emergencemarketing.com

What do you expect from your marketing department – to be your brand advocates in the marketplace or to be your customer advocates within your company. Chances are that you will say both but only empower and reward them to be brand advocates in the marketplace.

And therein lies a problem.

You see, most buying decisions happen when your people are not in the room – not part of the conversations that lead to buying decisions. So for them to be brand advocates is to a certain degree a waste of time. What you need is for your customers and prospects to be your brand advocates. They will be more effective as they participate in the conversations that matter.

Brand advocacy among your customers and prospect is a naturally occurring phenomenon – as long as you do not screw up in the marketplace that is. The question is, how can you increase the volume of brand advocacy among your audiences? The answer is not by adding company-employed brand advocates to the mix. The answer lays instead in turning your marketing employees into passionate customer advocates within your company. By having them become customer advocates they will gain a higher level of trust among your customers and prospects – giving them a more prominent  seat at the table where the real buying decisions are being made. Not only that, but by turning them into customer advocates instead of brand advocates you will also break the “groupthink” mentality that often occurs within new product innovation teams – allowing you to build better products and reduce your new product failures.

So by setting up a reciprocal relationship with your customers as it relates to advocacy – I scratch your back if you scratch mine – you will end up with a higher level of influence in buying decisions and in the long run perhaps with better products.

There has been a lot of research on the value of acquiring a customer though Word of Mouth versus Traditional Marketing. One recent project, which was published in the Journal of Marketing this past September, found that the long term elasticity (defined as the percentage of change in new customer acquisition to the percentage of change in the corresponding marketing driver) for Word of Mouth is 20 times higher than the elasticity for for events and 30 times higher than the elasticity for media appearances. Another study, this one from last year, found that the lifetime value of a customer acquired through word of mouth can be twice that of the lifetime value of a customer acquired through traditional marketing. And they can bring in twice the amount of additional business through their own positive word of mouth compared to those who were acquired through traditional marketing programs.

There is no question that customers who are acquired through word of mouth will be buzzing more and longer than those who are acquired through traditional marketing means. Some companies are actually able to quantify the value of a word of mouth referral. Unfortunatelly, the knee-jerk reaction of many marketers who quantify that referral value is to use it to calculate the financial incentive that they are willing to pay to stimulate word of mouth referrals.

That is where the system breaks down.

If you give me a pure financial incentive to make a referral, I will evaluate whether it’s worth spending some of my social capital for the amount of money that you are giving me (and chances are it won’t). As Dan Ariely calls it, I will evaluate the referral transaction in my market framework. If you do not give me any financial incentive, I will evaluate making a referral in my social framework (e.g., I am actually helping the person who I am referring this product or service to? Or I am helping the company person who was helpful with me in dealing with my problem by bringing her more business?). While there is no research data that I am aware of to back this up, I believe that the financial incentive-based word of mouth will look a lot like traditional marketing-based customer acquisition programs – resulting in a lot less buzzing and lower customer lifetime value.

Now what if you were putting incentives in place that were social in nature rather than financial. Don’t give me an incentive that would trigger the evaluation of what I do in a market framework, but allow me to give a valuable gift to the person who I am referring to you. If I like your offering and you increase the value that I deliver to my friends or colleagues by referring them to you, then you have a winner.

The key to success is not by commercializing the social – it’s by making the social stronger.

What do you think?

One-to-one marketing was supposed to be the holy grail of customer relationship management.

Companies would no longer have to isolate us from the rest of world as a group to sell to us; they could actually do it on an individual basis. Problem is that we are hyper-social beings who prefer to operate within our tribes. We do not want to be isolated from our group so that sales people who know more about us than we feel comfortable with can give us the hard sell. We want the buying process to be a social process. We don’t trust companies to be on our side and prefer to get the information that will let us make sound buying decisions from our peers. The good news is that those hyper-social tribal peers cannot wait to help us and warn us about bad products and services.

As a team we may want to customize our group workspace, the tools we use, or the T-shirts we wear, but we don’t want one-to-one product customization. In fact we do not like too many choices. Research  has shown that it significantly reduces our willingness to actually buy something. Even mass-customization leads to “mass confusion.”

Forget one-to-one, it never worked and never will because we do not want to be unique, we don’t want to have one-to-one conversations with companies, and we do not really want customization.

Now, wait – don’t throw that CRM system out just yet. While we may not like to have you try to sell us on a one-on-one basis based on all that rich data you have about us, we love it when we are actually ready to buy your product, or when we have a problem with your product and we call your call center, to feel super special by having you recognize us and treat us as if you were a long lost relative trying to help us. We also like it when “the system” (your ecommerce site or your online community) recommends content and people for us that is highly valuable because it’s based on what you know about us – much like Amazon will recommend us books, or the Apple Genius music.

Remember this – when we are ready to buy or when we have a problem with your product or service we want to be treated as an individual, when we are in the process of making a buying decision, we want to be treated as a member of our tribe. And yes, the logical extension of that thinking is that all your behavioral and contextual targeting campaigns are in fact a colossal waste of time and money. During the sales cycle you need to target our tribes!

Do you buy this argument? Please let me know.

As some of you know, Ed Moran from Deloitte and I are writing a book that will be published next spring by McGraw Hill. The working title for the book is “The Hyper-Social Enterprise – Tapping the Social Power of People to Transform Your Business.”

Not surprisingly, the book’s premise is very much inline with what I have been writing about on my blog. Here is from the overview section in our original proposal:

Whether you call it social media, social computing, the social web, or social networking – it does not matter. The importance of this latest wave of innovation to hit business is not that we have new media or new tools with which to do business. The key take-away of the changes afoot is that all business is becoming social again – whether you like it or not.

Most other books that deal with the subject approach the concept of social media from a technology- and media-centric point of view, and focus on Web 2.0 rather than Human 1.0. They also fail to explore the broader, organization-wide changes that Hyper-Sociality will have on business.

We wanted to write a book that will be informed by research from fields as diverse as evolutionary biology, evolutionary sociology, neuro-economics, and behavioral economics, but that will also draw on our own experiences as business advisers. We are also fortunate to have access to the extensive data sources from the Tribalization of Business Study, of which the 2009 version will be released shortly.

While we have an advisory board with a dozen leading academic thinkers as well as forward thinking CMOs, I will periodically post concepts that we are developing for the book on this blog. In doing so, I hope to be able to engage with a larger audience in the development and refinement of those concepts.

No matter whether you plan to leverage social media to enhance your product innovation process, your lead generation process, or to amplify the word of mouth that may already exist for your products or company, you first need to find out if your customers, prospects and detractors are already forming tribes in social media circles, and if so, where they hang out.

Understanding who your tribes are and where they hang out will allow you to decide how to engage them – on their own platform (e.g., Facebook group, Ning community, Twitter, or other proprietary platform), on your platform, or on a combination of platforms – a “federated” engagement strategy that most companies eventually will have to adopt. Knowing where your tribes hang out will also allow you to identify the tribal leaders and define strategies to engage those leaders across all your efforts.

Note that tribes almost never form around products, services, or companies – they form around shared passions (e.g., fan clubs), shared pains (e.g., cancer survivors), shared sense of duty (e.g., school alumni communities), or around categories based on common traits (e.g., poor frugal moms). So the Harley community is not a vibrant brand community centered around Harley, as some will lead you to believe, but rather a community based on a common sense of belonging around a shared lifestyle – riding. Tribes are also different from market segments, which are centered around categories based on individual traits, mostly geographic, demographic, or psychographic (e.g., moms who have children) and not around categories based on behavioral traits (e.g., frugal moms who love the art of the deal ).

Failing to understand who your tribes are, where they hang out, and who their leaders are, will result in misguided efforts that will have no measurable impact on your business, or worse, misguided efforts that will anger your potential tribes and their constituents.

In this social media age, everyone in your company should become a marketer. Like many companies before you, you should empower all your employees to interact with friends, customers, prospects and detractors. Going above and beyond that, let them set up communities within and outside your company’s firewall, about any topic and with whomever they want to hang out with. Many very large (and successful) companies like IBM, Best Buy and Cisco have done it before you – with real success and with very little downside.

Now, as you are harnessing the power of communities, realize that you may have a new asset on your hands – one that some companies have become pretty successful at harnessing, and one which is similar to that of media companies. You now have an audience that others might want to have access to – and that is worth something. Think of Virgin America, which was able to fund the launch of a new hub city through a paid media partnership with HBO. Or think of American Express, with its Open Forum, a community for small businesses, where they are now selling sponsorships on specific sections of their community to partners.

It goes without saying that you should first and foremost think about the value that you will provide to your community members through a partnership. Break the trust they have in you by spamming them and they will leave in droves – leaving you with no asset nor the value that the community was bringing you in the first place.

Everybody will agree that the social has reentered business and commerce as we know it.

In fact, in the beginning, all business was social. If someone sold you a bad chicken, you would badmouth the business and others would shun it until the merchant cleaned up his act. Then the business infrastructure scaled and we ended up with large multi-national companies. People were still social, but the impact of them being social was no longer affecting business – we became at their merci and the social all but disappeared from business. That is when businesses started to develop real bad habits – treating their employees as commodities and waging war with their customers. With social media, a massive platform of participation, the social infrastructure scaled to the point where the social made a difference once again. And because humans are hardwired to be the only Hyper-Social species without all being siblings – the social made a comeback in business with a vengeance.

So what do you do with that? Smart business people, like many of the ones I interviewed as part of the CMO 2.0 Conversation, will tell you that the only thing you can do is to allow your business processes to become social. Barry Judge, the CMO from Best Buy who I interviewed said: “So to the extent that we can basically be human with what we know, and share it as freely as we possibly can, I think we’ll go a long way towards gaining a higher or stronger level of trust with the consumers.” In talking with Luis Suarez recently, he told me that IBM went as far as letting its complete knowledge management process go social. Pfizer’s Sr. VP of Strategy and Innovation, Kristin Peck, was recently quoted in an interview about their innovation process as saying: “when we thought about innovation,we asked ourselves “how do we make it more social?”"

It looks so obvious, right? Yet what do many companies do? Looking at how to commercialize the social that is happening between their customers and prospects. Buying ads on social networks, trying to develop buzz networks, and paying people for recommendations and word of mouth.

That unfortunately will not work much longer. Let’s just hope that those who try to commercialize the social do not muddy the waters with decreased levels of trust among customers and prospects for the rest of us.

For my first CMO 2.0 Influencer Conversation, I spoke with Rob Kozinets, a professor of marketing from York University in Toronto, about communities, consumer tribes and word of mouth marketing – not surprising considering that Rob was the editor of Consumer Tribes, a collection of research papers on consumer tribes, recently finished a book on word of mouth, and is one of the few researchers looking at the practice of business through the eyes of an anthropologist/ethnographer (among other things).

We started the conversation by talking about the disconnect between the world of academics and the world of business, especially as it relates to marketing. It is an unfortunate fact that many mistakes could be avoided if marketers were making informed decisions based in part on some of the recent findings in the fields of behavioral economics, anthropology, complexity theory, sociology, and psychology.

One of Rob’s main themes is that consumer learning, opinions and transmission of influence happens in smaller groups – hence the idea of tribes. Today’s tribes have looser affiliations and are more hedonistic in nature than ancient tribes. They are nomadic by interest, rather than geography, and centered around expertise and commercial culture. Consumer Tribes are also not typically focused on a single brand but rather on a whole group, a whole culture or lifestyle, or a set of activities. Another challenge for marketers, according to Kozinets, is that consumer tribes don’t typically develop long-lasting relationships. Even some of the stronger tribes, like the Star Trek groups that were so popular in the 90’s, aren’t as active anymore – people move on as they get more options. It would actually be interesting to see if the Harley community is still as strong as it used to be. People move in and out of consumer tribes, and the tribes seem to have a natural life and death cycle – including a revival stage sometimes.

Of course, most marketers don’t think of their customers as tribes yet, or don’t realize the enormous impact that successful customer communities can have, so for many of them this is an non-existent problem.

According to Rob, one of the big problems with communities is that companies are setting them us expecting fixed ROI. In reality the measurement of the the impact of communities is very hard. They are hard to set up, take time to take off, and are challenging to maintain. And, as Rob points out, a lot of the successful community marketers have had their communities formed for them by their customers – much like Harley.

We also talked about the proliferation of special interest communities sponsored by various companies – e.g., small business focused communities, of which there are dozens. Obviously members will not want to belong to multiple small business communities, so what then? Consolidation, with most members gravitating towards the most successful small business community, or further fragmentation, with more user-driven communities aggregating around micro objectives? It’s hard to predict where we will see consolidation vs. fragmentation of communities as we do not quite understand how people move in and out of those spaces.

An interesting concept which Rob brought up was “share of community time,” which, in a way, is a measurement related to John Hagel’s Return on Attention (John has also agreed to conduct a CMO 2.0 Influencer conversation with me – stay tuned for a date). The problem with calculating share of community time is that there is a huge spread in the estimated number of people who participate in communities – between 100M and 1b.

Other things we talked about include:

• The role of payments and incentives in communities
• Whether online focus groups are stretching the possibilities of online community environments
• How to engage with your detractors as well as your champions
• How, if you are going to open things up, you should have a strategy to deal with criticism that will come
• The pros and cons of having a neat classification system for communities based on the different needs that they are trying to solve
• How community organizers need to think about members first and brand second

We also touched on word of mouth and how most marketers expect word of mouth to amplify their message, when in reality most word of mouth will transform your message.

As usual, you can listen to the podcast on the CMO 2.0 site, and we will be releasing transcripts soon.

(cross posted on the CMO 2.0 Site)

I had the pleasure of conducting another CMO 2.0 Conversation with many teachable moments – this one with Mark Colombo, the Senior Vice President of Digital Access Marketing at FedEx. For the sake of full disclosure, I should say that Mark is a client of Beeline Labs, the company I co-founded and where I am a partner.

Mark set the stage by giving an overview of the FedEx business, a $36B company. Mark described his business as a “network business,” with very similar characteristics as telecom carriers, railroads, and airlines – facing unique challenges in that they can not easily reconfigure their network based on specific market segment requirements.

We talked a fair amount about the changes in marketing caused by shifts in audience expectations. In this case the audience expectation shift has to do with how customers interact with FedEx and with one another. People increasingly want to interact on their own terms. In Asia that may mean through a text based interface on a cell phone, while in the US people expect a richer Web experience. Meeting expectations gets further complicated by generational differences – with some people using technology only when they interact with FedEx, and others expecting the same rich interfaces that they have grown accustomed to in using other online environments and applications. FedEx now handles 13 million digital experiences with their customers every day, making them not just a business services company, but also a software application development company – and one that has to deliver on its brand promise of trust and reliability through all those software applications. Managing the shift from having most of your customer touch-points happening through digital interfaces instead of through humans (the FedEx drivers) is not a trivial challenge.

From a brand perspective marketing has gone through some interesting transitions. In the 50’s and 60’s, brands used to be built on a set of attributes. Now brands are built by customers, one experience at a time, and those experiences are, obviously, more and more online experiences. Fedex has seen additional changes in branding as their offering is increasingly becoming a critical part of their customers’ offerings – thus becoming an “ingredient brand.”

Mark also talked about changes in market research and in measuring marketing effectiveness – with the most important measure of marketing effectiveness at FedEx now being customer loyalty instead of customer satisfaction. It’s not hard to understand when you realize that a 1% increase in loyalty comes with an extra $100M straight into the bottom line. Interestingly enough, loyalty is strongest among people who had a problem that was resolved to their satisfaction, not among those that never had a problem. When discussing market research we also talked about the power of the 2.0 world and how it makes it so much easier to get instant feedback.

Other interesting topics that we touched on include:

• How Fedex uncovered affinity-based group behavior in their community, and the role of cognitive surplus in brand champions and customer (self-)support
• How the new “word of mouth” is increasingly coupled with customer support
• How they set up a listening infrastructure to monitor what is being said about the company and to be able to quickly turn negative word of mouth into positive word of mouth to increase customer loyalty
• The importance of co-marketing with customers
• The role of listening in innovation, and how listening is the most important thing you can do as a marketer
• How fairness plays an important role in customer loyalty. You can fail to solve a person’s problem but still instill loyalty if what you did appeared to be fair in the eyes of the customer.

Mark also touched on the type of marketing people he is looking for – well rounded people with strong technical skills who are good listeners.

You can listen to the recorded call on the CMO 2.0 site and soon we will be posting a transcript of the conversation as well.

About a year ago I wrote about the fact that people have two evaluation frameworks – a market framework and a social framework – and how rewards are not a good idea when looking for community feedback on products.

Authors Ori Brafman and Rom Brafman, in their latest book Sway: the irresistible pull of irrational behavior, describe a research project at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), that confirms the same paradox through neurophysiology.

The NIH researchers placed participants in an MRI machine fitted with a monitor and a joystick to allow the subjects to play a game. At the beginning of each game a circle, a square, or a triangle would appear on the screen. A circle meant that if you succeeded in completing the upcoming task – zapping a figure as it appeared on the screen – you’d earn a monetary reward. Different circles meant different size rewards. A square meant that if you failed to zap the figure you had a penalty of either 20 cents, $1, or $5. A triangle meant that no money was on the line.

When the researchers monitored which part of the brain was active in the various stages of the game they found that every time a circle or square appeared, that is every time there was money to be gained or lost, the pleasure center of their brain lit up – the same center that is associated with the high that results from drugs, sex, and gambling, and which can result in addiction. When triggered, that part of the brain releases dopamine that creates the feeling of contentment and ecstasy – and as addicts will tell you, you need increasing doses of dopamine to achieve the same result over time.

In a separate study, subjects were asked to play the same game, but instead of making or losing money, the participants were told that the better their score, the more money would be donated to charity. Now the MRI revealed that the pleasure center was completely quiet, but instead the “altruism center” of the brain lit up. That is the part of the brain responsible for social interactions – how we perceive others, how we relate, how we form bonds.

The book also describes other case studies of people evaluating things in either their social framework or their market framework. A fascinating one is when the Swiss government was looking for places to dump nuclear waste after World War Two. When they selected two towns and tried to convince the town members to take one for the team by accepting to live near a nuclear dump, 50.8 percent of the voters agreed with it. Thinking that this was still too much opposition, the government instead offered a monetary reward to live next to the dump – the equivalent of $2,175/year. What happened is that after the monetary reward was offered, only 24.6 percent of the population agreed with it. And when the government upped the reward to $4,350 and then $6,525 per year, only one voter changed his mind.

This all proves that using rewards is really bad for marketing. People get addicted to it and they expect it in increasing quantities. This also explains why the SAP developer community had some bullying in the community when they offered individual rewards, and how that all went away when they changed the program so that the overall number of points within the community triggered a donation to a charity.