Comments

Steve,

Thanks

I have been questioning the potential and value of Web 2.0 Social Networking sites for some time. It seems to me we are not considering the "relationship" value of selling (and marketing).....Your article is helping me clarify my thinking.....Love your insights

Posted by Todd Spare at August 27, 2009 7:48 PM

I've been putting much thought into this very topic recently. My conclusions are quite similar to yours.

I've read others referencing social media as a "cocktail party." That really makes an excellent analogy.

You clearly don't sell to everyone at the cocktail party—unless your the bartender!

However, you may get referrals or recommendations from others who already know you. If you're smooth, you may start up a new relationship or two. Most likely, you will grow and expand your existing relationships who are also at the party.

Its noisy. It can be chaotic. Even fun. Sometimes dangerous—watch what you say!

Anyway, I enjoy your writing. Keep it up.

Carl

Posted by Carl Rempel at August 27, 2009 8:23 PM

"Social media" is youthful, creative, fun and inexpensive; therefore it is wise to embrace and innovate with it.

Posted by Plato at August 27, 2009 8:29 PM

Marketeers are using it as " Hammer tool " (Hello! This is new.Hello! Please attend this ) and in the whole process forgetting the DIALOUGE ...

Posted by shikha at August 28, 2009 12:46 AM

Interesting post. Social media is so creative, fun and inexpensive, therefore many companies use it to identify their target audience.

Brands these days use Social Media to increase their credibility; it has revolutionized communication across all levels. It has given people and businesses a platform to share their views with the world. Engaging with consumers adds value and helps strengthen a brand’s identity. This is almost as effective as word of mouth but has an impact on a larger number of people. Social Media plays a significant role in influencing the buying decision of consumers since people now search, read, review, discuss and then consider before making a purchase.

http://blogs.position2.com/how-to-effectively-connect-with-your-target-audience-through-social-media

Posted by Mary at August 28, 2009 4:02 AM

Brilliant post Steve – thank you.

Question:

Would you rather be remembered at the end of your life because you had 30,000 ‘friends’ on Facebook and Twitter (of whom 99.9% don’t know you in the slightest); or because you mentored just a handful of people throughout your life and it made a difference to them?

When Blogging began I never saw it as a business generator. It was and remains merely a way of communicating – nothing more, nothing less. Blogging and now Twitter and Facebook as far as I’m concerned merely create links. Then the work begins in making relationships work ….. Or not as the case may be. I think all the wonderful new tools are fantastic and I genuinely feel blessed to be living through this revolution. But quite frankly when you boil it all down the challenge today is identical to what it was centuries years ago. If you are going to succeed in creating good and lasting customer/client relationships then all the technological tools in the world merely assist and support you - they do not do the work – you have to do that - the 'breaking news' is there is no magic bullet. There simply is no alternative to hard work and building trust through what you actually do – not what you say through using the latest, sexy, technological tool. Bullshit does not baffle brains. I repeat Gary Hamel’s words; ‘Customers are becoming more cynical … they can smell bullshit a mile away”

Steve – just a thought - I wonder if similar debates happened around 1876 about the telephone when Mr Bell launched it :- )

Posted by Trevor Gay at August 28, 2009 4:22 AM

This is fascinating - at a time when information should be allowing us to be more focused (who we have that dialog with) all the hype is around volume.

I am not sure that social medial is inexpensive - I am now starting to see articles warning business owners (especially small outfits) not to spend to much time on this stuff and be really ruthless about your ROI - because it's social and fun it's easy to get sucked into doing more and more without any real benefit.

Posted by PaulH at August 28, 2009 4:26 AM

I had a similar 'Aha' moment to Steve's when I began studying elearning as a medium a few years ago. The mistake I had previously made was to think of delivering elearning as being a "One to Many" communication process. But most elearning takes place with one person interacting with their own computer in quite a solitary way. Definitely a "One to One" communication process, but happening many times! Therein lies the potential power of the medium, as long as the elearning designers remember they are talking to individuals not a large group, building a whole series of individual relationships with learners, and getting an insight into the progress of their learning. If they can design the interactivity well, each student can access the learning that they need, rather than being sheep-dipped through a prescribed programme. Learning in this medium ought to put the learner in the driving seat - quite a challenge to those of us who have learned to lead learning in a different era.

Posted by Madeleine at August 28, 2009 4:45 AM

Numbers will remain important because, like facts, they are stubborn things. However, their importance will be within the context that you describe (i.e. micro, or niches, or perhaps micro niches). How many people are talking about the value they get from your product or service, and how can you, as a marketer, contribute to that conversation?

Posted by Carlos Leyva at August 28, 2009 5:44 AM

The president's almost mind blowing, easy win was social media ROI like never before, 20 somethings making it happen. How soon some forget; given TPC is an older crowd it is understandable and to be expected.

Posted by Plato at August 28, 2009 6:25 AM

Plato--that's rich. One day you will realize that what you learn after you already know everything is all that is important. Try to be nice to your elders. We still own everything.

Posted by M at August 28, 2009 6:58 AM

Thanks for all the comments, everybody. Good thinking.

Plato ... please read a little more carefully ... nobody here is "anti" social media ... on the contrary, what we are saying is that closed-minded, myopic executives can't use social media as a mass-marketing tool. They need to use it for what it is really for: creating relationships, community and conversation.

It is definitely wise to "embrace and innovate with social media" ... of course! Innovate means evolve as social media's role in the marketing world evolves, and executives stop trying to use it as a mass-marketing tool. (It's kind of an "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" thing ... social media's marketing role will evolve the way marketing as a whole has evolved - beyond mass marketing.)

And, the president's amazing use of social media for his campaign was really mind-blowing ... but it doesn't prove that social media is a fool-proof mass marketing tool any more than the success of the Geiko Gekko or Aflac Duck signify that animal characters in TV commercials always work.

Posted by Steve Yastrow at August 28, 2009 7:15 AM

Plato - As one of TPC's 'older crowd' (and proud of it) maybe you are suggesting we should all just get stair lifts installed, curl up and die. My 80 year old Mom thinks I'm still a mere kid; my kids think I'm 'getting on' a bit now; and last week my 4 year old Grandson asked me "Are you gonna die soon Grandad?"

'Young' is what you think it is. The key is respecting and valuing all ages surely. We all learn from each other - there is no age monopoly on wisdom or teaching.

Posted by Trevor Gay at August 28, 2009 7:16 AM

With a category as broad as social media I'm not sure generalities will drive an conclusive answer. Each company's experiments and use ends up being driven by what it needs to achieve. I think Steve's emphasis on the micro is a good way of discussing the category - its power is more like interacting with the local PTA than a mass medium like advertising. A lot of businesses with local footprints may better understand the concept related that way. Smart retailers are always interacting with the PTA in a number of ways - they already know how that builds loyalty.

Posted by Fred H Schlegel at August 28, 2009 7:48 AM

"Please read a little more carefully; ... we still own everything; ... curl up and die."

I love it, you make my point; I write with respect and maybe with a bit of insight, but some in the older crowd prefer to show disrespect.

Therefore, who is more socially adept, and perhaps playing it forward like an expert gamer that loves people and the game?

Posted by Plato at August 28, 2009 8:24 AM

"The key is respecting and valuing all ages surely. We all learn from each other - there is no age monopoly on wisdom or teaching."

Whats disrespectful about that Plato?

Posted by Trevor Gay at August 28, 2009 9:06 AM

"Plato - As one of TPC's 'older crowd' (and proud of it) maybe you are suggesting we should all just get stair lifts installed, curl up and die."

I read your opening line to me as mocking and disrespectful and others who I showed it to felt the same.

Does that make sense, you personalized it and took it over the top by using "die"?

Posted by Plato at August 28, 2009 9:20 AM

As part of TPC's younger crowd (and someone who believes age is just a number, not a category), I think Plato needs to offer us up some specifics. Social media may be fun and new, and the president may have used it to his advantage, but let's have some analysis.

How can we use social media? Steve is definitely right that being "on" facebook isn't going to grow your business. Personally, I feel there isn't much room for business in most social media, just like people wouldn't invite an advertisement to their parties.

Could the secret be Steve's We relationships?

Posted by Amanda Cullen at August 28, 2009 9:31 AM

Plato - the debate is good! Keep it coming ... But share you views on the specific question of mass marketing and social media. Curious to hear your thoughts.

Posted by Steve Yastrow at August 28, 2009 9:53 AM

Steve,

Another elegantly put point that the future will be more about relationships than ever. I have a funny feeling that we don't even get yet how intense that return to the value of village-like relationships is going to be. Your articles more than anyone else I am reading right now is both reflecting and shaping that sense of what is to come...

To the point... I find myself unfollowing people on Twitter almost as quickly as I add them, and I am paying attention to what criteria I am using. These include things like "are they adding value to those few minutes I spend reading them" and "do I feel a sense of connection with a person behind these posts" and "does the number of posts overwhelm me or do they fit into a nice flow as I read..." etc. But the fastest way off my reading list? Make it obvious you are there to sell me something. Boom, you're gone.

Thank you

Posted by Clemens at August 28, 2009 12:32 PM

Plato - I think I understand - no hard feelings - from an 'oldie' to a 'youngie' - Best wishes - Have a good weekend :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at August 28, 2009 1:13 PM

"Steve is definitely right that being "on" facebook isn't going to grow your business. Personally, I feel there isn't much room for business in most social media, just like people wouldn't invite an advertisement to their parties."

As you think, so shall you be. As you dream, so shall you become.

Posted by Plato at August 28, 2009 1:41 PM

I experimented with Facebook, Twitter and Blog for my client-base of professionals. Discovered that is not their "scene". But they do respond well to informative bulk emails (when their SPAM filters allow them through). It seems that busy professionals do want to keep up-to-date, but not to spend much time doing it.

Posted by Mike L. at August 28, 2009 6:41 PM

Steve, you're so right about quality (and not quantity) being the essence of social media presence. As somebody who manages a brand's online social presence, I have had a very good experience with micro interactions. I have had the opportunity to change the brand perception of several customers, who have graciously turned into our virtual spokespersons.

As a company, if one is willing to engage in dialogues with people and is serious about listening to them and solving their problems, these social media tools are great places. However, if one wants to use them solely as self-promoting Marketing tools, them chances are one would hear one's monologues echoing in a great unsocial hollow.

As you've rightly pointed out "being on" Twitter/Facebook is not the endgame. In fact, it is not necessary for all brands to be on these sites. If a brand is being discussed favourably in the online social circuit without the brand actually "being there", that's also a great place to be.

Posted by Subir Ghosh at August 29, 2009 3:55 AM

Regarding Platos comment "The president's almost mind blowing, easy win was social media ROI like never before" ......I believe he gives too much credit to the science.....It was not an easy win, it was not produced on the web and it took every form of marketing to get the job done. If it was more than a one time event, those folks would be out there pushing health care, environmental legislation, promoting better economic administration....but we don't see the social wins continuing. What we witnessed in the election was a great platform to connect people for a one time event, but not one that continues to be an effective tool over the long term.....the "mind blowing ROI" has disappeared..Finally...I knew Plato and Plato was a friend of mine and frankly plato, you're no Plato :)

Posted by Todd Spare at August 29, 2009 8:59 AM

Fast Company is held in high regard here it seems; so I defer to FC which I had in mind previously: "The Kid Who Made Obama President" "How Facebook Cofounder Chris Hughes Unleashed Barack's Base - and Changed Politics and Marketing Forever" (April 2009 Cover Story of the 25 year old).

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/134/boy-wonder.html

The easy part is the ease of the last election's winning Electoral margin; whereas in the previous two elections votes were recounted and the Supreme Court was involved.

If your opponent beats you by 6 strokes in golf, that is usually an easy win. If you are in the top 2-3% of a sprint triathlon, it is easier to be in that elite class because the masses behind you are thrashing around and wasting energy, especially in the swim.

Posted by Plato at August 29, 2009 2:48 PM

I voted for our current President and would agree that social media was used to sell a product,spread around a great deal of facts/B.S. on the part of both parties and separate a lot of folks from a lot of cash! Technology has been pimped as the "solution" for all that ails public education for decades as well and you can see how that turned out for us. Access to technology is one thing. Being able to use it to find and apply information is another. The same holds true for the "somethings"...20, 30,40,50, or beyond in the workplace today. The ability to navigate social media and networking sites does not guarantee success in ones professional life.

Judith Ellis raised an interesting question on her blog where she shared the Helen Thomas quote "You can't have a democracy without an informed public.". She asked the question "In this sense, are we a democracy?" We have become a society where our labels increasingly define us...young/old, black/white, Boomer/Gen X'er, progressive/conservative, Democrat/Republican. When we wrap ourselves only in our own label or judge others solely on the basis of theirs, we become closed minded. To me, a closed mind...be it a personal one, a political one, a professional one...is not an informed or educated one. I have had the opportunity to share several "discussions" with some folks representing "Organizing for America", another Chris Hughes project. One on health care and several on the Employee Free Choice Act. They were most passionate about the issues but woefully short on knowledge and information about them. I am sure I could have a similar experience with folks organized by someone representing any political persuasion. Democracy comes with a price. Taking time to educate one's self on something they are advocating for is essential piece of democracy. Spouting someone's talking points without a clue as to the issue is...cost, effectiveness, whatever...could make someone a mere extension of someones propaganda machine. The line is a fine one indeed. Uniting folks behind a shared common goal and purpose can overcome a lot of differences and get things accomplished out on the frontline of our workplaces, neighborhoods and communities. Maybe it's that judging folks by the content of their character, not their label, that makes the difference ya think?

Customer loyalty and relationships are pieces of the customer paradigm that need to "re-thunk" in the world of marketing. There are many "lessons" to be learned from the wireless industry the are creeping into other industries today. New and cool trumps brand loyalty...think iPhone sales...and unrealistic expectations such as service reliability make it impossible to meet the expectations of many. Wireless companies "subsidize" a great deal of the costs associated with the services they provide. People do not want service commitments or early termination fees yet expect an unlimited supply of free or discounted equipment, not low end Nokia or LG's but high end Blackberries and iPhones. The list could go on. Does the real value in building and maintaining "customer relationships" lie in doing it with the "internal producers" who build the product or provide the service or the external consumer? If its the internal customer, is an investment in social media the best way to communicate with that customer?

Posted by Dave Wheeler at August 29, 2009 10:09 PM

Here is to your youth, which is ageless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY62QByUYJQ

Posted by Plato at August 30, 2009 5:45 AM

Amen Plato :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at August 30, 2009 7:18 AM

Dave – I love your measured response to this whole debate. I am not convinced at all that social media is the holy grail in business. Sure it’s a useful tool and yes it will provide the opportunity to have a worldwide audience of millions – but what’s the point if you have nothing useful to say and no one wants to listen?

‘Uniting folks behind a common goal’ as you put it requires leadership. It may be supported by social media but it won’t be achieved by social media.

You raise a fascinating point about the use of social media to enhance ‘internal’ customer communication. This may well work but over here in the UK I know a number of employers do not allow employees to access social network sites in work hours. I’m not sure that’s a sensible direction for managers to take and it may be missing a real opportunity. Facebook for instance could prove a useful mechanism to improve internal communication. It all comes down to trust I guess – can we trust our folks or will they abuse such trust? As you know Dave I am firmly in the former camp – we must trust people. And that brings us, as always my friend, back to leadership.

Posted by Trevor Gay at August 30, 2009 6:35 PM

I wrote this last January ... it fits with this discussion:

http://yastrow.com/2009/a-mile-wide-and-an-inch-deep/

Posted by Steve Yastrow at August 30, 2009 11:29 PM

Interesting points Trevor and Dave. With regard to the whole democracy thing and Helen Thomas quote, I beg to differ. We've had successful democracies in the midst of poor communication or no communication before the age of technology. The difference was that people had to depend on each other and primarily themselves as this nation was coming into its own. They weren't so attached and dependent on government.

I also find it interesting how many religious folks (take your pick) judge others in the midst of their own deception and evil doing. I also find it interesting how people representing a brand (pun intended) utilize the same labels they denounce through blogs and quotes from supposed leaders. Some people call this heretical while others simply ignore the do as I say not as I do quips.

I agree with Steve that social media of today lacks the true substance to develop brands and product awareness (sorry Steve, I'm interpreting). Have you tried to have a conversation with a teenager today while they're texting, tweeting, Myspacing, and Facebooking? There's nothing like a good cup of coffee and a good old fashioned conversation (remember those). Many kids would prefer to text each other while in the same room than carry on a conversation that involves verbal exchange.

Why is it that we've progressed so much in technology, yet, when I go into a retail store and try to use a coupon the experience mirrors a root canal? Managers have to get involved, they don't have the code in the system, they aren't authorized to take money away from the transaction, etc. With all of the hype and mass amounts of information, many seem to be missing the obvious with regard to simplicity and service.

Kind of interesting how some artists, like Kiss for instance, are going back to analog recordings. Even though the media is much more expensive to produce than digital today, several artists are beginning to believe that music is bland and dry because of overproduction. Jimmy Page was sloppy at points during his recordings of old and this is documented well in the albums released by Led, but that's what makes it so beautiful and interesting. Digital allows endless recordings and overdubs to make everything perfect, and perfect we are not.

There is another revolution taking place, becoming less informed, sharing dinner with family, and turning off the tube.

Posted by Scott Peters at August 31, 2009 8:59 AM

Our Cool Friend Chris Brogan recently had this to say about social media tools:

"The tools aren’t cool because they’re the new shiny object. They’re cool because they let you work more closely with people. It’s an opportunity to create relationships that matter, and a chance to do so in a very nuanced and human fashion."

http://www.chrisbrogan.com/simple-is-best/

Posted by Shelley Dolley at August 31, 2009 10:03 AM

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1902604,00.html

"How Twitter Will Change the Way We Live" June 12, 2009 Time Magazine Cover Story.

Steve - please rewrite your posting to argue the opposite of what you proposed as an exercise in youthful energy of massive proportions.

Posted by Plato at August 31, 2009 6:16 PM

Plato - This is not a post about the value of social media. (Of course not. That would be an stupid post,) This is a post about naive executives trying to use social media as a mass-marketing/advertising tool.

I appreciate your comments, and encouraged you to keep debating, but have to ask you: Do you think social media is a mass marketing tool? Or have you just misread this post?

Naive executives saying, "Now we're cool, we're using Twitter and Facebook," while seeing social media as mass marketing, is anything but "youthful energy of massive proportions." In fact, it's usually middle-aged myopia. I'm having a hard time understanding why you think that pointing out that naivete has anything to do with commentary on the underlying value of social media.

I love that Time article you sent. But did you notice that the "Advertising" heading described a completely different use of social media than traditional mass marketing? I should have included a link to that article when writing this post.

I look forward to your answer ... but, please, make sure you respond to what I'm saying, and not to what you imagine me saying. (One of the most important values in a social media dialogue, such as this one, is that it is genuine dialogue, and not the trading of monologues.)

Posted by Steve Yastrow at September 1, 2009 6:38 AM

Maybe the executives are not naive. They are just doing something so they are not totally out of the game and are waiting for things to shake out. They just haven't commited to it any real way, but they just feel they need a foot in the door. Much like happened when the Internet gained a footing in the early 1990's.

Posted by zorro at September 1, 2009 9:15 AM

Re: this earlier post:
"I wonder if similar debates happened around 1876 about the telephone when Mr Bell launched it."

I have one interesting historical account. According to the history of Milton Bradley, Bell made a presentation to local businessmen in Springfield, MA, where Bradley had started his company. Bell spoke of the revolution that the telephone would bring to business. Bradley and the others dismissed Bell's invention as a "device for gossipy women that had no place in business."
So, even Bell's "killer app" was dismissed as a trivial device in the beginning.

Posted by Mark Morris at September 1, 2009 2:37 PM

Zorro - the post compares this to the rapid growth of the Internet in the mid 90's. I think the issue is that many executives are being naive, because they are only able to see a new opportunity in terms of their past frame of reference: one-way advertising. A foot in the door does you no good if you come in the wrong door for the wrong reason.

I think many are doing it because they think they are supposed to. Executives tell me, proudly, "we're now on Facebook," and I see the Facebook logo on their websites, but as I talk to them I so often see that their is no social media strategy, only an attempt at a traditional marketing strategy.

Posted by Steve Yastrow at September 1, 2009 3:11 PM

Mark - Great story. It's like Watson, head of IBM, saying, in the '40's, that the total world market would be for 5 computers.

At least nobody hear is saying that social media is a "trivial device." It's just being used trivially (as mass-marketing) because people don't understand the dynamics or the potential.

Posted by Steve Yastrow at September 1, 2009 3:13 PM

Mark/Steve - I've also seen a quote circa 1876 - possibly from Mr Bell that goes something like this:

"One day every city in America will be linked by a telephone"

WOW!!!

Posted by Trevor Gay at September 1, 2009 3:30 PM

Great post. Another great article. Keep up the good work. I know you have a full time job that is very demanding and we appreciate your time and energy to give us such a quality article. Keep blogging.

Posted by Ecommerce web design at September 1, 2009 10:32 PM

Who did Alexander Graham Bell ring when he invented the telephone ?

Answer - No-one (until he invented the second one!)

Sorry!

So serious point now - is it wrong to sit and wait to see which way the technology goes? There must be different optimal points to get in depending on the type of business (I mean culture as in forward thinking, conservative etc not market).

It would be interesting historically to see what proportion of innovations (or web sites)are just fads. The people who argued against the telephone might have been statistically right - 99% of what they saw didn't make it - History doesn't record if they were successful or not.

Posted by PaulH at September 2, 2009 2:47 AM

Who did Alexander Graham Bell ring when he invented the telephone ?

Answer - No-one (until he invented the second one!)

Brilliant Paul H - These are the sort of things that fascinate me too.

Like how do "Keep Off The Grass" signs get there?

Happy Thursday Paul - It's good to have a laugh now and again in the business world - I'm sure Steve will forgive our temporary playground humour :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at September 2, 2009 4:34 AM

Another top post again by Steve, thanks, superbly insightful.

Again, to beat my public sector drum on these comments pages, even governments, their departments and services are jumping on the social marketing expolsion to be 'seen to be engaging'.

As though this is the holy grail to increase turn out at, say, lets be honest, sub 30% elections, but not grappling with the real issues people are hacked off about.

Still at least I can up load a picture of that pot hole in the road thats not been fixed for 12 months, or twitter away with my elected rep about how I disagree with dodgy wars.......

Posted by Adrian at September 2, 2009 5:53 AM

Thanks a lot for sharing this useful information regarding social media.This is really good to understand after reading it.

Posted by Albreta Smith at September 2, 2009 6:21 AM

Good points Adrian

Like branding this all comes down to being authentic and transparent - if you have nothing to back up what you are saying you will fall flat on your face.

Part of my job is meeting customer groups and communities and getting feedback about our services. The number 1 question - "will this change anything?". My answer is always the same, blunt and straight - "I don't know - what I do promise is that the people responsible for those areas will get your feedback and that I will tell you straight, good or bad, about future decisions based on your feedback"

Posted by PaulH at September 2, 2009 7:32 AM

Steve - "massive proportions" was a play on the term "mass marketing".

"Naive executives"; please name calling gets one nowhere. Social media does facilitate free enterprise on a "mass" scale; specifics are for our wonderful executive clients.

Does this comment in the "Glasgow" posting fit Steve too; clinging to yesterday?

"To be honest I was pretty disappointed. Tom told us that he was very tired from writing his new book in New Zealand - well it showed! I have always found Tom's work inspirational but yesterday he seemed very angry, tired and frustrated with a range of issues, both trivial and global. As he admitted himself at the end, he appeared to be very intense, but it did not add depth to the presentation. His exhortations too often became pontification and tirades against the world.

I am not too sure I enjoy listening to the angry, frustrated Tom. I much prefer the sharp, funny and insightful teacher I have learnt so much from in the last 10 years.

Andy Kelly"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONXp-vpE9eU

Posted by Plato at September 2, 2009 6:43 PM

Agreed Paul. In my job, its the feeding back that I see as woeful. i.e We will engage, we'll use modern, hip or whatever means to promote ourselves, but shy away when those we've promoted to want to engage back at/with us.

I'm not sure how good/bad companies are at this in general, and you describe how you feedback comments whilst managing realsitic expectations - sounds good, but the public sector are poor at this, even when responding to more tried and tested engagement activities, such as questionnaires or just a letter of complaint being submitted. But then embrace, with really no thought, new social engagement methods, and, ultimately as you say, fall flat on their face.

Posted by Adrian at September 3, 2009 6:34 AM

PaulH -

On whether early innovators win ... see my cousin, Peter Yastrow's post, "The Second Rat Gets the Cheese." http://www.peteryastrow.com/2009/second-rat-gets-cheese/

Posted by Steve Yastrow at September 3, 2009 7:37 AM

Adrian - I have the advantage in this regard - I tend to enagage with either a small (focus group)or a well defined group (perhaps a customer user group).

This obviously has lines of separation between my company and the customers. I don't see social networking in this way - that is more a community "in it" together.

I think one of the best things a company can do with social networks is to simply listen. I think this is very underrated. Pick up on things that are going on - perhaps post the odd comment about what you are doing etc. If I see a trend happening (particular complaint for example) then I think it is worth feeding that into a more formal feedback process (focus group, questionaire) to establish real facts that can be presented as a formal business plan. No Snr manager is going to make big changes based on 3 twitter comments

Posted by PaulH at September 3, 2009 8:00 AM

Adrian and Paul – a good exchange. A lot of my work is about patient and public engagement in changes in healthcare provision in the UK National Health Service (NHS). The public are generally very cynical. Most people believe decisions are already cut and dried and NHS managers are simply going through a tick box exercise with no real intention of listening to people and definitely not interested in changing their plans. I guess social networking sites might have some potential in areas of engagement but I believe the culture of an organisation becomes very obvious to its customers very early on. A listening organisation and a tokenistic one are like chalk and cheese. We know who listens and who doesn’t. Using social networking site as a PRIME feedback source is a defeat in my opinion because any credible organisation will have integral mechanisms to hear from its customers in a direct way rather than through a ‘third party’ such as Facebook.

Posted by Trevor Gay at September 3, 2009 10:09 AM

Trevor/Paul

thanks for your input and thoughts - very thought provoking and intersting, cheers

Posted by Adrian at September 7, 2009 5:41 AM