Face-to-Face: Thinking Digital
Been busy with some business development projects recently so not had a lot of time to post, but wanted to let you know that I’ll be attending next week’s Thinking Digital conference in Gateshead, England (which runs between 21st-23rd May).
I’ll be there for all three days and - if you’re going - would welcome an opportunity to get together.
Share this article from St. Paul's ReachThe value of online community: to create user benefit, extend brand equity or secure transactional data?
If I offered you a chance to join a community with the following stated aims, would you?
“… a growing but personalized online community consisting of vibrant individuals interested in sharing their opinions about shopping” with the brand in question indicating that it “relies upon its membership to gain valuable insights into the browsing and buying behaviors, as well as the offers and experiences that are most important to you”.
So, you feel OK about that?
What would you say if I asked you to agree to provide the following information in order to join:
- a copy of all Internet traffic going from and coming to your computer
- information on your secure sessions (websites beginning with ‘https’), which may include shopping or banking sites.
- a record of “the pace and style with which you enter information online…”
- information in the header section of your personal emails.
Still OK? Feeling any different about the opportunity?
Now, let’s assume you join the community and - without being explicitly warned of the data capture indicated above - ’spyware’ able to run undetected on your system and capable of recording, monitoring and transferring the above usage information was actually installed. How would you feel?
Still want to join?
This is the issue at the heart of a recent disagreement between the Computer Associates (CA) Security Advisor Research group and Sears about the retailers use of personal data tracking, the permissions given and its new online community initiative: My SH Community. I’d encourage you to read the full exchange from the first blog post, through a response from Sears, to CA’s second response to details of a proposed class action lawsuit.
In short, CA believes Sears is not being clear, transparent or explicit in communicating to potential users that a) software will be downloaded and installed b) that it will automatically monitor and track their internet usage and that c) the information will be passed to a third party. Sears disagrees.
Now, the issue of explicit permission underpins this whole dialogue but there’s also an implicit difference in the perceived value of the community: CA (on behalf of the user) sees the aim of securing transactional data as diminishing its value and compromising the users online integrity while, Sears, seems to believe it’s offering a reasonable trade-off (even if its actions could be viewed as not making the conditions explicit), that is, the users data for exclusivity; special content and advance offers.
So, what is the value of online community: to create user benefit, extend brand equity or secure transactional data? A combination? Something different? Can a valid answer be established without the actual input and position of the community members themselves? How do you accommodate or support ongoing variance and change in a community’s perception of its value? And - just as important - are you being explicit in the ’social media bargain’ you’re seeking to strike with your audience / customers / potential advocates?
Finally, I don’t see much understanding from the brand here as to how its actions could be more widely perceived and interpreted, indeed, Mr Rob Harles VP SCH Community (let’s repeat that, VP of community) was quoted as saying “I don’t usually respond to blogs …”. Er?
So, this leaves me with a key point of confusion. In talking about community and the “vibrant individuals” who support your brand, why wouldn’t you want to go out of your way to communicate the openness and integrity of your actions? After all, as Ian McKee has so eloquently put it “If what you do causes your customers to get a law passed to stop you – HOW CAN IT BE THE RIGHT THING FOR YOUR BRAND?”
Share this article from St. Paul's ReachSocial networks - a global perspective
This map of global social network use has been around for a couple of weeks, but a useful reminder that social media is about more than just a numbers game between Face-Space.
Share this article from St. Paul's ReachBrands & social media - after the purchase
A friend called me last night and queried if I’d been a little harsh on brands in relation to my comments in the previous post - “Scarcity, value & the nature of attention“.
So I had a look and, well, I don’t think I am.
To begin to substantiate that, look to the recently released TNG / Cymfony report (which I covered here). One result I didn’t specifically mention then - but which has relevance here - is the second most popular choice to the question “what social media resource will have the greatest future impact on your business”. 62% elected viral campaigns that … “encourage consumers to tell their friends and relatives about your company, product or service.”
There’s nothing wrong with this (it’s a legitimate social media marketing tactic) - but - it’s quick, short-term, campaign-based work that (mostly) seeks to foster some kind of word-of-mouth dissemination underpinned by peer-to-peer endorsement & advocacy. Fine, but my concern is that this speaks only to the standard marketing lexicon of “Awareness, Intent, Desire & Action”. It’s about being interested in getting ‘attention’ up to the point-of-purchase.
What I don’t see a lot of are brands seeking to consider the ‘attention’ available after the point-of-purchase. No, I’m not talking about customer service options here, but about understanding and working to secure - and enter into - a longer term engagement with those very same customers.
I know I’m making some fairly large generalisations here, but if we all agree with the initial premise that “attention is scare and liable to get scarcer”, then why should any brand not want to identify and leverage all available ‘attention’ options? Why would they be happy to allow a customers attention to dissipate after they may have worked so hard to acquire it in the first place?
As an example, I recently attended the TFM&A show. Here, a number of companies were confident in their assertions of running successful campaigns for brands that generated “55 friends for social network ‘X’ and 200 bookmarked referrals from news aggregation site ‘Y’” but - when asked - there was little suggestion of there being a “what happens next / longer term engagement / extended value across customer lifetime” plan to work to.
I think this places us within the whole control Vs participation issue that brands are currently confronting. I also know from the same report, that lots of companies are still ‘dipping their toes in the water’ but perhaps until they can get over both hurdles they won’t be able to understand what type of ‘attentions’ they should be seeking to secure.
Any examples of post-purchase social media engagement gratefully received …
Share this article from St. Paul's ReachScarcity, value & the nature of attention
Some initial thoughts on scarcity, value and the attention economy as a response to reading the First Edition magazine which was recently released by TheFutureDept.
In article 01/11, Morihiro Harano from Tokyo-based creative media agency Drill Inc, discusses the central themes of a book called Joho-Dai-Bakuhatsu (Digital Big Bang) written by Ryuhei Akiyama. Mr Harano distills these into four key areas:
- we are making a transition from an ‘information’ to an ‘over information society’
- although the internet has changed the dynamic the theme remains valid: scarcity confers value
- the way in which information is organised and provided is what now creates value
- capturing consumers attention is the point at which value is aquired
From this, Mr Harano adds his own question “what has value through scarcity in an over-information society?” and goes on to declare attributes such as ’simplicity’ & ‘credibility’ as important in driving attention.
Mr Harano believes that in an emergent, over-information society “people become overwhelmed and confused, not knowing who or what to trust” and so look to the reputation of known global, branded companies as the store of ‘credibility’ from which people can draw upon to overcome such disorientation. However, he also broadens this position by stating that “anything that has credibility” will become a source of value.
I believe this significantly understates a number of key themes:
No single point of trust
Let me firstly substitute credibility for trust and then look at the kinds of ‘repositories’ of trust people identify with: business, brands, academics, media and peer relationships.
Current research, most recently the updated Edelman Trust Barometer, highlight there is no single trust relationship that is valid across all age, professional and geographic demographics. Trust is attributed to – and means different things - to different groups of users or customers. Additionally, the nature of that trust relationship is subject to ongoing change. So, is Mr Harano wrong?
No, it’s just that the positioning & opinions of brands should not be regarded as the only source of value and their meaning in relation to other sources of trusted opinion is - and will likely continue to be - relative.
So, our question becomes threefold: which trust dynamics matter to us? Do they exhibit scarcity and how do we derive value from them?
Attention is not one thing
This brings me to attention. Why do we assume it’s one thing: easily defined & neatly understood? It’s here I’d ask you to consider the ‘attention design’ - that is – is it clear:
- what the most mutually beneficial ‘attention transaction’ will be between the company (its products & services) and the desired end-user or customer (how they will benefit or be satisfied)?
- how might the attention within this transaction differ according to age, demographic, culture and task?
- what actual type of attention do these customers exhibit (full, continuous partial, single transactional, ambient passive, recurring on-demand) & can you either engage with it or actually transition a customer from one form of attention to another?
- if there is agreement that one design can be created to satisfy multiple forms of attention?
- how will the customer be helped to ‘manage’ their attention relationship with the company in a way that creates value for them? (meaningful personalisation, info-mediaries)
There is no single answer but attention is not one thing and, of itself, the action of securing attention (overcoming scarcity) has only transient value unless you define what type of attention you are seeking, whether it should be retained and where the locus of control in the relationship resides.
My key point: yes, attention is scare and likely to get scarcer but securing it per se does not automatically accrue or deliver value: satisfying the nature and intent of the actual attention transaction does and that’s a shared agenda. Of course, this means that true scarcity may actually lie with the brands and their level of willingness to actually engage with attention and not just see it as something to try and capture and throw more ‘messages’ at …
(Image attribution: Kentaro Suda @ Thuglife blog)
Share this article from St. Paul's ReachThe corporate view of social media at the end of 2007
Current corporate social media adoption, attitudinal orientation towards social media & social media’s potential to meet business objectives.
These are the three key themes covered in the latest research from TNS / Cymfony titled “Harnessing influence: how savvy brands are unleashing the power of social media”. I’d encourage you to read the full report, but there were a number of points that caught my attention.
1 - Corporate social media adoption
39.4% of respondents declared themselves to be at the pilot / experimentation stage, with 23.9% at a more advanced stage of integration revealing they ‘regularly’ include social media in their marketing & PR campaigns. Fine, but perhaps more revealing are the reasons cited as ‘barriers-to-acceptance’. Here, the top three were lack of ‘C’-level executive buy-in (18.3%), not having the necessary skills (16.9%) and not believing there are best practices and proven models of operation (16.9%). Irrespective of whether viable marketing or communications aims can be established we still find ourselves needing to consider education, training and implementation approaches as key components of any social media strategy even before anyone actually starts talking to customers.
2 - Attitudinal orientation towards social media
The report divides respondents into two: the ‘Wait-and-See’ and the ‘Revolutionary’ groups. No prizes for guessing the general attitudes involved, with the ‘Wait-and-See’ group seeing social media as just another channel; underpinned by traditional mass-marketing techniques. Alternatively, the ‘Revolutionaries’ not only believed that social media should be “grasped with a sense of urgency” but they saw it as more important to listen (to derive insight and then act iteratively) than just to use it as a means to ‘push’ additional messages.
However, a higher level assessment of attitudes asked respondents to rate their perception of the likely significance of social media in 5 years time. 56% indicated it would be “very significant”. This does beg the question, why do the other 44% think it won’t be of such importance? Are there commonalities within their belief? What is specific to this attitude (commercial sector, means of doing business, customer technographics)? Just what is their future ‘worldview’ of technological interaction & its relation to their business in 2013?
3 - Social media’s potential to meet business objectives
36.6% - the highest number - indicated that “generating customer insights” was the objective social media had the greatest potential to address with brand awareness (21.1%) and increasing customer loyalty (18.3%) coming 2nd & 3rd. However, what did intrigue me was the number of respondents who believed it was suited for “increasing purchase intent”: 0%. So, none of the respondents or companies believe social media can drive sales? Given the amount of commentary on the role of influence and advocacy in this area this seems a little strange.
I’d also reference a report issued by David Rabjohns of strategic planning consultancy Motivequest. Commenting on the outcomes of their social media campaign for Mini, Rabjohns cites “… that shifts in advocacy accounted for 53% of the change in sales.” I’ve no reason to doubt this but what does it say about the real accuracy of the 0% figure above? Was everyone just being polite?
Share this article from St. Paul's ReachSocial media & virtual worlds - a visit to the Salon
It was a pleasure to be invited to last nights inaugural Virtual Worlds Salon in London as organised by Sasha Frieze and the Virtual Economic Forum. It was a well attended networking event that offered some rewarding connections, conversations and insights.
Approaching virtual worlds from the social media & social networking perspective, it was a useful reminder for me of the need to consider the longer term online environment we may eventually interact with. It also highlighted the value in moving beyond seeing this as simple definitions of 2-D, asynchronous and singular versus 3-D, synchronous and immersive environments. What connects both is their inherent sociality.
Indeed, as Bob Moore eloquently describes in his excellent post on the convergence between the areas, we are seeing the first examples of both new virtual social worlds and 3-D social networking applications. This is further demonstrated by the emergence of sites such as Kaneva and Koinup.
I won’t argue about the value, suitability or inevitability of that convergence here, but I would add that both areas flourish because they’re based on driving interest, participation and engagement while facilitating the formation of multiple relationships. Irrespective of which ‘D’ we feel we’re designing for, we’ll have to continually enable those behaviours over the longer term if we’re truely to meet user needs.
Share this article from St. Paul's Reach
