emergencemarketing.com

Most communities have 90% of users who are lurkers – people who may consume things from the community, but who don’t contribute. Through our yearly Tribalization of Business Study, we found that many companies who run communities consider this a problem (30% of respondents considered it an obstacle) – and that of course is a problem all by itself.

You see, not all lurkers are created equal.

While it is inevitable that larger communities will end up with 1% of their members being very active users who provide enough value for the 9% of somewhat active users, who together provide enough value for the 90% of lurkers, the largest form of participation in online communities happens to be active lurking, which according to an MIT research study can make up 40-50%  of your community membership. Active lurkers are those that may take something from the community and pass it along to others using different channels – so they participate in your word of mouth. Active lurkers also include those people who may visit a customer support community and find a solution to their problem without contributing to the community. Those people derive a lot of value from that community interaction and so does your company since they do not clog up your customer call center. Active lurkers also include those who will contact the original poster through a different channel, like telephone, email, or perhaps a face to face meeting – in effect continuing the conversation outside of the visible public side of the community, but not outside of the community itself.

Thankfully we found that 18% of companies who participated in the 2nd Annual Tribalization of Business are starting to track lurker metrics. It’s not easy to measure the impact of active lurkers, but without some sort of measure about their activity, you could miss a lot of the value that they bring to your Hyper-Social processes – especially in a world where the customer lifetime value is directly proportional with word of mouth activities.

When you think about communities, you need to think about the tribes and their members first, not just one of the public places (the online community forum) where they can interact with other tribe members. They will inevitably interact in multiple places, both virtual and physical.

There is a lot of research on Brand Communities, defined by Muniz and O’Guinn as “a specialized, non-geographically bound community, based on a structured set of social relationships among admirers of a brand.” (Muniz and O’Guinn 2001).

But do brand communities really exist?

Brand communities imply that the brand is at the center of the community. So in the Harley community it would mean that the Harley bike is at the center, in the Jeep community the Jeep Wrangler or the Cherokee, in the Mini Cooper community the Mini, and in the Fiskateer community, the Fiskars tools.

Is this really what is happening? I don’t think so.

For communities to work, the members need to be at the center of the community, and so the motivations have to be different from the pure hedonistic pleasure of owning a brand/product. The Fiskateers may be the people who come up with most of the new Fiskars products ideas. And they may be their staunchest defenders when the brand comes under attack. But the reason they form a tight-knit community, one that some members say changed their lives, is because they share a passion for scrap-booking. The reason that Harley owners get together is because they share a riding lifestyle passion. Jeep owners, probably because they have a shared aspiration for being adventurous by “off-roading” their cars. Mini owners? Not sure, but according to ethnographic research even people who no longer own a Mini Cooper stay with the community, so it cannot be that the car is at the center of the community.

So why Jeep and not Ford, why Fiskars, why Mini, why Harley ? Because in all those cases the companies have provided environments in which those member communities can operate and thrive. Jeep marketers are providing training camps, and are organizing the barbecues around which members can share their passion. Fiskars provided an online environment for their members to thrive and connected those with offline events as well. But in all cases they are enablers of a shared passion that exists within a tribe or community.

The result of that is what I described in a recent blog post – people use the Jeep, the mini, the Fiskars scissors, or the Harley as symbols to associate with others who share that passion. In some cases they take that a step further and create rituals around those brands, which make the brands more sticky. But at the end of the day, these are not brand communities, they are passionate rider communities, scrapbooker community, adventure seeker communities.

What do you think? Do you buy that, or do you think I am missing something?

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.

Many senior sales executives are still looking for a predictable flow of leads at the end of a lead acquisition and nurturing “funnel.” And while many marketers have been struggling with expectation settings around predictable lead delivery for more than a decade, their sense of panic and angst around this issue has risen to alarming levels.

So what’s going on?

First of all, the funnel metaphor is broken. People no longer make buying decisions in a linear fashion. Second of all, people no longer listen to companies, but instead they turn to advise from their peers, friends, and other users of those products. Third of all, the potential number of choices they can have in their product consideration set is much larger than it ever was before, and the information sources that can get products into a buyers consideration set has grown exponentially.

A new study published in McKinsey Quarterly (requires subscription) reports that 2/3rd of touch points in a buyer’s active evaluations process are now consumer-driven marketing touch points: user generated reviews, word of mouth, and in store interactions. Only 1/3rd of the touch points are still company-driven. DID YOU HEAR THAT? You still control 1/3rd of the touch points!

So how should you think differently about lead generation?

First of all, ditch the funnel concept, and educate sales why the funnel no longer works. Second of all, make sure that there is uniformity among all the different customer touch points that you control: in-store display, packaging, attitude of your customer service department, online product information, educational information, etc. Third of all, position yourself to be findable for when customers can be influenced during their buying cycle – and in many cases that includes post sales as well.

One of the best things to happen to marketers is that most buyers leave a digital trail as they move through their journey. When they ask friends on twitter, you can see it. If they ask peers in communities, you can see it. And when they read or contribute to online reviews, you can see it if you want to.

You just need to make sure that you are there and generally helpful when those interactions happen. You also need to make sure that your branded content can travel as part of word of mouth, not just sit idle on your site. As the McKinsey Quarterly study says, you need to give prospects reasons to switch to you instead of excuses to stay with what they have – and you need to make it super easy for them to progress through their buying cycle.

I know: easier said than done. I am hoping that in the next few weeks we can expand on some of those concepts with some real case studies.

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.

It was fun to have a CMO 2.0 Conversation with Pete Blackshaw for a variety of reasons. First, it was reminiscent of a great SkypeCast conversation he and I had a few years back (right after Skype launched Skypecasts – we felt like pioneers), but also because he brings three distinct angles to the CMO conversation – that of a CMO, that of a person who markets to marketers, and that of a thought leader and author. Pete is the author of Satisfied Customers Tell Three Friends, Angry Customers Tell 3,000, and also blogs at ConsumerGeneratedMedia.com.

We delved straight into one of Pete’s favorite topics, which is what he calls the great “Conversational Divide” that exists between marketing and customer service. Pete believes, and I agree, that is unfortunate that customer service is so frequently considered a non-strategic part of the business, with little integration between what companies know about their customers from their CRM systems, their social media strategies, the promises they make through marketing , and what actually happens in their customer service departments when they talk with customers. Pete’s take is that it is time for CMO’s to step up to the plate and define a unified conversational ecosystem. It makes no sense, he says, to have different rules in the different parts of the organization.

Companies should also start capturing information about their customers’ influence in their CRM system, i.e., do they have a popular blog, do they have a lot of twitter followers, etc. – especially since the people who typically use the customer service back channels are the same people who tend to use megaphones to express their dissatisfaction. If you do it right you could develop a so-called user contribution system, where consumers help one another and become advocates for the brand, reducing not only your customer support cost but also other costs like consumer research.

Pete talked a lot about the importance of credibility in the age of consumer generated media, and described in detail the six drivers of credibility: trust, authenticity, transparency, listening, responsiveness, and affirmation. He is convinced that trust is perhaps one of the most important competitive differentiators that companies can develop.

We also spent a fair amount of time talking about the benefits of building brand communities, and whether companies should all have their own or affiliate with one another to deliver better value to their members. And we discussed the community efforts at Intuit as we both have familiarity with Scott Wilder’s work – and especially highlighted the importance of setting up a cross-functional center for excellence to capture all the potential benefits of communities, as well as the power of a credentialing model to ensure quality control when customers help one another.

Other things that we discussed include:

• How Dell Hell could have been prevented
• The importance of emotion and fairness in word of mouth
• How the new customer service motto might be “this company is being monitored for quality improvements”
• How there is a real risk that bad marketers will spoil it for the rest of us
• The symbiotic relation between traditional marketing tools and social media based tools

We wrapped up the conversation by talking about the challenges that Pete is facing as a marketer, and how he measures progress and success. Not surprisingly, his primary way to measure success is by monitoring his client advocacy. Are customer willing to get on a stage with him? Are they willing to recommend his company?

We also talked about the challenges associated with competing in a world with many free offerings – and with Nielsen actually having their own free offerings. Interestingly enough, the way Pete looks at it is the same way you would look at it from a consumer packaged goods manufacturer’s perspective like P&G – which is that “sampling” does lead to purchases.

As usual you can listen to the recorded podcast on the CMO 2.0 site, and we will put up a transcript as soon as we can.

More so than for any other department within your company, taking advantage of the social in customer support requires that your organization be allowed to behave social as well. The reason for that is twofold – people will seek help from others about your products in a variety of places, not just your customer support community; and people want to be helped by people, not faceless organizations.

While it may seem obvious that customer would seek support for your products in your customer support community, in reality they will look for it across a multitude of sites. That is especially true for products that have complex distribution channels. When you have a problem with your shiny new Canon lens, do you look for help on Canon.com, Bestbuy.com, Amazon.com or GetSatisfaction.com?  Or do you turn to your independent photography enthusiast community, or maybe a photography Facebook group you belong to? If you truly want to support your customers, you need to empower your employees to engage those people where they are. Sometimes that is your site, sometimes it is all over the place, and sometimes it’s on a focused destination that you did not set up. That was the case with TiVo, where a vibrant TiVo customer support community was set up by users and ran independently from the company. Tivo did not try to set up their own customer community and lure people away, which many companies would have attempted in the name of controllable knowledge management – i.e., access to people’s profile, ability to mine the content, ability to generate reports, etc. They engaged where people were already hanging out, and turned the existing community into a real competitive advantage. They realized that in order to take advantage of the social in customer support you need to behave social yourself.

Social media allowed the social to scale beyond anything that we’ve ever seen before. To succeed in leveraging social media and the inevitable invasion of the social in everything we do, we need some new management thinking.

Let me illustrate my point by using the example of three companies who are trying to sense and respond to what’s being said about them in the social media space.

Company A (all three companies are real Fortune 200 companies) has a head of social media who has a sophisticated social media monitoring solution. The last time I spoke with him he was ready to toss out the whole system. The reason? Even though they had developed sophisticated workflow processes to ensure that the right department would respond to the online chatter, he felt like the system was not working. They were monitoring what was being said about them, but they were not engaging. Interestingly enough, a few weeks later I ran into an employee from that same company who was in sales support for one of the product-lines and he had developed his own Yahoo! pipes to filter chatter about his product – he didn’t want to use the corporate system.

Company B is fairly happy with its engagement in social media. They too have a sophisticated social media monitoring solution with a process-heavy workflow system in the background. The reason that they feel good about what they are doing is because they have a dedicated team of people who engage with customers, prospects and detractors in various social media circles. Their biggest frustration? That they cannot manage to create a coordinated company response when something bubbles up – it always ends up being an uncoordinated response by a number of individuals.

Company C developed a very simple monitoring tool that can easily be configured by individuals. It has no workflow system in the background and does not produce the sophisticated reports that you can bring to your staff meeting every week. They encourage all employees to download the little app, monitor what they think is important and engage where appropriate and without embarrassing the company. Their program is hugely successful and the company is very happy with the results. They embraced the messy side of the social and harnessed the power of emergence that comes with it.

When faced with leveraging the social in business we need new management thinking. In large distributed companies, people in the trenches don’t trust that corporate knows what they should be listening for, and they will not spend any of their own social capital to respond to things that they don’t feel is response-worthy. They feel like they know their business and customers better than anybody else and want to do it themselves. Unfortunately not everyone can configure their own Yahoo! pipes and so much of the sensing goes unanswered when controlled from the top down. The other thing to realize is that from a customer or prospect point of view, they could care less about coordinated corporate responses – they like to hear from people. What’s wrong if three people try to help you when you have a problem? You feel special – much more so than if you get a corporate-speak laden anonymous response from a faceless organization.

Lesson learned: Embrace social messiness, leverage the power of emergence, and let go of top down processes. Let people connect with people.

It is a recurring theme now – people often ask us: why are you doing what you doing? Why are you doing the CMO 2.0 Conversations, why are you doing the Marketing 2.0 communities, the Marketing Intelligencer, and what’s up with the Tribalization of Business Study?

The simple answer – we’re practicing what we preach.

We do not interrupt people and try to convert them into clients – rather we engage them in conversations that they want to have. And we make sure that we package the content that comes out of those conversations in such a way that they want to reuse it with their friends and colleagues (several CMO’s have now told me that they tell every single one of their team members to listen to the CMO 2.0 interviews). These offerings and activities also allow us to reach members of marketing industry associations who see benefits in sharing that content with their members.

Or take another example: our Marketing Intelligencer newsletter in which we are not trying to exclusively push our stuff, like most marketers do, but rather add real value by being trusted curators for what’s most important for marketers to read on the web – even if it means pointing them to content from competing firms. The Tribalization of Business Study is a lot of work – but it got thousands of people to download that information and pass it along. And our Marketing 2.0 Communities have almost 15,000 members – what push marketing program would give you this amount of attention you think?

We do not try to buy attention from people – we try to earn their attention.

Just as important as getting all that attention from people we may want to engage with commercially at some point is the learning that we get from doing these programs. We get to fully understand the issues that marketers are facing in today’s economy, and how they frame those issues. And equally important is that we have fun doing it!