Lessons from Companies in the Social Media Trenches

Two recent surveys of leading companies point to the progress and potential – but also the challenges – of engaging in social media. Great context for those wondering  what everybody else is doing.

First up…a new survey of 400 global companies by Deloitte, which focused on the perceived benefits and potential of online communities – or “tribalization of business”. The headline of this study is: good progress and plenty of promise…but it’s tough to find the right formula for maximum success.  As the survey puts it: “While enterprises are effectively using online tools to engage with customers, partners, and employees for brand discussion and idea generation, organizations are continuing to struggle with harnessing social media’s full potential.”

Key takeaways include:

• There are signs that company use of social media is maturing,  with the notable example of a shift to consider online “lurkers” (or observers) rather than just active users in online communities
• Companies still struggle with the main obstacles of building online communities – getting users to join, stay engaged and return – and use participation as the main metric for success (the study suggests there are more useful analytics, such as search engine rank and links/citations on other sites)
• The  top business objectives for online communities are (in order): increasing word-of-mouth, customer loyalty and brand awareness

The Deloitte authors provide an interesting prescription to companies engaged in social media that reflects the need for a new perspective and approach:

• Think tribe – not market segment
• Think network – not channel
• Think customer-centricity – not company-centricity

The folks at McKinsey have also spent a considerable amount of their grey matter studying the implementation and impact of social media. One of their most interesting products is an interactive report on Web 2.0 featuring results from their annual survey of 1,700 business executives. (FYI – You may need to register to access the full report.) The survey provides a great snapshot of where companies are investing, what they’re trying to achieve and what technology they are deploying.

Too many findings to show here, but here are some highlights (I’m sticking to Top 3 for each):

• Most important technologies and tools: Blogs, social networking, wikis
• Technology/tools being used internally for developing products & services: wikis, blogs, social networks
• Technology/tools being used internally for managing knowledge: wikis, blogs, RSS
• Technology/tools being used internally for enhancing company culture: blogs, social networking, podcasts
• Technology/tools being used internally for fostering  collaboration: blogs, social networking, wikis
• Technology/tools being used internally for training: videos, wikis, podcasts
• Technology/tools being used internally for finding and recruiting  talent: social networks, blogs, videos

Not surprisingly, the mix of tools used to interact with partners and customers differs from the internal recipe…as do the objectives. In fact, it’s interesting to look at what McKinsey has categorized as main objectives for each audience:

• Partners: achieving better integration, lowering purchase costs, developing  products, solving problems
• Customers: acquiring new customers, improving customer service, developing products, helping customers interact, marketing
• (Employee objectives are noted above.)

There were a couple of surprises for me in the findings. One is the relatively low ranking for micro-blogging…which belies the hype for Twitter and similar internal applications (e.g. Yammer). The other is the low profile of “prediction markets” – which I take to include crowd-sourcing platforms popularized by Dell and Starbucks. Perhaps the most disappointing  (though not surprising) finding is that senior executives are the lowest users of Web 2.0 technology. Therein lies one of the biggest challenges for communication and marketing professionals – it’s hard to sell Web 2.0 strategies to executives who don’t use or understand the technology.

Crisis Fosters Innovation at Ford

Sometimes a crisis fosters greater innovation and risk-taking in organizations…and that’s a good thing. As exhibit A check out the latest developments at Ford, which is making some impressive strides in social media.

Ford’s comprehensive efforts include posting content and commentaries on sites ranging  from YouTube and Facebook to Twitter and Flickr. Nothing revolutionary there, but they’re apparently also allowing unusual freedom on how their content is used – notably allowing folks to share and adapt photos and videos. And they’ve recruited a number of consumer bloggers to drive their cars and provide updates – with no apparent restrictions on content. Perhaps the  smartest thing they’ve done is to develop a social media hub – The Ford Story – which acts as an online clearing house for the various platforms and features links to relevant third-party sites and content. Ford is also working to enlist employees in the online outreach, hoping most of them will act as advocates for the company and its products.

Though some critics say Ford’s recent efforts are not perfect (can they be?) you can’t argue with the strong effort and intent. In fact, Ford’s digital communication manager himself answers some of these criticisms on various blogs. Nice touch. Implicit in this campaign is an understanding that consumers ultimately own the reputation of a company…no matter how much a company would wish otherwise. Ford may become a great case study of rehabilitating a brand through dialog and crowd-sourcing rather than  just traditional marketing and advertising.

Wisdom of Crowds Not Infallible

There’s been generous media coverage – and no shortage of angst and debate – over Wikipedia’s recent decision to add new oversights to its open editing mantra. Check out this article here. Going forward – as one example – Wikipedia will assign volunteer (trained) editors to approve certain public edits, notably those involving living people. The main driver for this change was an increasing number of inaccuracies appearing on the site, which clearly wasn’t being helped by existing tracking mechanisms. Some argue this step signals the end of true user-submitted content at Wikipedia, and an implicit acknowledgement that the “wisdom of crowds” is not so perfect after all.

But as the article notes, the idea of nominal controls and even site managers is not new, nor is it a sign of the apocalypse of social media. It’s inevitable that these sites have to evolve as they grow; in fact, its a core element of the social media “beta” philosophy. The experience at Wikipedia has shown that there will often be a minority who try to game the system, break the rules or use an open platform to vent their opinions – whether they are appropriate or not. (Unfortunately, among the culprits are corporate or agency PR folks who have trouble accepting that hype or whitewashing is not credible or appropriate.) That’s particularly true with sites that position themselves as legitimate sources of information or ideas.

The trick is to develop clear, simple, common sense rules that filter out the egregious abuses but keep the site dynamic and true to its free-flowing ethos. Perhaps I’m naive, but I still believe a majority of users have good intentions and want to make these user-driven sites relevant and appealing. (In one incident I personally experienced, a group of passionate users actually built a parallel website to show how the original could be improved. They were critics, but deeply committed to making the site productive, rather than just venting. We ended up using some of their ideas.) Like many topics related to social media, the best answer lies in avoiding dogma and absolutes…and listening to the crowds.

Predicting Twitter’s Future Tough Call

A recent article in Fast Company fuels the fire of skeptics that claim Twitter is a nebulous fad with little commercial potential…and fading rapidly. Though the stats mentioned likely have merit – I’m still trying to figure out the most valuable purpose of Twitter in my own social media portfolio – I’m not sure I buy the predictions of Twitter’s demise. Two characteristics of social media in the past few years have been the utter unpredictability of the evolution of platforms and viability and the protean resilience of survivors. Was anyone praising Facebook as the next giant several years ago? Or suggesting MySpace would lose popularity? Or expecting the massive growth of online users in countries like China or Brazil? Or even contemplating the concept of free (or low-c0st) software or information. Few of these trends were predicted or visible a few years ago.

With new applications and uses being introduced daily, it’s difficult to see what will stick or make money. This may be due to the inherently “social” aspect of social media – with a mobile army of consumers, developers, engineers and geeks helping to shape the development and evolution of platforms and technology. Whatever the cause, I think it is positive for users, who can expect constant reinvention and innovation in technology.

Twitter Shows Real Value and Promise

There’s been plenty of articles and discussion in recent weeks that confirm the fact that Twitter has gained kudos and gravitas as a valuable – if not indispensable – communication platform. The tweets on the demonstrations in Iran are only the latest example of the unexpected value of the networking platform. Clearly, few would still designate Twitter as a silly, trivial fad (though it can be both). Probably the best article I’ve seen on the topic is the recent Time story, which has been making the rounds in recent weeks (via Twitter I might add). The Time article details the unexpected depth of Twitter and focuses on the value of the social networking elements – the ongoing conversations and updates which blend personal updates, guerrilla news, chain discussions and recommendations.

In the early discussions on the value of Twitter, some questioned how it could be monetized or give birth to the killer business application. They were missing the point. Though Twitter has certainly shown its value as an immediate and informal news network, it also provides for a social interaction platform that provides intangible but unique and important benefits to its users. Call it human contact…but in a virtual setting. The author calls this having ambient awareness about developments across your social network. It’s proved particularly useful as a communication platform around events or conferences, as noted by Time, where conversation can be captured, shared and dissected instantly by a fluid community of users. This human element – shaped by millions of users both near and far in a shifting sea or followers and friends – is one of the strongest assets of Twitter.

The article also points to the emerging power of the search function on Twitter – which allows users to jump on any topic and has fostered the rapid spread of “super fresh” news (blending informal updates and personal captions) on major global events – and use of links, which opens the door to sharing much more than the original 140 characters.  There are also accounts of how users have helped to shape the evolution of the platform – yet another example of the amazing wisdom of crowds. The article also raises very interesting questions about the eclectic definition of news and advertising on Twitter. But buried at the end of the article is perhaps one of the most important lessons about Twitters’s emergence – that Twitter reflects the incredible social innovation and creativity that fuels social media and related technology. That is the most lasting value rather than the platform itself, which will doubtless continue to evolve and morph.

Has Comcast Seen the Light?

There is plenty of commentary on Comcast’s recent decision to stop slowing data transfer among users – notably the large files used by folks who use file-sharing applications like BitTorrent. Check out this post for a good summary of the various sides in the polemic. I realize that there was plenty of heat from the FCC on this one, but I see this as yet another example of the immense power of online users – the network or community, in social media speak - and the perils of trying to spar with online consumers. I suspect Comcast’s late conversion to civility and good citizenship has as much to do with their increasingly horrid reputation online (check out the vitriol on this popular site) as their desire to play nice with Kevin Martin at the FCC. Chalk up another win for the consumer.  

Tips for (Internal) Corporate Blogs

My former colleague and fellow Canadian Joe Thornley shared his “do’s and don’ts” for corporate blogs in a recent post, and they provide a very good checklist for any potential company bloggers out there. Since my focus these days in on internal communications, I reviewed the list with an employee audience in mind and – no real surprise – many of the rules still apply. Take a look.

 Do’s 

Listen first -Probably the most relevant tip with regard to internal corporate blogs. Unfortunately, I see a real tendency to want to harness this new channel to push yet more messages to employees. This is the area I will be focusing my efforts in my own company before single post is written. I also intend to increase the ways we can actually “listen” to the workforce beyond rare, formal surveys and polls. Or else, we’re talking to ourselves.

Write about things you are passionate about -Again, this is not the first instinct of many executives when they begin to write for an internal blog. The default is usually to write about corporate news or priorities, and you’re lucky if the folks writing feel strongly about these fairly prosaic issues. It’s also a tough sell to convince executives (or internal experts) to inject their personality into their posts, not just their expertise.

Give without asking for a return -See above…not a normal reaction for executives steeped in discussions of ROI and driving engagement. The challenge is to convince them these things will come, but if and only if they provide something of value to employees through the blog and folks decide to join the conversation. It’s also important to note that a blog will quickly uncover anything that is not genuine or authentic, so any concern for the employee had better be real.

Keep it positive - This may be easier to do in an internal context. In fact, the challenge may be reversed in a corporate setting, working to avoid sugar-coating problems or dancing around unpleasant facts through corporate hype or fluff. There may already be too much positive communication in most corporate settings – and some of it is likely somewhat fabricated or embellished.

Be patient and persistent - No argument here. It takes time to build an audience, to find a voice and to foster a real, vibrant conversation. This holds true for an internal blog even though in theory the employees are a ”captive” audience. Provide relevant and valuable information and allow robust, candid commentary…and they will come.

Dont’s 

Don’t use a ghostwriter -I am a strong advocate that internal authors should essentially write their own posts – even the CEO. Though it’s OK in some circumstances to help them out or do some light editing, they should provide most of the copy in their own voice. Without authenticity, the impact of the blog will be severely limited. This is a tough one for many executives used to plenty of hand-holding and direction in the development of their speeches and memos.

Don’t fake it -I make the case with my peers that to be credible an internal blog must be timely, transparent and candid. As Joe notes, blog readers can be ruthless and unforgiving at the mere hint of a cover-up or lie. Though the criticisms may not be as overt in an internal blog, lack of credibility will quickly corrode the relevance of the blog.

Don’t give up -May not be as relevant for an internal blog, but valuable advice nevertheless. This is not a short-term process with immediate rewards. Like many good things in life, it takes time to develop a good internal blog. After all, this is about building new relationships across levels, locations and communities. That’s not something that can happen overnight – particularly in companies without a tradition of internal conversation.

The Evolution of Social Networks

Read an interesting post by Shel Hotlz, who suggests that corporate websites (using Fast Company as an example) are adopting many of the social network tools into their sites – in essence becoming a mash-up of network and website. No surprise there, really, but what is interesting about this trend is how organizations seeking to foster an online conversation with fans and customers are trying to broaden their net. It’s pretty clear most companies can benefit from having a site that allows their customers to provide input, comments and ideas – and even to vote on what companies should focus on (like Dell’s Ideastorm crowd-sourcing site.) But does it make sense to open the door even wider and encourage casual fans and observers to share their ideas and opinions. To do that, you need a website that is easy to find - rather than a specific corporate web address - and compelling. This takes us back to two of the unsolved conundrums of the Web 2.0 environment – do you build your own network or do you try to piggy-back on existing networks? And do you remain exclusive in an effort to drive relevance and focus, or do you open the doors wide to avoid insularity and irrelevance? We’ll have to wait and see.

The Other Side of Apple

Picked up some interesting chatter online about an ex-Apple insider criticizing the company’s philosophy – and restrictive  policies – regarding social media. Check out one of the strings here. Assuming this is credible (I have no reason to doubt the story) this post is somewhat surprising, given Apple’s leadership role in product design and marketing. But if you think about it this angle makes sense, since from everything I’ve read or heard Mr. Jobs runs a fairly tight, autocratic ship and favors a command-and-control (and secretive) PR style that is out of sync with the company’s cutting-edge image. It was particularly interesting to note that Apple apparently discourages its execs (or subject matter experts) from blogging under their Apple identity…if they blog at all, and does not support the use of online collaboration tools. This approach is totally out of sync with the emphasis on transparency, candor and collaboration that underlines the Web 2.0 environment. Add another chink in the shining Apple armour…. 

More on the Virtual Office

Check out this post by uber blogger Robert Scoble in Fast Company. Scoble raves about new applications that allow teams to collaborate more easily and seamlessly in a virtual “cloud”. News like this is sure to make those trying to function in command-and-control companies cry in despair. While some workers are building programs online and lifting ideas and visuals from shared sites, others can’t even get access to the internet. Unfortunately, the gap seems to be getting wider.