Why Leaders Must Engage with Social Media

Tomorrow I'm giving a presentation on social media at the Women & Power Conference Reunion at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. While I'm convinced that not all C-level executives need to be Twitter junkies, I am absolutely convinced that they need to be acquainted with social media.

There are two basic reasons:

1. There may be external events that are picked up on social media and require attention.
2. There may be internal activities that are good and need to be encouraged or potentially damaging and need to be restrained or monitored.

How does the relevant C-level executive know what to do (or not do) if she does not understand social media?

W&P Reunion.pptx

View more presentations from diy-marketing

This presentation was a lot of fun to develop. I hope you have equal fun reading it.

Even more, what are your thoughts on this important, but undercovered, subject?

Collaborating with Customers - B2C and B2B

Step 1 - Listen
Step 2 - Respond
Step 3 - Engage

I’m ready to write a post about the 4th step in the revised social media strategy development model. The old model called it CoCreate. This one uses the term Collaborate. Collaborate maybe sounds a little less formidable, a little easier to do. The more I’ve thought about that, the more I’ve realized it’s just not so. It’s really hard. Sometimes it seems impossible. I’m going to explain why by using recent data on Forrester’s Social Technographics data and add some insights I’ve derived, virtually all from mistakes I’ve made.

I’ve written about the Technographics ladder before, because it’s a real asset to understanding what’s going on in this space. With the 2009 data, they’ve added a new rung on the ladder. It’s called “Conversationalists” and it primarily reflects the influence of Twitter on the social media scene. Obviously these categories are not mutually exclusive; most of us fall into one category at some point, or in connection with some brand, and into another category in a different situation. That’s life. But what is key to understanding the difficulty of encouraging collaboration--of getting customers to create content-- is the size of the Spectators segment; 70% of consumers fall into that segment at least part of the time. Add to that the next step on the ladder. Joiners aren’t cocreators; they have a profile, but beyond that they are consumers, just like Spectators. In fact, it’s not until you get up to the Critics and the new Conversationalists that you get content creation, from ratings to status updates to Tweets. Those are fine and increasingly important to marketers. However, it’s only a small part of the online population that creates content that generally goes beyond 140 characters!

Looking at the total population is, of course, useful. But it’s not your target market. I found a good example in the B2B space. I used Forrester’s profile tool (which doesn’t yet have the Conversationalists), just set for the entire B2B market. I got a profile that’s not hugely different from the consumer population profile, which isn’t particularly surprising because these activities carry over from our private lives to our business lives—and vice versa.

Josh Berman fortunately published a more detailed example in early 09, also based on their survey of business buyers. I’m including the chart with his commentary, which just deals with the “overall” and “for business purposes” categories on the right. Virtually everyone in the B2B space falls into the Spectator category—that’s a critical insight. 69% of them are doing so for business purposes, and in the blue bars you’ll notice that is not really different for IT managers and managers in a line of business who make technology decisions. A few more of these business decision makers fall into the active categories of Critics and Creators. That gives them an opportunity to be influentials in their business discipline.

And that begins to get to my points. I would suggest that:
• It’s really hard for a brand to get people to contribute if they already do not. You can—and should work on it—invite people to write reviews, for example. In the consumer space, it’s relatively easy to reward people for doing it; loyalty points are an interesting consideration. Incentives are always useful, and you may be able to find useful incentives in B2B as well as B2C.
• Once you identify customers who are taking the “baby steps” of, say, writing reviews, can you encourage them to do more? Whether it’s a blog comment or a wiki contribution, it’s a good step. Business customers love to give their opinions and ideas as sites like Dell’s IdeaStorm demonstrate, so it may be easier to give them an opportunity and let them go to it.
• All the chicklets that are encouraging us to Tweet or Digg content items are trying to get people to be more active in the conversation arena, and it’s worth making it easy to do. I’m not sure how much it contributes to a feeling of collaboration, but it’s great additional visibility. It might even create a customer perception of supporting the brand over time.
• Can you encourage customers to become Creators? All the B2C video contests like “Help Flo” are an example that you can. And those will probably continue to work well in the B2C space as long as you have a creative campaign.
B2B seems to offer a lot of opportunities to help customers become thought leaders. It’s the standard “speak at the conference” appeal. Now that can be expanded to blogs and other content repositories. That clearly leads to a feeling of being valued and I don’t see how it can do anything but strengthen the relationship between brand and customer.

I see two key take-aways in this. First, you can’t easily get people to participate in activities they aren’t already familiar with. If you have a target audience that’s pretty much Spectator-only, don’t try to make them Creators overnight. It’s just not going to happen.

Second, the marketing practice of trying to locate the opinion leaders (influentials) has come into its own. Customers are self-identifying by their blogs and other online creations. Find them and reach out to them. The case of the Coke fan page has become the classic case of doing just that. Your outreach may not always have such spectacular results, but it will be worthwhile. It just takes the patience and persistence that’s mandatory in the social media space!

Engagement Lessons from Successful Brands

An interesting customer engagement study has been sitting on my desktop since late summer and it’s long since time to pay attention. The study, by Wetpaint and the Altimeter Group ranks the top 100 brands in terms of customer engagement. You can see the ranking and download the full report here.

Starbucks and Dell are number 1 and 2—no surprise there. They interviewed some other high-ranking sites, SAP at 9 Toyota at 21—about best practices, presumably to get a perspective from different industry sectors. Each of the highly engaging brands has several best practices to suggest and they are worth reading the full report. I picked out one from each that struck me as universally applicable:

Starbucks identifies people throughout the organization to be the liaison with the social media program—to monitor and to take action on customer issues and ideas. At the same time, they maintain tight central control over content and the engagement of individual baristas in their many outlets.

Toyota says you have to be in it for the long haul. No surprise there; social media is an investment of time and energy that will only pay off over time. That’s a disappointment to many who are looking for immediate returns.

SAP makes a practice of engaging in new channels where people already are. That makes it easier to listen and understand; they also encourage employees who are already active on newer channels like Twitter.

Dell points out that you have to be conversational from the start. Again—not a surprise, just really hard to do, especially for newbie brand practitioner.





























The Wetpaint/Altimeter group links customer engagement to financial performance and argues that it is a more powerful driver that traditional measures of customer satisfaction. Gallup consulting agrees, and has their own measures of engagement that allow them to group firms by level of engagement. You can read their full report here.

While researching this post, I also ran across a recent article in Forbes that argues for the importance of engaging customers while admitting that engagement is hard to measure. None of this content could be judged as totally unbiased because all the marketing services/consulting firms represented have a stake in creating or measuring engagement.

For me, it’s hard to refute the arguments. You should make your own judgment!

The New CNN - Marriage of Site and Social?

Very early this morning I heard John Roberts and Kiran Chetry introducing the new CNN website on American Morning. Even at the early hour it sounded interesting, so I checked it out.

CNN's web designers seem to have brought as many different types of content to the home page as possible. It has latest news and features -- both headlines and videos, most popular (newspulse), a whole banner of editor’s picks videos in a banner across the middle of the page and topic boxes with links to stories. I think that sounds confusing, but it’s well organized and easy to follow. Take a look for yourself.


It was the personalization and social features that I was most interested in, though. There are more, but here are two that I investigated. I set up a profile, personalized my weather for Boston (easy), tried to upload a picture (didn’t work), and followed some topics, which John and Kiran said was easy. I didn’t find it so, at least initially, but as you can see, I did make it work. I wanted to follow Tech and thought I’d get latest headlines. All the RSS feeds to that macro level of topics are still there, but that wasn’t what I was looking for. What I found was that I had to read an article; at the end there was a Follow This Topic button. Hitting that button usually gave me several keyword-type choices which then showed up on my profile page. The topics are rather micro for my taste, but it will be interesting to follow them for awhile and see what shows up. You can follow up to 12 topics, which on the one hand is enough to keep up with, but on the other hand may not give the reader much of a perspective, given the small scope of most of the topics.

I’m not an iReporter, but I was interested in what’s happening on the citizen journalism front. What was new to me was the concept of “vetted” iReports. These reports have been checked (for correctness, acceptability, they don’t say exactly what) by CNN editors. One assumes that’s an attempt to give credibility to citizen journalism. On the iReport main page they have an Assignment Desk where readers can get story ideas while in search of their 15 minutes of fame. That’s interesting, but I don’t think it’s the real purpose, for CNN or for local news sites. News happens and often reporters aren’t on the scene, but people with their phone cameras are. With that in mind, CNN just launched an iPhone app so people can upload iReports directly from 3GS iPhones. Events and breaking news seem to be the whole point!

As I looked as this I was reminded of a section of last year’s Razorfish FEED report (now hard to find but is on SlideShare). The chapter on usability/Dr. Nielsen is what I was recalling and here is the provocative quote:

The New Building Blocks

Jakob says:
People don’t read your websites; use a different editorial style and make your pages “scannable.”

We say:
Throw away your concept of primarily designing “pages” as building blocks and start designing experiences. (slide 20)

I think that’s what CNN is trying to do. Call it engagement, call it offering experiences, it may be a guidepost on the road to the future of the web. It’s an experiment worth following.

9/11, Service and Social Media

On September 11 a lot of people want to do something. Using social media to support that very human emotion makes sense.
This morning I got an email from Service Nation, a non-profit that encourages citizen service opportunities. Among the service initiatives they are promoting on 9/11 is a Cities of Service Program. The idea is for individual citizens to submit service ideas/opportunity to the major of their city. The email linked to a simple form for that purpose.

New York City Mayor Bloomberg appears to have led the way with a program to encourage New Yorkers, especially young people, to volunteer for service. It has an active website, many non-profit organizations as partners, and initial commitments from citizens from all walks of life to serve.

There’s a catchy and engaging part of the program called “Share Your Blank.” The point is that everyone has something worthwhile to share. The program not only allows them to serve, it allows them to talk about their service in order to inspire others—social media in action.

One important point is that initiatives like this don’t happen in isolation. I heard about it from Service Nation. NYC had a lot of partners when they launched the program. It seems vibrant and active, so they probably have more now.

It’s not only a lesson in encouraging service; it’s a lesson in making social media social. Both are appropriate on 9/11.

Starbucks is Most Engaged Brand

This morning I ran across an interesting followup to last week's post about Starbucks. A study by Wetpaint and Charlene Li of Altimeter Group found Starbucks to be the most engaged of the 100 top global brands studied.

They used "over 40 attributes" to measure engagement (p. 21)--no they didn't say which attributes. They then correlated engagement with financial results and found that "financial performance correlates with engagement" (p. 6). That alone should be enough to get your attention!


They discuss brand engagement best practices with emphasis on Starbucks but including others. There are other interesting findings, including a typology of firms based on their engagement practices. Is your brand a Maven, Butterfly, Selective or Wallflower? According to their findings, it matters!

A report worth reading--carefully!

Engagement--The New PR Paradigm?

This one I picked up on Twitter from @mattrhodes of Fresh Networks in London. It’s an instructive look at PR in the age of social media. The concept of public engagement is an interesting one. The emphasis on search as central to PR—and to social media in general, I would add—is important. Their summary of the tools of public engagement (slide 25) is worth study. I’d encourage you to page through the presentation. The media data in “chapter 1” is the same refrain, but it sets the stage for PR having to work differently, especially in the light of a faltering newspaper industry.

Open publication - Free publishing - More edelman

In following Matt’s Tweet to this presentation I also discovered a new site, Issuu. It offers online publishing services, free to the public with a paid platform for business and is headquartered in Copenhagen. I was particularly interested in its stated ability to create online magazines; you can see that from the way the slideshow plays on their viewer. It looks like a site worth trying out.

Consider the trail of influence here—a presentation by a global PR firm, brought to the attention of a US blogger by a British social marketer, published on a Danish site. Is this not an example of the “New Influencers?”

LinkedIn Polls--Uses and Abuses

People have been sending me polls lately. When I see them on news sites, I often don’t answer them. When someone goes to the trouble of emailing it to me, I often do. That said, I can’t remember who sent me a LinkedIn poll about the virtues of advertising during a recession but I answered it, checked to my answer against others (a minority position, I’m sorry to say), then started thinking.
I remembered answering one or two when CNBC partnered with LinkedIn last fall to do what I thought was going to be a daily business poll. CNBC is still doing them, but not regularly. I have the TV set to CNBC several hours most weekdays, and I haven’t heard about them in quite awhile. I don’t see anything on their home page. Do they publicize the polls in daily news alerts? At all? I don’t know.

The Poll app seems to be first cousin to the LinkedIn Answers app (I think you have to be signed in to see both). Either one can be put on your LinkedIn profile page. The Answers page is personalized to interests of the user, presumably issues listed on the user profile. Note that a question about online promotion/advertising by John Batelle is the Featured question on my page when I checked it (clearly they know it’s me; the profile picture is a nice touch to point out that you are identified, non anonymous).
Note that if you want to set up a polling option you can send it to your own network free. If you want to use LinkedIn’s targeting options, you have to upgrade to Premium membership. I didn’t try it because a question to the lovely people in my network “just to see if the app worked” seemed quite spammy to me.

Is this more than just fun and games, social media style? Maybe.

If you have a serious question that matches the expertise of people in your network, it’s worth asking. I would be more inclined to use the Answers app than the Poll for a serious question, so respondents could explain their reasoning.

Can the polls simply be used as an engagement device—clearly the intention of people who have emailed them to me recently? Maybe, but I don’t think you ought to push that unless you have a consistent stream of REALLY INTERESTING questions, and that’s hard. The email I received from a news site asked me to answer the daily poll and to suggest questions. Engaging, but also a suggestion that they don’t have a bright idea for every day! I also ran across a blogger who was annoyed by getting the same poll two days in a row, although my guess is that it was an opt-in. Good point anyway. The rule should be “engage, not annoy.” Where do you draw the line for your own target audience?

I guess I come down on the side of this being a better technique for a specific answer to a professional question than as an ongoing engagement device, whatever your target audience. I have no issue with polls on your page, website, whatever—anywhere they are not intrusive. When you email them to people, they become intrusive, and caution is urged!

Still Thinking About Social Media Metrics

This spring I’m having the fascinating experience of watching a classroom full of young marketers try to wrap their arms around the world of social media. Some work with mass media, some also work with Internet advertising and promotion. A very few are involved in social media programs in their firm. For all of them, narrowing their focus to a single social media program, especially to how to measure it, has been a challenge.

If you start from the perspective that social media is going to be part of an integrated marketing communications mix (can it work otherwise???), the need to focus one program at a time becomes clear. By that, I don’t mean that only one social media program is being executed at once. There could be a program aimed at acquisition and another aimed at retention being executed simultaneously, for example. My point is that you have to plan and evaluate those programs separately. It also helps to focus attention when you point out that it’s necessary to have measures of success for your boss!

I recognize the value of social media in creating brand awareness. However, I argue against awareness as a measure of success for any single program in any medium. We learned the reasons why in Advertising 101; there’s a lot going on, and it’s hard to isolate the effects of a single program on a broad attitudinal measure. It can be done, but it takes marketing research and that takes time and costs money. Consequently, I argue for specific social media behaviors as objectives for and measures of the effectiveness of social media programs.

Up to this point, I think I got it right. I laid out the argument in a two part post on Identifying and Measuring Social Media Behaviors (Part 1, Part 2). Soon after, I read an article by Shane Atchison in ClickZ that made me realize that I didn’t go far enough. Shane is trying to get marketers to dig deeper to really understand how they are (or are not) creating value for users. He says:

value happens not when people buy your product but when they use it and love it. Not when they upload a video, but when someone else watches it. . . don't stop at measuring your marketing efforts' success, or even the sentiment expressed in the broader online conversation about your brand. It's great to monitor online activity, better to develop reporting around online activity, and better yet to engage customers in their native online habitats.

Different behaviors do have different value as far as marketers are concerned, and we should concentrate on encourage the behaviors that are more valuable. “Friending” is more valuable than simply viewing, for example. With that in mind, I revised my list from the original post. I put “attention” and “engagement” in quotes because I’m still not sure they are the right terms. However, they are clearly not the same, so it’s a start.

Behaviors in the Social Ecosphere

“Attention” Metrics
Number of visits, impressions (eyeball measures)
Attention/engagement
Pages: how much time spent, “heat maps” for content, etc.
Video: watched, partly/completely
Number of incoming links
"Engagement" Metrics
Friends, fans, favs (followers of all kinds)
Install apps (widgets, etc.) offered
Share content
Promote content (Digg, Reddit, etc.)
Comment/co-create
Ultimate Social Media Metric
Click through to website

Behaviors on the Website

Traffic Metric
Number of referrals from social media sites
“Engagement” Metrics
Register for site services
Download—white papers, videos, podcasts, etc.
Rate products
Other content cocreation (photos, videos, written content, etc.)
Ultimate Website Metric
Transaction (sale, download, join, etc.)

Notice that we now have a funnel that resembles the traditional conversion funnel. In effect, it gives us a hierarchy of objectives/ metrics from which we can choose in moving toward our “ultimate” objective.

I feel a graphic coming on! Anyone want to make additions, clarifications, changes before I do it?

Which Communications Channel is Most Popular?

You may have noticed the headline on Marketing Charts about a week ago, “Social Nets and Blogs More Popular than Email.” As often happens, the headline oversimplifies a complex reality that deserves a closer look. According to Marketing Charts:

Social Networking has been the global consumer phenomenon of 2008. Two-thirds of the world’s Internet population(1) visit a social network or blogging site and the sector now accounts for almost 10% of all internettime. ‘Member Communities’(2) has overtaken personal Email to become the world’s fourth most popular online sector after search, portals and PC software applications.

Their metric is “global active reach” and communities did, in fact, slightly outdistance email in 2008. The chart clearly shows communities to be the fastest-growing sector, which is consistent with other data. The report shows differences in use and growth rate from one country to another. If you're a global marketer, it's must reading.

To put another piece in the puzzle I looked at the OPA’s Internet Activity chart for January 2009. It’s also Nielsen data, and I’ve always believed it to be US only, but I can’t find that specific statement. What it definitely is, though, is a “time spent on the Internet” metric. It shows Internet users spending almost half their time on content, about a fourth on communications and roughly 10% on community activities. Using this metric, community is also the fastest growing—no ambiguity there!

That encourages me to return to the Razorfish Digital Outlook report I discussed last week. The chapter on “Social Influence Marketing” (their concept; pp. 27-33) predicts that the impact of social media marketing and the importance of the influentials in that context will continue to grow. They also see the interconnectedness of the various social media platforms, and therefore of personal networks, growing. That could lead to greater importance of mere acquaintances as opposed to your closest friends, as they introduce new members and new ideas into personal networks.

While Razorfish is clearly promoting their own proprietary concept, it is also obvious that marketers can’t just dive into the social media pond and expect things to happen. Whether you are reaching out to bloggers or attracting fans to your Facebook page or encouraging followers on Twitter, there are people who are more connected, more vocal, more influential.

If you can engage them in your activities, they will attract others. If they do choose to become engaged, does that mean they like you? My answer is “probably.” Otherwise, why would they engage?

Think about it!