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.

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.

The BRITE conference at Columbia was a great one. Much has been written about it already by David Berkowitz, Tom Guarriello, Max Kalehoff, Lois Kelly, Valeria Maltoni, Amanda Mooney, Christine Whittemore and then also on the BRITE blog.

Here are some of my (heavily biased) takeaways from the conference:

• Many companies are truly in need of help – their traditional marketing programs to attract and retain customers have become much too costly.
  And when a competitor in their space figures out the secret formula, the benefits to that competitor are game-changing, not just level-setting.
  There were some good examples of that at the conference – including Eli Lily (more on them in a future post), Cisco, GE, P&G and Lego.
• Companies have to radically rethink how they do marketing and how they staff it – marketing can no longer be viewed as a collection of programs, but instead as way of behaving in the marketplace.
• Many marketers are complaining that in the new social media world there are not enough opportunities to reallocate their traditional fat advertising budgets – i.e., not enough keywords in search marketing, etc. Forgive my French, but isn’t this looking at marketing in the social media age totally ass-backwards? Maybe you do not need the same traditional fat budgets to achieve the same results – what do you think it cost to produce the coke/mentos video, which resulted in increased sales of 5-10% for Diet Coke and 15% for Mentos? Sure, programs like this may not be replicable, but neither are the results of ad campaigns. Another good example is Amazon – with zero “interrupt” marketing dollars in their budget – which does not mean they don’t do marketing, in fact they are a marketing machine.
• It is clear that agencies are trying hard to redefine themselves, which is a must if they are to survive. Most of them are just using new buzzwords to talk about the same old programs that they’ve been doing for ages. Saying that you will be delivering 3D marketing programs – the right message to the right person at the right time and in the right place does not make it so. Interrupt marketing messages delivered on a computer screen, a cell phone screen, even if powered by GPS, or in an electronic game will work no better than they do on a TV screen or in print. And to say that TV viewing has not gone down as a way to continue to justify non-measurable expensive ad campaigns is totally ignoring what really happens in that marketplace.
• Many marketers have learned that they need to put the customer at the core of their offering, not their company nor their product. It does not matter how a person feels about your product; it matters how they feel about themselves in the context of your product.
• In an attempt to fix the fact that 90% of all new product introductions fail – mostly because they do not address the right market requirements – there may be a bit of an over-correction in the direction of getting your customers involved in designing your products. In certain product categories as with disruptive innovations, getting your customers to help you design your products may in fact not yield the best results. Do you think we could have had the walkman or the iPod through customer co-creation? All that said, an over-correction is still better than the alternative.
• The barriers to marketing innovation are still based on the same fundamentals – which are mostly organizational and cultural in nature. Maybe we need to invent a new marketing department – one in which either nobody reports to the CMO, or one in which most people report to the CMO. And like Eli Lily, maybe we need to change our event horizon and measure it in years instead of in quarters.
• While most companies are confused about what communities really are and how to leverage them, some examples presented at the conference, including the Eli Lily communities, the Lego community, or the P&G innovation communities, clearly demonstrate the power of those communities on achieving game-changing results or results that would just not have been possible without them. You need to be willing to let go of control, go where your most ardent community members hang out, and be supportive but not necessarily provide incentives.

So all in all BRITE was a great conference, with some thought provoking session & presenters, some great insights, and best of all – good discussions and conversations among the audience members. Let’s hope that the blog conversations will extend the life of those great face-to-face conversations.