Community is about people and interest, not technology and URL’s
I have hammered on this topic before, but as I keep talking to people about communities, I keep hearing them think about it the wrong way.
Here is how to think (and not to) about them:
1) We’re having a problem with engagement in our community
Are you sure about that? How do you know?
Let me guess: you are looking at one place (url) where you expect your community to interact and you only see a 10% participation rate.
If it works, your community consists of a group of people who are together because they share a particular interest. If they do, then they may hang together at the URL you are expecting them to hang out or they may not. Think of any offline community you belong to – sometimes you congregate for big get togethers, but often times you have smaller sub-groups who get together in different places, or pairs talking with one another over the phone. Why is it that you expect this to be different in the virtual world?
The largest active group within your community is the active lurkers – that group is very active, but just not in the visible public space. A good portion of your community is also hanging out in other places, not just the URL where you are expecting them at.
2) Should I run my community on SharePoint or should I use some other technology?
Don’t take me wrong – technology can make a difference. But it can only make a difference if you already have a successful community. Technology is not going to determine whether you can have a successful community. In fact, and if your community would not survive in a bulletin board, it will not survive anywhere.
3) I have an “addressable” community of a few thousand people – do I need to develop content?
Ok, so if you succeed you can expect a few hundred people to engage with you. What do you think will engage them? You?
Forget it!
They will engage along a common interest. If they do that, you better have some valuable content about that interest before they first show up. If you don’t they will never come back. And even if you have thousands of potential contributors, you will need to develop content for them. It is very hard to develop communities that can sustain themselves on user-generated content – in fact those communities are extremely rare.
Think of your community’s lifecycle
Modern tribes are nomadic by interest – and at some point people in your community will move on. Your community has a lifecycle, and you need to watch out for end-of-life situations. Just like off-line conversations, some will peter out. And just like brainstorming sessions, some need to be shut down after a certain time. When that happens you need to provide closure for your community – develop a white paper, a web site with the results/findings of the community, etc.
Participating in communities that are leveraged for business is not all that different than participating in communities in your personal life. You know how to manage your behavior or lead people in your personal life – apply those same principles when you are at work.
It’s simple – Be Human!
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.










Sure community and interest are primary. Not sure I completely agree about the technology being a non-factor. Yesterday it was notes, then eroom, jive, facebook, now sharepoint in the enterprise, etc… the tools change but technology DOES matter. Techology is what connects us and there are some economics there that significantly impact adoption and participation.
Today, the economics of being connected is really really low compared to the past. If something is too hard, costs to much, is not convenient, not close to us, and is not the right context….people won’t adopt the technology. As a result, engagement in whatever the event or community suffers.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by francois gossieaux, Richard Becker. Richard Becker said: Best Fresh Content Pick: Community Is About People And Interest, Not Technology And URLs http://bit.ly/9CQM3w by @fgossieaux [...]
Hi Rich — thanks for taking the time to respond to my blog post. I did not say that technology was a non-issue, and as the ex-CMO at eRoom I am very conscious of the power of technology. What I said is that it is important only if (and after) you know how to create a community of people who will want to be together. Unfortunately, most companies start with technology without ever thinking about the “why” people would want to be together or “how” to keep them together once they do get together.
I also do agree on your cost-of-interaction comment, but there again, the cost of connecting with someone online using different platforms is not all that different from a user’s perspective whose goal it is to connect with others around a shared pain, passion or interest. Where it becomes very different from a users perspective is when those people start “working” with you – as in co-creating products. If they need to switch between 3 or 5 apps in order to get that work done, the cost to them will be too high and they won’t do it. If on the other hand they can do it all in one environment that will mean the difference between success and failure. But while this scenario is very pervasive in the workplace, it is not a typical external community scenario based on our yearly Tribalization of Business Study that we do with Deloitte.
I think it is even more simple. No matter what technology you use, trust cannot be built online. Ever. It can be nurtured but the nucleus has to start offline with a great product and service.
Once trust is established with a “critical mass” of customers, unleash them as ambassadors. Watch them. Listen. Speculate on their motives and heuristically develop the online community based on those observations. Test. Seek community input. The more members participate, the more influence they have on the community. Make adjustments. Repeat.
For me technology platform considerations come into the picture primarily when scalability is at issue.
Maybe I’m not quite understanding your statements above…
“Technology is not going to determine whether you can have a successful community” and technology “can only make a difference if you already have a successful community”
I’m sure there are communities with previously loose affiliations that are now stronger and more flourishing because of the technology advances we have today. I’m also sure there are brand new communities that exist today that didn’t exist in the past (because of the ease and cheap economics of connecting). Of course you don’t need technology to have a successful community….
Unless I’m still misunderstanding something, I still believe (just based on my life experiences as I have no data here) that technology has a DIRECT impact on the success of the community (however you define success). A great example is seeing Tweetup impromptu snowball fights in city neighborhoods. Before Twitter, people in that neighborhood probably had a loose affiliation simply by the fact they all lived within a few blocks of each other. Because of the ease of Twitter….because of the technology…one can assume their community is directly impacted and stronger today than it was in the past.
I am curious if any industrial psychologists or sociologists have ever done studies with more hard numbers to determine if a direct correlation exists.
@Vincent — thanks for taking the time to comment. While I agree that trust is a key component in communities, and that trust can be better formed offline, where subtle humans facial expressions can be used as humans have done for hundreds of thousands of year, I have also seen online communities where there is a high level of trust even though people never met. Think of medical support communities, or gaming communities like WoW or some XBox games.
@Rich — thanks for the continuing engagement. I think we are agreeing on most things except that we may be using different terms and concepts. Of course technology has enabled online community and community activities in general. But in order for a vendor-sponsored community to work, they cannot rely on the technology.
They have to first find a shared passion, pain or interest. They have to make sure that they are not competing with a hangout place where those people already hang out. They have to have the right value proposition for this group and the right content strategy. They have to identify the potential leaders of this community and how to engage with them. And once they have all that and a plan that may result in this community to survive in a discussion group, they can start thinking about enhancing the experience with technology.
Thank you for encouraging the dialogue, Francois.
I agree that the golden grail is simulating trust online. I mentioned as much to you in the context of Demand Media’s battle with Google (and the ability to measure the internet zeitgeist on the fly and generate content/ads from indexed public domain material). The next speaker (John Moore) followed your discussion with the mantra “if it can be measured, it can be manufactured”. My head is still spinning.
But even with your medical and WoW examples, there is an offline component: shared experience. Either some thrill of the (surrogated virtual) hunt or fear of mortality. Powerful, tribal forces at play there.
@Vincent – Thank you for continuing the dialog!
I agree with you that face-to-face will always trump online-only relations in terms of trust and that powerful tribal forces are at play everywhere.
Chevrolet UK recently commissioned a study for the perfect handshake and now have a formula for it. If it can be measured, it can be manufactured.
What if we could do that with conversations? Could we (to borrow from Steve Knox’s presentation) humanize an otherwise asynchronous medium?
[...] that have worked in these fields long before web 2.0 was first described. Dan Blank has written a fantastic article on community building and I completely agree with his premise – that communities create [...]
[...] that have worked in these fields long before web 2.0 was first described. Dan Blank has written a fantastic article on community building and I completely agree with his premise – that communities create [...]