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?

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.

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.

(Cross-posted from the CMO 2.0 Conversation site)

Today’s CMO 2.0 Conversation with GE’s CMO Beth Comstock was packed with interesting insights. On a personal note it was certainly neat to get a one hour personal marketing tutorial from the CMO of one the largest companies in the world. By working in a real marketer’s laboratory, Beth must be one of the luckiest marketers around.

We touched on three main topics: the role of a corporate marketing group in a large diversified company with strong operating companies, how to foster innovation at GE, and general changes in marketing.

As a central corporate marketing group, Beth’s team is responsible for sales growth, innovation, and the GE brand platform. Even though the company has very diverse operating companies, her team has also been able to find opportunities for developing a customer platform (i.e., cross-sell accross business units), as well as product platforms (i.e., ecoimagination, the GE green platform, and a cross-operating-business battery project).

On the innovation side of things we touched on the importance of having a robust pipeline of innovations and on the need to have the right resources deployed across the right portfolio of innovations. We also discussed the need to kill ideas faster and the opportunity to create an innovation marketplace for ideas that may not be a good fit for the company. Beth described GE’s robust innovation process, and how they have both a formal process that very much resembles an in-house venture process as well as an online imagination network that relies much more on the wisdom of the crowd – in this case their employees. Other innovation related topics we covered include:

• how they use outside coaches and customer discovery sessions to bring outside insights into their innovation process
• the importance of including detractors in the innovation process
• how innovation is not just about technology innovation, but also about commercial innovations – and how they are constantly looking for new ideas around product, space, and business model
• the cultural changes required for fast-paced innovations and the creative tensions between being a process-driven organization and the inherent messiness and chaotic nature of innovation
• how in some cases you need to step away from traditional metrics to measure progress and success of ideas that are being incubated

We also talked about the changes afoot in marketing and how the new marketing challenge is in fact a knowledge management challenge – knowing enough about your customers so you can feed them data that will make them smarter.

On the need for new marketing skills Beth listed what she is looking for in marketers – people with new world skills, people who can simplify things and engage in customer communities, and people who can curate an experience for the customer. She also described how they set up a team of “rogue marketers” within the company, whose job it is to come up with rogue marketing techniques. It would be really interesting if at some point they would publish their findings in rogue marketing innovations.

You can listen to the podcast over at the CMO 2.0 Conversation site, in the near future we will also post the transcript from the interview.

You have thousands of followers on twitter, hundreds of friends on Facebook, hundreds on LinkedIn, and maybe some in other places. Surely you do not have enough attention to stay in touch or interact with those? While social networks and social media have enabled the social that distinguishes us from other species to scale – there are still limitations to the amount of attention we have.

That is what some researchers at HP found (download pdf here) when they studied twitter and what actually happens on that network. What they found is fascinating. Here are some of the findings:

• The number of posts increases with the number of followers but saturates at around 300 followers
• The number of posts increases with the number of friends you have (defined as people who sent a direct public message (with the @ sign) to another person at least twice) but does not saturate
• The number of friends you have increases with the number of followers but it does saturate at around 400 followers
• Reciprocity is clearly present in twitter – with 90% of a user’s friends reciprocating attention by being friends of the user as well.

The authors conclude that since the ratio of friends to followers is so small, there are really two different networks at work – a very dense one made up of followers and followees and a sparser one of actual friends.

The latter proves to be the more influential network in driving Twitter usage…

So what does this mean to word of mouth and to how one should engage in those conversations?

Clearly the network of friends is more important that the broader network, but when someone like Guy Kawasaki (see here how he uses Twitter compared to the NYT), who has over 60K followers, posts something, that does drive traffic to the link he posts.

It would be interesting to see how much value people attribute to recommendations from friends versus that of followers.

(hat tip Brian Solis)

Well – there you have it. It will probably not come as a great surprise that I think so, but after ruminating on it for a long time as part of a team of 12 great marketers which Valeria Maltoni assembled to provide some direction for social media marketing in 2009, that is how I decided I would characterize the state of Social Media in 2009.

Download the ebook in which 12 of us shared some great insights on the future direction of Social Media – it’s free!

From Valeria’s blog post, here are some bite-sized previews of what some of the other autors had to say – many of whom I consider real sharp thinkers when it come to marketing and some of whom I am fortunate enough to be friends with:

• “Basic metrics you can initially use to match up before, during and after sales deltas are frequency, reach, and yield” – Olivier Blanchard, The Brand Builder, @thebrandbuilder

• “There are three imperatives for execution programs in 2009 – start with measurement, create content for the open Web and for mobility” – Matt Dickman, Techno||Marketer, @MattDickman

• “The foundation and core of what social media is, consists of the five C’s. Conversation, community, commenting, collaboration and contribution” – Mike Fruchter, My Thoughts on Social Media, @Fruchter
  

• “With social media as a platform for participation, people can behave the way they were hardwired to behave in the first place – humanly, tribally” – Francois Gossieaux, Emergence Marketing, @fgossieaux

• “Social media enhances marketing efforts as an additional indirect communication channel” – Beth Harte, The Harte of Marketing, @BethHarte

• “Companies with greater social intelligence have stronger bonds with employees and customers, and that translates into revenue” – Lois Kelly, Beeline Labs, @LoisKelly

• “Change ensures our own livelihoods – new opportunities and trends to capitalize upon, unique products and profit centers that merit development, robust innovation to leverage”- Christina Kerley, CK Epiphany, @ckepiphany

• “Social media interaction allows us to have… well, interaction with our customers. It lets us see them as people instead of statistics and it lets us hear their voices” – Jennifer Laycock, Search Engine Guide, @JenniferLaycock

• “Goals absolutely must be built on business objectives” – Amber Naslund, Altitude Branding, @AmberCadabra

• “A proper social media education is more than just learning new tools. The most important lesson we can impart is the necessity to think ‘humans’”- Connie Reece, Every Dot Connects, @ConnieReece

• “Social media isn’t causing problems, but it is revealing them. And the problems aren’t new; they’ve been around for a while” – Mike Wagner, Own Your Brand!, @bigwags

• “The secret of success in social media is a product or a service that people actually like and use” – Alan Wolk, The Toad Stool, @awolk

And whatever you do in 2009, remember the words of wisdom from our fearless leader for this project – Valeria:

Don’t fear mistakes, welcome them. They will help you become more resilient and fl exible – in some cases even kinder. Nothing like the fresh breeze of reality to energize our purpose. Adapt your plan to circumstances and keep going.

I hope you enjoy and look forward to your feedback! More predictions coming up soon…

Many people my age dismiss social networks and the friendships people have on those networks as a waste of time and shallow. I think that they totally missing the point – and creating another class of ludites that will be laughed at in a few decades.

Let’s take three common scenarios and analyze whether those relationships are indeed shallow or not.

If my 13 year old son has friends on Facebook or some other social network, and he uses those networks to continue interacting with his friends after school, or when then move on to high school – are those shallow relationships? Of course not, it enables him to extend his interactions with class mates beyond school hours, stay in touch with people who change school, or extend his relationship with weekend-only friends or summer camp friends to everyday relationships. It makes his relationships stronger – not weaker or more shallow than the friendships I grew up with.

Now let’s look at people who I know professionally and befriend of Facebook. I get to know people from a totally different angle than I would have ever gotten to know them from our professional interactions. Through social networks I will get a better sense of their hobbies, their music taste, their reading preferences, or even their family struggles – strengthening that relationship beyond the weak ties that professional relationships typically lead to.

Ok, so how about those people you accept as friends on Facebook or Myspace that you do not really know. In my case I am a blogger and I have an audience. Whenever someone befriends me on Facebook and we have more than 10 friends in common I will friend them back. I look at it as an audience – and through social networking I actually strengthen the relationship I have with my audience. The same can be said for bands on Myspace – they can create relationships with their fans that is much stronger than we ever had with the bands we liked.

Now I will not befriend someone who I do not know on LinkedIn. Why? Because on LinkedIn the reciprocity that makes that network work is based on social capital I have with others instead of just myself. For LinkedIn to work I need to try to get you some time with someone else I know, not just give you my time as is the case with Facebook and some other networks.

So all in all I think that a majority of online social networkers benefit from stronger relationships with people they interact with online, not weaker or shallower relationships. Social networking adds a dimension to most relationships that was previously not there.

Sure, there are outliers out there who do not benefit from stronger relationships by being online – and a ton of them who are wasting their time and your time – but those are outliers. They actually exist in the physicall world as well.

When economic times turn bad and unemployment is on the rise, people tend to network more. In this social media-enabled era that means that many increasingly turn to online social networks and communities.

So the counter-intuitive thing to do in this economic downturn – engage more aggressively with your customers, prospects and detractors in social media and social networks.

And when you do, remember that the most important behavioral attribute is not transparency, but empathy and reciprocity.

What do you think? Are you using LinkedIn or Facebookmore often? Would you network more heavily on Twitter or in other communities right now?

In reading the book The Happiness Hypothesis by Jonathan Heidt I came across an important element that makes ultrasocial societies work – reciprocity.

Heidt defines ultrasociality as: living in large cooperative societies in which hundreds of thousand of individuals reap the benefits of an extensive division of labor. Only four instances of ultrasociality are in existence – among hymenoptera (ants, bees and wasps), termites, naked mole rats, and humans. In all species but humans the force that makes that possible is the genetics of kin altruism. In an ants nest or a bee nest, everybody is brother and sister, and since you have as much genes in common with your siblings as you have with your children, the evolutionary drive to leave surviving copies of your genes makes those ultrasocial communities work – shared genes equals shared interest.

In societies that are not structured like bee or ant colonies, the shared set of genes that you have with others drops off rather dramatically – while you share 50% of the genes with your children and siblings, you only share 1/8 the genes with your cousins, and 1/32 with second cousins. In a strictly Darwinian calculation, you would only spend as much energy to save 4 of your cousins as you would for 1 child or brother. That is why kin altruism explains only how groups of a few dozen, or perhaps a hundred, animals can work together. The rest would be competitors in the Darwinian sense.

So what happened to human societies? How did we get fictitious families, like the Mafia, where there is no real kinship, even though they talk about the Godfather and being part of the “family”, to work as ultrasocial societies? It’s the old fashioned “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” phenomenon – which is in fact a mindless and automatic reciprocity reflex. if someone receives a favor, that person will be driven to repay that favor – not because it the proper thing to do – but because it is a built-in ethological reflex. It’s tit-for-tat, hardwired in our brains, that opens the possibility of forming cooperative relationships with strangers. Now mind you that tit-for-tat can only explain the existence of social groups up to a few hundreds. What allows larger social groups is its co-existence with vengeance, gratitude and gossip as tools that reduce the payoff to cheaters by the cost of making enemies.

Those very primitive hardwired human behaviors confirm a lot about what makes online communities work as well – the importance of reputation, the importance of self-organized posses to police communities, the importance of helping one another as a currency, and the failure of communities where reciprocity is not an integral component of the community.