Community Marketing: three things to do differently
If you are trying to leverage communities as part of your marketing, there are a few things you need to approach differently. Some of them have already been described in other posts but I wanted to reiterate them here as part of a bigger picture.
1. Think consumer tribes – not market segments
As I described last week, the most important thing to know about your potential community members is how they behave with one another. That is much more important than to understand the market segment to which they belong based on market characteristics. That does not mean that traditional market segmentation will not allow you to discover tribes in some cases. As someone pointed out last week when we presented this concept at the BRITE conference, traditional market segmentation might have uncovered the stay-at-home moms as a segment in the health market. While true, traditional market segmentation would have described them by age bracket, income level and other such characteristics – and not by the behavioral characteristics that are so critical to understand how to structure the initial community.
2. Think network – not channel
Many marketers consider social media as another channel through which to push stuff to their customers and prospects. What they do not yet understand is that the conversations that are happening between those customers and prospects are much more important in making buying decisions than the conversations that they might have with those same people. So of the essence are the people networks through which the most influential conversations and recommendations are flowing, not the inner workings of social media as a communications channel.
Related to that is how marketers create and distribute content. Instead of creating lengthy white papers and long in-depth case studies, successful marketers are chunking up their branded content, or as my partner Lois calls it “social mediafying” their marketing content, so that it has a higher chance of being picked up and redistributed as part of the network conversations that matter.
3. Think customer-centricity – not product/brand/ or company-centricity
To be successful in today’s marketing 2.0 world, marketers need to rethink many other traditional marketing concepts as well. In most cases all it takes is to recast those concepts in the context of the consumer instead of around your products, brands or company. Examples of concepts that need to be reevaluated include:
- Value proposition – instead of being product-centric, a value proposition needs to become consumer-centric. Look to position your offering as a customer-centric solution, not as feature, function, benefits.
- Brands – most brands are product or company-centric. They need to become customer-centric. How do your customers feel about themselves in the context of your brand? Do they look cool, smart or informed? That is what really counts.
- Focus groups – are usually “focused” on your products or company. They need to become customer centric. Get insights from ongoing customer communities instead of having focus groups, and don’t run those communities as focus groups.
- Product platforms are important, but in addition to that companies now need to look for customer platforms. When a company as diverse as GE can find consumer platforms, that means that most other companies can find it too.
So recapping – every community-based marketing 2.0 activity you undertake needs to have the customer at the center of the activity. When you think about how to engage with those customers and prospects, think behavior, not market characteristics. And remember to always focus on the networks that matter.
If you are running communities, make sure to participate in the 2009 Tribalization of Business Study. You can take the quantitative survey here or you can visit the new companion web site at http://www.tribalizationofbusiness.com.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.










Bravo. I would go a step further and suggest that marketing to communities should be an imperative rather than an “if”. A brand cannot thrive without a community to give it relevance, thrust and lift. (Unless you have an unlimited advertising budget and want to keep buying your customers’ attention.)
Fantastic post, Francois.
Francois:
Your really nailed it with this one. I can’t tell you how much time I spend convincing our clients that demographic segmentation does not matter. Passions matter. Also, the network where people gather is not a place to push stuff. It is a place to engage and enter into a relationship. Finally, it isn’t about you. Even in “high brand involvement” categories (cars) it is rare for the brand to be mentioned in > 30% of hte conversations.
Nice post.
TO’B
MotiveQuest LLC
I agree with all those said comments and I understand them fundamentally I am having trouble engaging people through the brand. I am working with the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society and I get a greater response under my accounts then through the Society accounts. I would love to generate more of a buzz through the fan pages but most of them are already friends of the organization on FB.
I am wondering how I am NOT engaging them? To become donors from mearly just tuning me out on Twitter or something.
@Olivier – thanks for the feedback. I agree that most brands cannot survive without a community. But is that true for commodities too?
@TO’B – thanks for the comments. It is amazing to see how people forget common sense when doing marketing.
@Jamie – thanks for taking the time to comment. I do not think that engaging people through a fan page qualifies as engaging them through the brand. Is there anything that you can do in terms of reusable content, buttons, etc that would make them look really cool to their friends for supporting the society? Or is there perhaps some friendly competition you can create to let the most fanatic supporters bubble to the top?
Great post! I’m just learning to “trust the tribe” through social media. From my point of view, as well as that of my Clients, the issue is one of control. In traditional “push/interruption” marketing, we were in total control of the output (or at least, that’s what we thought…). We controlled the message and the media. We controlled the timing, frequency and intensity. Then we measured our results and adjusted the mix to try to improve the outcomes. Then we SOLD, SOLD, SOLD! Features, Advantages, BENEFITS! Again, we controlled the message and delivery.
Now, it seems to me, the “new” social/community architecture reverses the locus of control. The implications are clear: You (your brand, your offer) has to be relevant and meaningful to somebody. You have to matter in some way to someone. If you don’t, you’ll be ignored. If you try to push your message through, you’ll be ignored.
To be relevant and meaningful, it’s critical to understand in detail and depth your intended user, their life, and the “job” they’re trying to do. There’s an excellent (if somewhat dated now) article “Get Inside the Lives of Your Customers” by Patricia Seybold at Harvard Business Review (I found it on Amazon) that helps describe this process.
It’s a new (marketing) world today — one where the community has control and the supplier has to work very hard to tune in and satisfy Customer needs, wants and demands. No more “push” — hello “pull.”
//Richard Randolph
Florida Customer Service Institute
PS: “Common sense” is rarely “common practice.”
@Richard – thanks for taking the time to comment. I agree with everything you said…there is also an interesting article on how to understand your customers here: http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/merholz/2009/02/its-not-who-your-customers-are.html.
Agree with all above particularly with Richard Randolph about being relevant. I spend most of my time wth client teaching and persuading them to face up to the fact that most of their brands don’t have a big idea or clear values that customers find relevant (to the category or basic need), meaningful to their values or belief system, ownable in terms of being differentiated or defensible … frightening!
T’OB nails it with ‘passions matter’…the product isn’t king anymore – a great product is ticket for entry but if a brand has and defends its’ passion then that in itself becomes highly attractive.
An old (2001) book but a fab ‘unputdownable’ read is Concepting by Jan Rijkenberg which when combined with web 2.0 shows that great branding hasn’t changed but the vehicle and pace sure has.
Internet marketing…
[...]Community Marketing: three things to do differently[...]…