Archives for posts with tag: communities

download

More than 20 years ago, the West-German government tried to take a Fast Breeder nuclear reactor online in the small town of Kalkar, 30 miles from my hometown. The building phase between Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Equipped with a green parka, long hair and a big sign, I spent a whole week protesting. And we won. The reactor was built but never activated. No nuclear material ever came close to the concrete memorial and the holy river of Rhine we all tried to protect.

For more than a decade, the developed facility stood deserted until a Dutch entrepreneur had the brilliant/crazy idea to convert the space into a hotel/amusement park. (He paid $2 million, the tax payer $4 billion…)

The cooling tower became an attraction, the core a bar and the administrative offices transformed into hotel rooms. During my recent Europe trip, we spent one night in the reactor and it was quite  a fascinating experience.

detroit-decay

Since the beginning of the financial crisis, we saw many images like the one above, documenting the decay and decline of cities, communities and institutions. We continue to look in the back mirror, instead of looking forward.

While our human experience continues to develop and evolve, we’ll see many of these conversions. There’s no reason why old factories can’t be transformed into new opportunities for entrepreneurs. Deserted developments transformed into agricultural experiments. Demolish old communities to build real estate innovations. The old industrial core of Germany (Ruhrgebiet) was transformed into a high-tech hot spot.

We need to stop looking backwards and hoping the old times will come back. They are gone forever. We need to look forward and live with what we have and transform it to our new needs.

Who doesn’t want to sleep in a nuclear reactor, old automotive plant or coal mine? Let me tell you, it’s a pretty special experience?

cbd419562073c8b45392beec3258d02057bc7a6f_m

When you think of the Social Marketing landscape as a city, you see a lot of beautiful, innovative and glitzy buildings, whole business districts powered by the Social Web, public squares where people discuss freely with brands and communities that try to make the world a better place.

You walk past these beauties and suddenly the landscape turns ugly and desolate. Small communities filled with abandoned Twitter feeds and Facebook pages, big loudspeakers blasting out commercial messages to no living soul, communities disappearing before our eyes because they were built on quicksand.

And then you enter Snake Plissken’s island.

It’s a world filled with anarchy, impenetrable walls that make it hard for people from the outside to see what’s going inside and it’s an unethical world. In this world, you can buy Facebook fans by the thousands. You can ask them to “like” your brand in exchange for goods. They give you options to download your pricey apps in exchange for credits. Need 10,000 more LinkedIn fans? That creepy guy with the fedora and mink coat can help you. Have to pump up your follower number on Twitter by 100,000? Enter the greasy door next to the red neon sign, flashing “Open”. It’s a shanty town comprised of people who work for improvised, unsustainable companies that might go out of business any day.

An island filled with bottom-feeders, preying on the innocent. And supporting the cynical and unethical marketers.

Once again: It’s about quality, not quantity

Agencies are under immense pressure to perform, to deliver measurable results. Just like paid media campaigns, Social Marketing initiatives can fail. It’s part of our business. But, clients need wins. They need (and should require) incremental profits. Or, at least they need a good metric to communicate a win to executive management.

55,000 new “likes” in a month sounds great, right?

100,000 new followers on Twitter must translate to some sales, correct?

250,000 views on YouTube is worth something, isn’t it?

Fact is, these bottom feed feeders deliver nothing more than a number. More often than not, these new followers will unfollow you within a week or so. Or they’re just bots. One thing I can guarantee: They will NEVER buy your product. They will NEVER read your status updates. They will NEVER join the conversation. They will NEVER be of any value.

I get pitches from Snake Plissken’s island each and every day. Your agency does, too.

Just make sure they never paid a visit to the island. If they did, make sure you escape from that agency as fast as you can.

19003467f91da0c4c53823abeab11e8a3b5f3631_m

Brands often consider creating communities on their site or social platforms. It sounds so appealing: You create a community and now you have an easily accessible group of people that you can engage and converse with.

The problem is: You can’t create communities

Think about your local community. It wasn’t created by plopping down a Starbucks, Target or a local snack shack and then hoping for people to show up. Communities are places where like-minded people can come together. That’s why you have art communities, food communities, religious communities – you name it. And that’s the reason why certain stores and brands don’t work in your community because they don’t understand the mindset of your local world.

In the digital space, brands often consider communities as a place to be worshipped by people. Instead, online communities are places where like-minded people hang out and, if you’re really lucky and doing a great job managing the community, where people can interact with brands and tell them how to do a better job delivering their product/service. At the minimum, brands need to help communities do what they want to do. Brands need to give people something concrete to gather around for. You have to kill your corporate hubris and believe that participants in your community can actually improve your product/service. Foster discourse and an open exchange of ideas.

Tap into the need of people to be heard: People have transformed from passive consumers to active collaborators and co-creators of the products and services they produce. These principles help you tap into the power of communities by developing a foundation of trust, motivating people to become more active participants and providing access to peer group knowledge and skills. It requires a lot of work and community management to tap into the power of communities. You don’t create communities, you merely help them get things done. On their terms. Based on their needs. Not yours.

tumblr_kri9gacGi61qz5njko1_500

Image: Courtesy of 13.media.tumblr

People don’t care about “CRM” or “Social CRM”. Sales, Marketing and Customer Support departments do. People care about great customer experiences. Since Social CRM is just an extension of CRM, I’m not sure this model will be able to answer the desire of customers for better experiences.

Clearly, Social CRM is a dramatic improvement from current CRM models, adding new features, functions and characteristics to the mix. Social CRM understands the communication revolution we’re all living each and every day, and its effect on peer trust. Social CRM helps businesses also to move their sole focus away from transactions, and incorporate initiatives that improve interactions between businesses and people. At best, Social CRM will change value metrics from Customer Lifetime Value (CLV) to Customer Referral Value (CRV) – measuring how valuable people are when they tell others about their experiences with a company.

This is all nice and dandy but most of the Social CRM discussions revolve (once again) around technology implementations. Call it E2.0, Social Business, Social Business Design, Social CRM – most of these monikers describe integration of new technologies and not how the core needs of all stakeholders can be satisfied and, thereby, improving the overall performance of the enterprise.

Enterprises have to align their whole organizational model around helping people to achieve their goals.

Let’s face it, whatever you call it, all CRM systems are based on a company’s perspective of reality. You can add social as a spice or main ingredient, everything still revolves around the company. Relationships are still managed by the company, to benefit the company. We see encouraging signs where enterprises let people in to co-create and collaborate: on product development, improving company processes, solving customer service issues. It’s a good step from the old CRM model that tracked what a company assumed the customer wanted to the Social CRM model that focuses on what customers are saying they want.

The problem with Social CRM: It’s still a crapshoot

The ability of companies to do something useful with social intelligence still lags light years behind their ability to gather it. We have great technology how to gather social intelligence but no scalable processes to utilize this intelligence. And, let’s just say, we suddenly lived in a perfect world and had access to actionable insights, we tend to forget that human beings are social primates, not rational decision-making machines. The rational actor assumption is so hard to give up, and many still argue this idea to death. Humans are ruled by motivated and unmotivated biases. We apply what we want and expect to see, ignoring what we don’t expect or want to perceive. In addition, humans are motivated by effort justification. The more effort and resource humans have spent on a situation, the more likely we continue our spending, despite losses or harm. Motivated/unmotivated biases and effort justification influence how we first perceive information. There are several more factors which affect how we process our already tainted information, thus altering the way we frame situations even further. Meaning: We all make short cuts in the way we process information. We use “rules of thumb” (heuristics) to focus on necessary information to make decisions. There’s the representative heuristic, where we make a judgement call based upon how much something resembles a situation, and the availability heuristic where we base everything upon how easily we can come up with a similar example. Last but not least, we have to take into account the risky shift (the tendency of a group to be more risk acceptant than an individual) and group think, where a group’s collective voice masks and oppresses the ideas of the individual. Looking at all these factors influencing decision-making, how can we expect an incremental improvement aka Social CRM to tap into all these motivations and be anything more than a sophisticated Magic 8-ball?

The need for revolutionary change

Most of us agree: We live in revolutionary times. Consumers transformed into producers. People can easily produce and distribute content. If the story is worth telling, it will be heard. Creating large communities is no more limited to big institutions, each one of us can create communities. Some of them large, some of them small. Institutions can’t control anymore what they want us see, read or listen to; each one of us has control over our own destiny.

History should tell us that revolutionary times call for revolutionary changes, not evolutionary improvements. Case in point: East Germany. In 1989, people were fed up. They were fed up with travel restrictions and limitations in communicating with the outside world. People were out on the street demanding drastic changes. And the East German government responded incrementally: Ok, you can travel to Hungary whenever you want. But not to France. Ok, we’ll replace Honecker with another blockhead, Egon Krenz. But not with a new way of governing. A few weeks later, the Wall came down and the whole idea of East Germany disappeared forever.

Sure, nobody is protesting on the street, asking companies to let go of their stranglehold of data and customer relations. This is a much more subtle revolution. YouTube video by Facebook update, tweet by message board activity; people are building their own world, relieved from the stranglehold of MSM, people are creating their own reality. Social CRM feels like a catch-up strategy, not anything remotely revolutionary, game-changing enough.

What to do

Don’t regard Social CRM as a panacea, rather consider it as a bridge to VRM. Since VRM tools are still in development, use Social CRM for three purposes:

  1. Support: Tap into the power of social networks to improve your customer support program. Develop tools and platforms to enable people to help each other, tap into existing networks to add your expertise and syndicate your knowledge throughout the Social Web.
  2. Communities: Use current communities (especially the ones out of your brand control) to gather feedback for each division of your enterprise. Use a mix of branded communities (Passenger, Communispace, etc.) and organic communities.
  3. Listen: Create a Voice of Customer program, understanding the desires and needs of your customer base. Don’t just listen, listen actively. Be part of the conversation to fend off small issues that can turn into major fires very quickly.

Tired already? Better get an energy drink, because the real work is ahead of us.

The road to CRM

  1. Give up control already: Give people tools to manage their relationships with institutions. Don’t try to own the tools, the data, the relationship. Nobody owns a relationship. Give people as much control over the relationship as you have and personalize these tools for the needs of the individual.
  2. It’s my data: Help people to control their own data. When they want their personal information deleted, allow them to do it. Without any opt-outs or other fancy road blocks to continue a dismal relationship. Develop tools that let people selective share their own data, determine their own “Terms of Service” and ensure that the privacy debate of now turns into a people data control story.
  3. Let’s stop the guesswork: Instead wasting millions of dollars on useless advertising, help people express their demand. Lunch on my mind? Why bother firing up the Yelp application and looking for appropriate places?Instead, let people express their desire and allow brands to answer in time. No BT or CRM segmentation needed. I share with brands what I think is needed to get a good response. Period.

It’s now. Or too late.

These VRM tools are in the making. My company is working on it. Many others are developing solutions. Once they’re implemented, they will change everything: the way people deal with institutions, the way marketing and sales works, the way company spend their budgets – basically everything enterprises do.

While companies pay a lot of lip-service to customer-centricity, they still focus on themselves first and foremost. Institutions have to take off their divisional hat first, then the brand hat. Move closer to customers and understand where they are coming from. And together build tools that improve markets and add value to each stakeholders balance sheet.

“Revolution is not the uprising against preexisting order, but the setting up of a new order contradictory to the traditional one.”

Jose Ortega y Gasset.

tumblr_l1reqtLTLu1qzr04eo1_500

Image: Courtesy of 28.media.tumblr

There are systems that are machines; there are systems that are organisms; and there are systems that are social systems. You would be really stupid to treat a machine as an organism. No machine has any goals of survival or growth. But, for some reason, we do treat organisms as machines. Actually, most companies continue to do so. Treating organisms as machines or social systems as machine might be somehow useful. But it doesn’t deliver the multitude of benefits when looking at a social system as a social system.

One of the unintended consequences of this thinking is the tendency to make people behave as though they were machines. Dehumanizing work has led to alienation from institutions, one of the biggest challenges for companies. The reductive doctrine just goes against anything humans believe in: Holistic medicine, the Earth as a global ecosystem, our planet as part of a bigger universe. We’re living in an age of expansion: To understand anything, we have to look at larger systems. Sure, we might never completely understand everything but our understanding increases when we look at the larger picture, reflecting on the largest systems our mind can comprehend.

But, first, let’s have a look how we got here:

From Industrial Revolution to modern corporation

The Industrial Revolution was about the mechanization of work. First thing we did is to take each task apart. Reducing work to elementary tasks. The next step was to mechanize those tasks. We separated tasks into two piles: tasks machines could do and tasks people were assigned to (because it was too complex for machines, human labor was cheaper, etc.). Once we completed the analysis, we aggregated our findings and developed a workflow of elementary tasks performed by men and machines. These are the basics of a modern factory.

In the early stages of industrialization, an enterprise was created to serve an owner. The only reason of existence for the enterprise was to provide the owner with a return on his investment. The worker was a machine: Input equals Output. As the size and complexity of organizations increased, it became less effective to manage them as though they were machines. Decentralizing control became necessary which was incompatible with a mechanistic conception of an organization.

The next step in organization structures was to separate the body (Corpus, meaning body), the operating unit, and the brain, management. This was a fairly easy way to manage an organization’s growth and increase the diversity of its outputs. The body was mindless. It had no choice. It was still a tool, a lever to be pulled.

In the 60’s, various civil movements (civil liberties, environmental, etc.) formed outside of social systems, insisting that their interests be better served by the systems that affected them. Ethics and social responsibility became cornerstones of successful corporations. The command and control management culture changed during that time, focusing more on managing interactions and enabling people to do their jobs better.

While a lot of progress was being made during that time, companies had to react to the advances in information technology and communication. The common belief was (and often is) that people would react mechanistically to information, meaning more and more information and better communication structures would increase the performance of businesses dramatically. As we all experienced during the Great Recession and the demise of various financial models, humans don’t react deterministically to the information they receive.

Shareholder Value vs Stakeholder Value

The main challenge for modern enterprises is to transform from a shareholder-centric to a stakeholder-centric point of view. It’s not enough anymore to create wealth for a limited amount of shareholders; modern enterprises are tasked to create and distribute wealth throughout society. The primary task for each modern enterprise is to provide productive employment with purpose. Companies have to develop communities of purpose focusing on a common cause, which emanates from common values, vision, and passion.

Sharing a common purpose helps companies to deal effectively with increasing information overload and intensifying conflicts. A social enterprise is capable of continuously dissolving conflict while increasing choice. This requires a new organizational concept that sees evolution as its most important objective. Evolution doesn’t always mean growth: Growth may occur without evolution and vice versa. This new organizational model needs to be based on the pillars of democracy, must be multi-dimensional (function, output and stakeholders), agile planning and an optimization system.

In Part 3, we’ll discuss what new forms of management are needed for the social enterprise based on the principles of Human Business Design.

In case you missed it, Part 1 talked about the nature of systems.