem was, people don’t generally like to be told they made a mistake.

“The engineers insisted it was essential to tell the user they were wrong, so we launched with wording to that effect. But I knew from a marketing perspective that people would find that abrasive. And people were upset.

“They were pissed off that their search engine was correcting them–especially if they hadn’t made a mistake, if they were searching for a proper name that happened to be unique. Finally we changed it to softer phrasing. [Currently, Google says, “Showing results for...” and then the corrected query.]

“I remember arguing at the time, it doesn’t hurt us to take the blame–a search engine doesn’t have feelings. We should always be willing to take the hit, so the user feels better, even if they know they made a mistake.”

This isn’t a trivial issue when you consider how getting it right can impact on strategy & sales, and especially how you build a customer base. Just the other day I had my own small example of this when I sent out a newsletter with a call to action for the first 20 people who left a post on our Facebook Page Wall – in return for a ‘goody’ bag.

In the end 75 people asked for the giveaway. So are the 55 people who left a request simply to have their request be deleted on the grounds that they should have read the instructions, counted the numbers of posts, and not bothered once the list was 20 in total?

“Do not sell, absolute idiot” – An example of eBay seller feedback from 2005; eBay wisely removed the ability for seller’s to leave negative feedback in 2008.

OK, so coming back to Google, how about something really useful like a 73 page PDF on the best thinking and practice regarding customer engagement online? It’s called the rather cultish name ZMOT (zero moment of truth). So please enjoy – google-zmot.

It's like a MOT for your marketing:-)

I have already extracted  a few golden nuggets which I’d like to share – ’cause sharing as well as competition is good..

(1) Don’t ask the kind of customer survey question like ‘do you use a smartphone to shop online?’ ask the question ‘do you use a smartphone to help you decide what to buy?’

(2) “Yes, people take the time to leave messages online about how much they love Scotch Tape. That’s because the effort is down to zero.” In other words the full range of products, from the very small to the very large, generate user reviews and content.

I call it Sellotape!

(3) Actually, my third point isn’t from Google’s ZMOT but from the recent Lithium webinar ‘LevelUp Your Facebook Strategy’.

When guest contributor Jeremiah Owyang, in highlighting the 8 key criteria for success, focusing on point 4 around ‘Living authentically’ (what the social networking deal is all about) highlights a key point – that rather than merely emulate your customer’s behaviour online – you should aim to:

“Live in the same behaviors that customers and consumers are.”

Makes sense that being on the same wave length as your customers is going to work well for social media, and for the business bottom line. But as the introduction to the webinar plainly stated, customers have changed with social media and mobile technology but by and large business practice has not. It relates in large part to the follow-on criteria, to enable your customers to do it for themselves, to have discussions without relying on your input.

Quality starts at home!

Let’s face it while there are plenty of experts on the subject of business change in the era of social business how many actually confront what’s really holding things back? Letting go of that ‘elephant on the table’ both internally and externally with employees and customers goes to the heart of the matter, where the potential win is huge but the risks are big too. (Check out this post from Christoph Schmaltz on that subject, and how Headshift approaches these complex issues).

This is some text! text!This is why for example in a recent discussion ‘ I had with Phil Bush, director of strategic planning at Oracle, on the possibilities for enterprise use of social tools I focused on the key problem in integrating these transformative technologies in with business processes to drive results. And I’m guessing it’s probably what the CEO of Salesforce Marc Benioff was referring to last week at Dreamforce 2011 when he wondered when the first CEO was going to suffer as result of his/her inability to engage using social tools with their customer and employees.

It ain’t easy. But one  tried and tested answer to help employees adapt to new ways of working is the practice of empowerment, which at its simplest as outlined in ‘Empowerment Takes More Than a Minute’ involves three basic principles:

1. Share information with everyone (externally, and internally)
2. Create autonomy through boundaries
3. Replace hierarchical thinking with self-managed teams

OK, sounds that’s one possible answer. But not everyone is convinced, and for good reason – the nature of how knowledge works in a networked world:

“Never mind that there is much rhetoric about the need for leadership at all levels, or about the empowerment and democratization of workers in organization X or Y.  “Performance management, grade levels and compensation have yet to recognize how work gets done in networked environments and in a networked world.”

Despite these objections hope remains so long as there is passion and determination to drive the business forward. Tying the power of consumer and business transformation together using social tools sounds utopian to some, but to others it’s the basis of their disruptive business model, as outlined in the recent Forbes piece ‘Social Power and the Coming Corporate Revolution’. Referring to HearsaySocial‘s internal social tool set it neatly makes that very link:

“Hearsay’s tools presume something elemental in a world of social power: that the empowerment of employees is directly tied to the empowerment of customers—because they will inevitably end up working, maybe even conspiring, together.”

Sounds like it’s time for action..@stuartgh

Why is a beer festival not just about the beer?


OK, or to put it another way, why is a beer festival like an e-commerce site? Because working behind the counter as a volunteer at Leicester Beer Festival at The Charotar Patidar Samaj on Saturday was a great reminder of some of the essentials of a community-based e-commerce site where the needs of the customer come first. Firstly, despite the obvious differences between this one-off offline marketplace of a beer festival and a social commerce site – the similarities start from the simple fact that there is a range of products for the customer to choose from in both cases who doesn’t always know which one best suits their needs or tastes.

But moving on from the general to the specific – what for me was great about serving beer to customers was the degree to which so many festival attendees asked our (see the row of volunteers, above) opinion of which beer to try. Yes this was social commerce distilled into one small space on one day, like an huge offline e-commerce experiment! Indeed the power of recommendation which we strive for in social commerce was clear to see at the beer festival where people asked for a pale ale or tasty stout, and reinforced by the exchange of recommendations between the festival volunteers. Reinforced by the fact that plenty of people knew what they wanted, just wanted us to get one with it, and weren’t impressed if you carelessly filled less than a full half or pint glass.

Thus it was from a volunteer’s recommendation by which I came away with the Sarah Hughes Dark Ruby beer as a prime choice; which I cross-checked with my colleague Ian, and which I in turn recommended to customers keen to try something new.

So next time you’re thinking of an off-the-wall idea for an ‘away-day’ for your e-commerce team you could do a lot worse than get them to stand behind the bar at a beer festival and think on their feet.

was their desire for good service, I was told off by one gentleman for under-filling his glass. And more  generously

The Forrester Wave™: Community Platforms, Q4 2010


“In Forrester’s 60-criteria evaluation of community platform vendors, we found that Lithium
Technologies and Jive Software led the pack because of their mature tool sets and depth of services
offered. KickApps, Telligent Systems, and Mzinga each offer capable technology solutions, best-suited
for specific marketers who need extremely quick and light deployments, have technical resources at
their disposal, or who are easing their way into social business tools. All five of these vendors are mature
offerings, with a significant lead on the rest of the vendors in this rather crowded space”.

Download Forrester – Wave_Community Platforms.

Internet reality show plus online community


I had a concept for an internet reality show yesterday. It’s really just for fun but it goes like this. You set up an online community for people who are interested in the show. They get to hear what happens within a real household via a blog text-type update. They can send in suggestions for what you say to the other people in the house. The best suggestion each day is used to stir things up in the house, obviously within guidelines.

People who are sceptics can pay to meet the people in the house if they want – connecting the online & offline world. As I say the top suggestion is used in conversation with housemates to make something happen – that’s what gets people hooked. The results are posted up the next day. But it’s not live, in real time. You have to wait to see what happens as a result of each suggested storyline interaction. So it’s mysterious too.

One question that remains for me is what kind of disclaimers would you require for the household participants? And it is important that the people in the household know what’s going on exactly?

The goood thing is that there are lots of neat ways to monetize it, such as allowing one person as the first one to meet the household to then post in the online community that it’s really happening. Which in turn helps stoke demand for other people to meet the householders.

OK enough fun with reality TV and online communities, back to my holiday.

Hunch strategy pays off


Even though its traffic is down, Hunch says new user registrations have risen dramatically recently. And as more users register, Hunch says its recommendation engine keeps getting smarter.

Barely more than two months ago, Hunch began requiring visitors to register/login to use the site. In doing so, all Hunch visitors were required to answer the site’s “Teach Hunch About You” (THAY) questions — the information that Hunch relies on to make more accurate recommendations. To date, Hunch says its users have answered more than 50 million THAY questions. At the time of that June announcement, Hunch said that users with profiles typically get 20% to 40% better results.

In today’s blog post, Hunch shares some of the results of that change:

Since we changed Hunch to login only, our overall site traffic has dropped but the number of users registering daily has tripled to about 3,000 per day, growing aggregate accounts by about 15% every month. The accuracy of recommendations has gotten a lot better since Hunch is much smarter when users have an account.

Hunch also says it will soon announce “a number of partnership deals” that will involve Hunch being used to personalize other web sites.

source here

Online community as a barrier to entry


Thinking about community engagement it’s interesting to think that your online competitors, who have built a viable community, are effectively building a barrier to entry.

And could the new recommendations engine from Hunch’s Caterina Fake be such a barrier in social commerce, as reported in the latest edition of Wired US?

What You Want: Flickr Creator Spins Addictive New Web Service

The power of online comparison


Have you read the new report ‘Your Brand: At Risk or Ready for Growth?’ from social search specialists Alterian which argues that the world of online marketing means big changes in terms of  delivering individualized marketing to consumers? Check it out here: Brands at risk (pdf, 1mb).

I was interested in the points made (jump to page 15) about price comparison and the power of finding similar folks and cross-checking with them, and using multiple sources of online information to make a purchase. Plus the point in the summary that never mind all the tech talk about the power of cloud technology, from a marketing perspective it is really about expressing/representing the individual.

The power of comparison

Consistent with our earlier findings, ‘formal messages from the company’ or ‘brand’ rate very low, with ‘advertising’ placed last with only 5% (4% UK, 6% US), seeing this as at all trustworthy. Second to last was ‘what the company says about itself’ with 8% (9% UK, 6% US), all well behind the hardly surprising ‘friends and family’ (40%).

Perhaps more interestingly was ‘professional reviews on the internet and magazines’ (28%) and the next most trusted source ‘people that are similar to me’ 19% (16% UK, 24% US). Recent research has indicated that, overall, people who view their friends and peers as credible sources of information about a company dropped to 25%.

Importantly, Edleman* believes this can be interpreted as ‘it is a sign of the times, and the lesson for marketers is that consumers have to see and hear things in five different places before they believe it’.

Key Points

  • Empowered consumers are massively connected, always available, expect others to be available and are used to directly interact with content.
  • Individuals ‘assemble’ relationships/experiences/things about themselves in an on-demand manner, by doing so they build rich and highly personalized structures.
  • Devices and media are clustered round the individual, often providing a ‘rich tapestry’ of multi-mode/channel communications.
  • Many of these developments can be traced back to a growing social sense of individuality developed over several decades.
  • Social media is one manifestation of this much deeper social change.
  • Although the cloud potential of the media receives much attention it is really about expressing/representing the individual.
  • Much of the communication/engagement by the individual should be seen as a means to express and establish identity.
  • Building strong engagements requires organizations to interact at a personal level.
  • Trust is increasingly seen as something established in an interactive manner.
  • Beliefs or information are tested by verification from several sources, these may not all be in consistent agreement, the final choice arises from ‘active dialogue’.

* ‘In Age of Friending, Consumers Trust their Friends Less‘, Edleman Trust Barometer, in Advertising Age, (12-02-2010)