This case study is a brief outline of a global information technology services company’s implementation of social media policy for employees. It discusses the steps Virtua took to educate employees on the potential benefits the firm could realize from responsible social media interaction with other employees and current/potential customers and the guidelines it wanted employees to follow.
In the end Virtua realized many benefits from the social media plan it launched, including sales leads, increased customer interaction, and a broader online presence. They also learned a few important lessons. I found a couple of these to be especially important.
First, though it is important to educate employees on the firms goals with social media and monitor their involvement, this must be done so "with a light touch". Slip-ups and misuse is bound to occur at some point, most likely early on in the game. It’s important to use these as a lesson to educate employees on what is and what is not appropriate. Second, not everyone has the same need to engage in social media. Having different requirements for different roles is preferable. I think this is important because forcing individuals to use social media really runs counter to the fundamental purpose of social media. You can't force people to talk to others, or like others in real life and this is true online as well. The interaction must be genuine, otherwise it’s not worth having (ever been stuck in an awkward conversation with someone you didn’t like or had no interest in talking to??).
This case study is a brief outline of some important issues to consider when implementing social media in the workplace, it would be a nice supplement to broader research on implementation steps.
6/10
Sunday, October 24, 2010
How to Establish a Social CRM Strategy (Gartner)
Gartner defines social CRM as: "a business strategy that entails the extension of marketing, sales and customer service processes to include the active participation of customers or visitors to an Internet channel (web or mobile) with the goal of fostering participation in the business process." This definition is purposely broad and vague. This article discusses the importance of establishing and communicating a definition specific to an organization. This definition will guide the use of social CRM and should be regularly updated as the platform develops and "matures".
I though this made a lot of sense given the vast array of possibilities for social CRM, along with the wide range of industries and organizations that will utilize it. Social CRM will look very different for say an animal shelter, a financial services company, and a car dealership. Organizations have different regulations, customers, and cultures and something as critical as customer interaction and feedback must be closely aligned with the organizations broader goals and objectives.
This article made two other points that I believe are very important. First "don't wait, opt for rapid integration, rather than an over-planned social CRM program". As I mentioned, anything that guides or restricts interaction with customers and clients is very important for any organization. I think there is temptation to over-plan and heavily restrict this type of platform on the part of senior management. This can really hinder affective adaptation though. Social CRM is very touch-and-feel and needs to change as customers become familiar with the platform and adapt to using it. A strong organizational definition of social CRM will guide it's use, but should not restrict it from adapting to a more effective platform.
Second: "consolidate all social CRM projects under a single team..." Having too many cooks in the kitchen can ruin the stew and having too many departments adapting to their ideal social CRM strategy can cause a lot of problems. Having one team or "project office" in charge of fielding departmental concerns/desires and adapting the social CRM platform to address them while maintaining a uniform appearance and feel to the customer or clients is critical.
The article closes with 10 tactical steps to follow in initial implementation of a social CRM strategy, many of the general guidelines above are reiterated.
So, what do you think? How do you balance the concerns of senior management wanting to control something as important as customer interaction with the effective implementation of social CRM which really requires a great deal of adapting and flexibility?
7/10
I though this made a lot of sense given the vast array of possibilities for social CRM, along with the wide range of industries and organizations that will utilize it. Social CRM will look very different for say an animal shelter, a financial services company, and a car dealership. Organizations have different regulations, customers, and cultures and something as critical as customer interaction and feedback must be closely aligned with the organizations broader goals and objectives.
This article made two other points that I believe are very important. First "don't wait, opt for rapid integration, rather than an over-planned social CRM program". As I mentioned, anything that guides or restricts interaction with customers and clients is very important for any organization. I think there is temptation to over-plan and heavily restrict this type of platform on the part of senior management. This can really hinder affective adaptation though. Social CRM is very touch-and-feel and needs to change as customers become familiar with the platform and adapt to using it. A strong organizational definition of social CRM will guide it's use, but should not restrict it from adapting to a more effective platform.
Second: "consolidate all social CRM projects under a single team..." Having too many cooks in the kitchen can ruin the stew and having too many departments adapting to their ideal social CRM strategy can cause a lot of problems. Having one team or "project office" in charge of fielding departmental concerns/desires and adapting the social CRM platform to address them while maintaining a uniform appearance and feel to the customer or clients is critical.
The article closes with 10 tactical steps to follow in initial implementation of a social CRM strategy, many of the general guidelines above are reiterated.
So, what do you think? How do you balance the concerns of senior management wanting to control something as important as customer interaction with the effective implementation of social CRM which really requires a great deal of adapting and flexibility?
7/10
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration
This MIT Sloan Management Review article discusses the effective implementation of web-based collaboration tools "that companies can buy or build in order to make visible the practices and output of their knowledge workers". It addresses a major concern, especially within large, dynamic organizations: "most knowledge work practices and output are invisible to most people {within the organization}".
The article addresses a common misconception that orderly intranets maintained by professional staff are more efficient and effective than more collaborative platforms in which people at all levels of the organization have a hand in designing and organizing content.
I found this article to be a well-organized and in-depth discussion on the issues that exist to organizations considering a "Enterprise 2.0" implementation. It starts with a fundamental outline of what effective platforms should look like, outlined in the "SLATES" acronym: Search, Links, Authoring, Tags, Extensions, Signals. It goes on to caution on structured roll-outs that would narrow the scope, and therefore perhaps the effectiveness of the platform. The fact is these platforms do not need special skills or training, allowing users to adapt to the environment in a way that most effectively improves their knowledge sharing is very important. With this said, it is also important "to give people a starting point that they can react to and modify". This could be an initial assignment to outline a specific project/issue. This will get people active and hopefully get the majority of the organization on-board.
The article closes with an outline of challenges and opportunities facing organizations rolling out a Enterprise 2.0 platform. The most profound being management controls and unfavorable content based on management views. There will, of course, be anxiety among management when allowing such an uncensored platform to exist with an organization-wide audience. The article concludes that management must encourage proactive thought and contribution while being delicate in its oversight as not to discourage activity.
I have to agree with the bulk of the articles content and feel this is a good "10,000 ft view" of enterprise-wide implementation of collaboration tools such as wiki's and blogs. I think large, diverse organizations would be remised not to implement Enterprise 2.0 platforms if they have not already. Certainly there are a multitude of concerns for some organizations though. Regulated organizations that are required to limit the transfer of certain types of information like: medical (HIPAA), financial, national defense, security, etc. will have a hard time adopting these platforms I believe. The very principals that support this platform run counter to the principals and spirit in which those regulations are founded on. In an increasingly regulated environment it will be interesting to see where a middle-ground can be reached, allowing those with authorization to collaborate freely while effectively protecting the information being disseminated.
9/10
The article addresses a common misconception that orderly intranets maintained by professional staff are more efficient and effective than more collaborative platforms in which people at all levels of the organization have a hand in designing and organizing content.
I found this article to be a well-organized and in-depth discussion on the issues that exist to organizations considering a "Enterprise 2.0" implementation. It starts with a fundamental outline of what effective platforms should look like, outlined in the "SLATES" acronym: Search, Links, Authoring, Tags, Extensions, Signals. It goes on to caution on structured roll-outs that would narrow the scope, and therefore perhaps the effectiveness of the platform. The fact is these platforms do not need special skills or training, allowing users to adapt to the environment in a way that most effectively improves their knowledge sharing is very important. With this said, it is also important "to give people a starting point that they can react to and modify". This could be an initial assignment to outline a specific project/issue. This will get people active and hopefully get the majority of the organization on-board.
The article closes with an outline of challenges and opportunities facing organizations rolling out a Enterprise 2.0 platform. The most profound being management controls and unfavorable content based on management views. There will, of course, be anxiety among management when allowing such an uncensored platform to exist with an organization-wide audience. The article concludes that management must encourage proactive thought and contribution while being delicate in its oversight as not to discourage activity.
I have to agree with the bulk of the articles content and feel this is a good "10,000 ft view" of enterprise-wide implementation of collaboration tools such as wiki's and blogs. I think large, diverse organizations would be remised not to implement Enterprise 2.0 platforms if they have not already. Certainly there are a multitude of concerns for some organizations though. Regulated organizations that are required to limit the transfer of certain types of information like: medical (HIPAA), financial, national defense, security, etc. will have a hard time adopting these platforms I believe. The very principals that support this platform run counter to the principals and spirit in which those regulations are founded on. In an increasingly regulated environment it will be interesting to see where a middle-ground can be reached, allowing those with authorization to collaborate freely while effectively protecting the information being disseminated.
9/10
Thursday, October 7, 2010
"Follow the Tweets" WSJ Article- 11/30/2009
This 2009 article outlines research conducted my doctoral students, and a professor at the University of Texas, Austin. It attempts to correlate Twitter activity with product demand. The researchers contend that companies and executives could utilize this information to maintain appropriate inventory levels and predict sales activity.
I'll admit, when this notion was presented toward the beginning of the article I almost started laughing. As they outlined their premise I did not stop. Lastly, the example they used in no way supported their contention that executives could use this activity to effectively predict inventory levels in given store locations. For the example they tracked box office sales for 3 different movies (nationally) and gauged them on the Twitter activity they found. In order to do this effectively they had to categorize the Tweets as either favorable, neutral, or negative.
First and foremost, this seems like an exhausting task for any company to undertake, not only that, but it’s very subjective in many cases. In addition, Twitter's approach to determining whether a Tweet is positive or negative seems flawed to me. In part, they track emoticons. A ":-)" means it’s a positive Tweet, a ":-(" means it’s a negative one. But, using the movie example, what if I Tweeted "Tried to see 'The Hangover, but it's sold out :-(", what if 50 people Tweeted that, 100! Does that mean people hate "The Hangover", I don't think so. Second, how does tracking box office sales nationally correlate to inventory levels? Let’s say retailers for instance, their product demands vary dramatically based on location? And "Land of the Lost", "My Life in Ruins", and "The Hangover"??? Really??? That's like trying to gauge whether people like steak over canned tuna, in oil. I mean lets shoot for something a little more challenging. What about a product release (say the IPAD) and gauging Tweets in Boston, NYC, Miami, and Chicago with sales levels for those cities? Prove that works and you got me.
Ok, enough negatives, on the up-side I did like their take-aways for company executives. Twitter can be a powerful additional resource for gauging customer satisfaction and even soliciting ideas for enhancements. Executives should not overlook this medium. Its real-time, it’s easy, and hello, its FREE! This should in no way be limited to Twitter though. An effective marketing/PR department would be well-served in developing a social-media research team that tracks and engages customer feedback on all social media sites. Quantitative and qualitative information can be compiled in quarterly reports and presented to senior management. I believe this process will soon replace, at least in part, more expensive methods utilized today.
What do you think?! Will Twitter evolve into a powerful market research tool in the future? Is there an opportunity for tech-savvy grad/undergrad students to create a Twitter Digest (Trademark Pending!!) for executives to use in product development, updating, marketing in designated industries?
6/10
Article: "Business Insight (A Special Report): Technology- Following the Tweets: By Monitoring Comments on Twitter, Companies Can Predict Where Next Week's Sales Are Heading", WSJ: 11/30/2009
I'll admit, when this notion was presented toward the beginning of the article I almost started laughing. As they outlined their premise I did not stop. Lastly, the example they used in no way supported their contention that executives could use this activity to effectively predict inventory levels in given store locations. For the example they tracked box office sales for 3 different movies (nationally) and gauged them on the Twitter activity they found. In order to do this effectively they had to categorize the Tweets as either favorable, neutral, or negative.
First and foremost, this seems like an exhausting task for any company to undertake, not only that, but it’s very subjective in many cases. In addition, Twitter's approach to determining whether a Tweet is positive or negative seems flawed to me. In part, they track emoticons. A ":-)" means it’s a positive Tweet, a ":-(" means it’s a negative one. But, using the movie example, what if I Tweeted "Tried to see 'The Hangover, but it's sold out :-(", what if 50 people Tweeted that, 100! Does that mean people hate "The Hangover", I don't think so. Second, how does tracking box office sales nationally correlate to inventory levels? Let’s say retailers for instance, their product demands vary dramatically based on location? And "Land of the Lost", "My Life in Ruins", and "The Hangover"??? Really??? That's like trying to gauge whether people like steak over canned tuna, in oil. I mean lets shoot for something a little more challenging. What about a product release (say the IPAD) and gauging Tweets in Boston, NYC, Miami, and Chicago with sales levels for those cities? Prove that works and you got me.
Ok, enough negatives, on the up-side I did like their take-aways for company executives. Twitter can be a powerful additional resource for gauging customer satisfaction and even soliciting ideas for enhancements. Executives should not overlook this medium. Its real-time, it’s easy, and hello, its FREE! This should in no way be limited to Twitter though. An effective marketing/PR department would be well-served in developing a social-media research team that tracks and engages customer feedback on all social media sites. Quantitative and qualitative information can be compiled in quarterly reports and presented to senior management. I believe this process will soon replace, at least in part, more expensive methods utilized today.
What do you think?! Will Twitter evolve into a powerful market research tool in the future? Is there an opportunity for tech-savvy grad/undergrad students to create a Twitter Digest (Trademark Pending!!) for executives to use in product development, updating, marketing in designated industries?
6/10
Article: "Business Insight (A Special Report): Technology- Following the Tweets: By Monitoring Comments on Twitter, Companies Can Predict Where Next Week's Sales Are Heading", WSJ: 11/30/2009
Friday, October 1, 2010
Facebook Fairytales: Damage Control
"Facebook Fairytales, Modern-Day Miracles to Inspire the Human Spirit", a collection of Facebook related success stories was compiled by Emily Liebert. It outlines a variety of successful outcomes, both business and personal, predicated on the social media medium Facebook.
Chapter 20, Damage Control, outlines the challenges faced by an up-and-coming comedian: Johnny Dam. After years on the stand-up circuit trying to build a name for himself he launched an internet television show called the Damage Report. He continued to struggle in a sea of extensive online media though. In early 2008 his show was picked up by an online LA talk-radio station. He now has a regular slot for 2 hours, 5 days a week.
Johnny found it very challenging to select material and appeal to a broad audience while spurring a dialogue with his listeners. This all changed when he started a Facebook page and started posting news articles he intended to discuss on his show though. With listeners/Facebook followers were now well versed on his topics of discussion the, dialogue began to build, listeners were debating more, his material became more interesting to everyone. After establishing a Facebook friend list of over 4,000 and building a successful listener base for his now more than 300 radio shows, Johnny was approached to create a TV show.
This story outlines a perfect example of how social media in general should be utilized. Here, a comedian trying to build his popularity and interact with his radio show listeners posted relevant news stories so his listeners can be better prepared to debate topics discussed on his show. This is in starch contrast to a company trying to pitch a new product or service, an endeavor that becomes perfectly transparent to the sensitive social media participants online. I believe Johnny stumbled into the perfect marketing technique at the perfect time for his radio show. Think about it, Johnny was try to interact with people to exchange ideas on current events (become more social). He wanted to do this to build a larger and more engaging audience for his online radio show (media). Do you think the most profound Social Media medium of the time would be a good way to do this? Probably.
Chapter 20, Damage Control, outlines the challenges faced by an up-and-coming comedian: Johnny Dam. After years on the stand-up circuit trying to build a name for himself he launched an internet television show called the Damage Report. He continued to struggle in a sea of extensive online media though. In early 2008 his show was picked up by an online LA talk-radio station. He now has a regular slot for 2 hours, 5 days a week.
Johnny found it very challenging to select material and appeal to a broad audience while spurring a dialogue with his listeners. This all changed when he started a Facebook page and started posting news articles he intended to discuss on his show though. With listeners/Facebook followers were now well versed on his topics of discussion the, dialogue began to build, listeners were debating more, his material became more interesting to everyone. After establishing a Facebook friend list of over 4,000 and building a successful listener base for his now more than 300 radio shows, Johnny was approached to create a TV show.
This story outlines a perfect example of how social media in general should be utilized. Here, a comedian trying to build his popularity and interact with his radio show listeners posted relevant news stories so his listeners can be better prepared to debate topics discussed on his show. This is in starch contrast to a company trying to pitch a new product or service, an endeavor that becomes perfectly transparent to the sensitive social media participants online. I believe Johnny stumbled into the perfect marketing technique at the perfect time for his radio show. Think about it, Johnny was try to interact with people to exchange ideas on current events (become more social). He wanted to do this to build a larger and more engaging audience for his online radio show (media). Do you think the most profound Social Media medium of the time would be a good way to do this? Probably.
Friday, September 24, 2010
"Is the Tipping Point Toast?" 01/28/2008, FastCompany.com
Some great points, and contentious arguments, are outlined in this article surrounding the idea that there are a select group of influential people that influence societal trends. This idea, outlined in Malcolm Gladwell's "The Tipping Point, has profoundly impacted the marketing industry for a number of years. The idea that certain people can "tip off" a trend, such as Hush Puppies in the mid-1990's as outlined in the article, gives a marketing agency a defined and scalable task: find and impact these select few.
Duncan Watts counters this contention with sophisticated computer models and large-scale studies, one of mirrors, though on a broader scale, Stanley Milgrams famous "Six Degrees of Separation" experiment in the 1960's. Though that initial study suggested a select 3 people accounted for over 50% of the final "degrees of separation" Duncan's study found this does not translate to a larger-scale experiment and was likely a statistical anomaly. The fact is, according to Duncan, successful trends have less to do with who starts them as it does with a societies general receptiveness to an idea or product. He uses forest fires as an analogy. No matter how powerful an initial spark is, if it occurs in a rain soaked, sparse forest with a well-equipped fire department near-by, it is unlikely to spread.
Duncan's ideas are well-conceived. No matter how influential a person (or group) is, they are not going to spark a societal trend based on their sole endorsement. Some of the methods used to support this idea have back-tracked successful trends to find that a few key-influencers helped spread the idea. This process takes for granted that the trend became successful though. I am sure unsuccessful trends would reveal a similar anomaly. I also feel they over-look the genuine nature of an endorsement here. They speak in great depth about key people with many social contacts beginning a trend, but I would like to see how these results vary when those people are paid to endorse the trend as opposed to genuinely discussing a product or idea they believe in.
People have become more and more sensitive to advertising in our society. A guard goes up as soon as we think we are being pitched a product or idea. Advertisers these days are tasked with approaching consumers while their guard is down, if they can do this they become much more influential. I imagine the same is true with trend setters. If their social network believes they are genuine in their endorsement the trends will be more likely to succeed.
Rating: 8/10
Duncan Watts counters this contention with sophisticated computer models and large-scale studies, one of mirrors, though on a broader scale, Stanley Milgrams famous "Six Degrees of Separation" experiment in the 1960's. Though that initial study suggested a select 3 people accounted for over 50% of the final "degrees of separation" Duncan's study found this does not translate to a larger-scale experiment and was likely a statistical anomaly. The fact is, according to Duncan, successful trends have less to do with who starts them as it does with a societies general receptiveness to an idea or product. He uses forest fires as an analogy. No matter how powerful an initial spark is, if it occurs in a rain soaked, sparse forest with a well-equipped fire department near-by, it is unlikely to spread.
Duncan's ideas are well-conceived. No matter how influential a person (or group) is, they are not going to spark a societal trend based on their sole endorsement. Some of the methods used to support this idea have back-tracked successful trends to find that a few key-influencers helped spread the idea. This process takes for granted that the trend became successful though. I am sure unsuccessful trends would reveal a similar anomaly. I also feel they over-look the genuine nature of an endorsement here. They speak in great depth about key people with many social contacts beginning a trend, but I would like to see how these results vary when those people are paid to endorse the trend as opposed to genuinely discussing a product or idea they believe in.
People have become more and more sensitive to advertising in our society. A guard goes up as soon as we think we are being pitched a product or idea. Advertisers these days are tasked with approaching consumers while their guard is down, if they can do this they become much more influential. I imagine the same is true with trend setters. If their social network believes they are genuine in their endorsement the trends will be more likely to succeed.
Rating: 8/10
Thursday, September 16, 2010
NYT Article: "All the New's That's Fit to Print Out"
In this July, 2007 article Jonathan Dee explores the efficacy of Wikipedia as an unbiased, authoritative news source and the hurdles involved in this endeavor given the vast online community of contributors involved with the site. In his quest Jon speaks with Jimmy Whales, the founder and "watchmaker-god" of Wikipedia along with various content supervisors known within the Wikipedia hierarchy as "admins". A position bestowed upon selected users (among the 4.6 million users at the time of this article) after nomination based on valuable contributions and review of responses to key questions. It is also the first step among a community of content "janitors" who have privileges to protect the integrity of the content on Wikipedia and preserve it's Five Pillars.
It is clear Jon values the intent of Wikipedia who's goal is to "make the sum of human knowledge available to everyone on the planet at no cost." It is also clear that he balances his respect for this noble cause with his academic and professional pursuit of journalism with one of the most respected names in print medium around, the New York Times. Multiple times throughout the article Jon outlines somewhat contentious exchanges with Jimmy Whales on who is contributing to the Wikipedia articles. He discusses one contributor who is a high school senior and suggests to Mr. Whales that contributors tend to be in their early 20's or younger. Mr. Whales suggests in response that editing encyclopedia entries is "not a young persons hobby".
Jon appears to justify the clear efficacy of Wikipedia, "which now accounts for 1 out of every 200 page views on the entire Internet", by suggesting it does not replace news sources (such as, oh, I don't know, the NYT) but rather regurgitates news already reported elsewhere operating as a "massive cooperative blog" while filtering "all the opinion out of it." It is clear Jon is attempting to outline the dichotomy of proper news and Wikipedia while expressing his respect for the endeavor and the individuals involved in it throughout this article.
(Side note: no "Wikipedia" registered in spell check?? Really??)
Rating: 8/10
It is clear Jon values the intent of Wikipedia who's goal is to "make the sum of human knowledge available to everyone on the planet at no cost." It is also clear that he balances his respect for this noble cause with his academic and professional pursuit of journalism with one of the most respected names in print medium around, the New York Times. Multiple times throughout the article Jon outlines somewhat contentious exchanges with Jimmy Whales on who is contributing to the Wikipedia articles. He discusses one contributor who is a high school senior and suggests to Mr. Whales that contributors tend to be in their early 20's or younger. Mr. Whales suggests in response that editing encyclopedia entries is "not a young persons hobby".
Jon appears to justify the clear efficacy of Wikipedia, "which now accounts for 1 out of every 200 page views on the entire Internet", by suggesting it does not replace news sources (such as, oh, I don't know, the NYT) but rather regurgitates news already reported elsewhere operating as a "massive cooperative blog" while filtering "all the opinion out of it." It is clear Jon is attempting to outline the dichotomy of proper news and Wikipedia while expressing his respect for the endeavor and the individuals involved in it throughout this article.
(Side note: no "Wikipedia" registered in spell check?? Really??)
Rating: 8/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)