Selling Futures — when will "then" be "now"? (December 29, 2010)

The software world has built a long and successful track record by selling *the next thing*. It's a practice designed to keep buyers and shareholders interested in the otherwise tedious and rather expensive business of software development. And it reminds me of this amusing clip from Spaceballs the movie.

There's so much excited chatter about Web Engagement Management (WEM) at the moment and I wonder if it's vapor-ware? Is WEM a realisable promise? Web Content Management (WCM) vendors are all banging the WEM drum while analysts and pundits write reams, describing the features and benefits of WEM solutions and the technology-pillars required to realise the WEM-dream.

Vendors view of WEM

Most of what is written about WEM is framed in a marketing context. And an old world one at that. Old world marketing spends most of its time *telling and selling* and its idea of modern one-to-one marketing is to know (read: smoke and mirrors calculation) its audiences' preferences and to then tailor propositions and push these to individuals and tighly defined groups in a targetted fashion. Engaged audiences in this context amount to segmented audiences that can be monitored (Social Media Monitoring and Web Analytics), measured (LTV) and generally sold to.

What others say about WEM

— Ian Truscott of Gilbane wrote: Into the Engagement Tier... and Introducing the Web Engagement Capability Model
— Brice Dunwoodie of CMSWire wrote: What is Web Engagement Management (WEM)?
— Irina Guseva wrote: WEM Market: WCM + Ricotta

These well informed folks base their discussions around technology and what marketing wants. Perhaps we could look at WEM from the audience point-of-view? Switch this discussion around and look at what people want. I know…commercially naive…. Well, perhaps some further reading on this subject will help:

— Cluetrain Manifesto by Rick Levine, Christopher Locke, Doc Searls, and David Weinberger
— Inbound Marketing: Get Found Using Google, Social Media and Blogs by Guy Kawasaki

The Cluetrain Manifesto states "markets are conversations." Guy Kawasaki says outbound marketing is old-expensive-style marketing, while inbound marketing is more efficient and aligns with audiences expectations. Hold those thoughts for a minute. You see, over here we have vendors promising one-to-one marketing with engaged audiences, while over here (many foots steps tailing off into distance) we understand that one-to-one conversations are useful and are wanted by audiences wishing to participate in sharing values, opinions and ideas. Are they not the same thing? No. The former is old-push, the latter is new-pull.

People want conversations with people. They want organisations to respond to them and they want responses from people that are empowered to discuss *stuff* without being bound to a script. These conversations will traverse organisational strata and structure because people want to talk about more than just what's on offer. People want to converse with other people and organisations with whom they identify. This is significant!

Generation-Y expectations

An organisation maybe able to personalise its offers but it cannot personalise its values and opinions to match those of its audiences. Generation-Y is heavily influenced by company type: good, bad and ugly. Organisations have felt little of this effect to date but Gen-Y is becoming more significant in numbers and therefore importance. And Gen-Y's approach is spreading to the rest of us. Audiences now want to know what organisations stand for? what's their customer service record? are they green? are they lean? is their pay-structure fair? Audiences want to identify with organisations' values and opinions before they friend them or buy from them. And people now expect to do this with large organisations as well as small.

Convo

 

What is WEM?

It's more than a technology or collection of technologies. It's bigger than marketing and the CMO.

It starts with an organisation defining its values and opinions, what it stands for and what it does to make the world a better place. (Shareholder value has to take a backseat but ultimately will be bettered by this approach). Engaged audiences will not remain engaged when they sense their *one-to-one* conversations are being driven by machines with repositories of pre-built replies and pre-baked propositions.

WEM is the process by which conversations are conducted, whether across Twitter, blogosphere, Facebook it's of no consequence. The machines behind WEM help organisations by allowing joined-up conversation to be converted into joined-up audience information. Who are our advocates? where do people complain about our products or services? what do they say about us? and how do we engage with them to fix their issues? and how do we improve our organisation in the process?

WEM is therefore underpinned by a collection of software-building-blocks: CRM, analytics, Content Management and Social Media Monitoring. It doesn't have to be big expensive blocks either, nimble open source technologies can be just as effective. The point is, no one supplier will deliver the whole solution.

As ever, don't buy a technology and expect it to deliver the end game of its own accord. Engagement is something that happens between people, the technology is merely the delivery layer.

WEM is a collection of ground-breaking strategies and sets of actions:

— empowered staff; *thinking* replaces scripts
— V&O established and understood by all
— conversations are allowed between audiences and customer representatives of the deepest darkest recesses of an organisation
— people from across the organisation Tweet and Blog — not just the C-level directors and the marketing folk

In the past big companies had the advantage of money to invest in technology. WEM swings the advantage to small to medium sized businesses. Small budgets don't limit the possibilities because it doesn't cost lots to build social media channels with friends and followers and it's far simpler to orchestrate across an SMB.

When will this new future be here? A long time after the technological capability has arrived. Why? Because WEM is all about organisations being social, and not even the purveyors of WEM know how to implement/practice all that that means!

Related blog post: http://johngoode.com/open-for-business

Postscript:
Social commerce in 2011: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2010/dec/30/facebook-2011-sophy-silver

Tweeting authorities (December 19, 2010)

The Influence Metric

Some local authorities have opted to focus on Twitter rather than Facebook, others have managed to develop both. This analysis concentrates Twitter activities exclusively. I've used klout.com to produce this set of numbers. It offers another useful insight into how local authorities use social media to engage with citizens.

Read how to understand the Klout Influence Metric here: klout.com/kscore. Influence is determined by a variety of factors including retweets, @messages, follows, and lists. The Klout score is highly correlated to clicks, comments and retweets.

My previous analysis can be found here:

1. How social is your Local Authority?

2. Local Authorities on Facebook

 

Observations:

Some Twitter @names are indicative of the perceived need for a Twitter channel but may become a limiting factor as the purpose of Local Authority Twitter streams becomes clearer. For example, my hometown, Southampton, has named it's stream "sccevents". It's not memorable and its scope in future will become more about citizen engagement, going beyond an events listing service.

@camdentalking <-- demonstrates the need to be an early adopter. (@camden and @camdencc already taken)

General note:

1. I'm not sure why local authorities choose not to follow-back? It's a kind of arrogance in my view. If you're worried about being overwhelmed by tweets; use lists to categorise your followed folk.
2. Use Twitter to engage, discuss, win-over. The announcements about bins, road closures etc are all good but there's so much more to be achieved. Set-up and stick to #hashtags. Exampe: #bypass, #bins, #abandonedcar, #citizenpraised.

Table key:

T = true reach: is the size of your engaged audience and is based on the followers and friends who actively listen and react to your messages.
A = amplification: is the likelihood that your messages will generate actions (retweets, @messages, likes and comments) and is on a scale of 1 to 100.
N = network: indicates how influential your engaged audience is, also on a scale of 1 to 100.
S = style: there are 16 Klout communication types, typically local authorities fall into 3 styles: Thought Leader, Specialist, Explorer. Lewisham is a notable exception, it's listed as a Feeder. For further explanations of these styles, see below the table or visit www.klout.com.

 

Local
Authority
 Twitter name

Klout
score
T
AN
S

Glasgow

 GlasgowCC 69 870 50 74 Thought Leader
Edinburgh Edinburgh_CC 68 551 50 73 Thought Leader
Brighton & Hove BrightonHoveCC 62 968 45 67 Thought Leader
East Renfrewshire* EastRenCouncil 61 170 39 66 Thought Leader
Walsall walsallcouncil 58 797 41 62 Thought Leader
Belfast belfastcc 57 698 35 64 Specialist
Sheffield SCCPressOffice 56 626 35 64 Specialist
Southampton sccevents 54 367 33 58 Specialist
Swansea SwanseaCouncil 53 986 31 58 Thought Leader
Devon DevonCC 53 927 31 59 Thought Leader
Kent kent_cc 52 1000 30 58 Specialist
Newcastle upon Tyne NewcastleCC 51 378 28 56 Specialist
Christchurch dorsetforyou 51 654 28 58 Specialist
Kirklees KirkleesCouncil 51 248 29 57 Specialist
Nottingham nottinghamnews 50 605 26 57 Specialist
Derbyshire Derbyshirecc 49 295 23 58 Specialist
Solihull SolihullCouncil 48 50 27 51 Explorer
Lewisham LewishamCouncil 46 848 21 55 Feeder
Leeds leedscc 46 742 22 55 Explorer
Salford SalfordCouncil 45 544 22 54 Explorer
Camden camdentalking 44 205 21 55 Thought Leader
Lincoln lincolncouncil 42 267 20 48 Specialist
Norfolk NorfolkCC 41 738 18 49 Specialist
Lambeth lambeth_council 37 882 16 46 Explorer
Derby DerbyCC 29 209 12 34 Specialist
St Helens sthelenscouncil 22 243 11 34 Specialist

*Apologies to East Renfrewshire for missing you off the list. If your local authority outperforms any of those listed above, please contact me.

Klout Twitter styles (from klout.com)

Thought Leader

You are a thought leader in your industry. Your followers rely on you, not only to share the relevant news, but to give your opinion on the issues. People look to you to help them understand the day's developments. You understand what's important and what your audience values.

Specialist

You may not be a celebrity, but within your area of expertise your opinion is second to none. Your content is likely focused around a specific topic or industry with a focused, highly-engaged audience.

Feeder

Your audience relies on you for a steady flow of information about your industry or topic. Your audience is hooked on your updates and secretly can't live without them.

Explorer

You actively engage in the social web, constantly trying out new ways to interact and network. You're exploring the ecosystem and making it work for you. Your level of activity and engagement shows that you "get it", we predict you'll be moving up.

Decisions, decisions… (December 19, 2010)

I work in the Web Content Management (WCM) world, a world that's rarely enjoys long periods of stability. Companies are bought, products are retired, licensing models are changed, fashions emerge and on top of all this, demands are made for ROI models by buying audiences at product selection stage. This makes for a decision-making process characterised by intense data-analysis: score sheets, fair and editable selection processes, and committee agreement.

In addition to WCM services, I work in a leadership role. A great deal of my time is spent analysing data, reviewing performance and (most liked) strategising.

The common strand here being planning, data analysis and the expectation that all decisions are based on solid data. With this in mind I just tweeted: Treat Your Facts With Imagination, but Do Not Imagine Your Facts.

OK, Goode, what's your point?

Intuitive decisions are not wrong just because data cannot be produced to prove them right. And, when/if intuitive decisions prove to be right, they weren't necessarily lucky guesses. Intuitive decisions can and often are good decisions but in our data driven world they appear to lack substance to anyone heavily biased to rational decision making.

So

"A good plan, executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week."

- General George S. Patton, Jr.

For further reading on this subject:

The above web resource contains this reference too: It is also long been recognised, however, that once the enemy is engaged the analytical model may do more harm than good. I'd characterise both current market conditions and web content technology trends as uncertain. These uncertainties are disruptive to decision making processes and sometimes our data point in the wrong direction.

Strategy and the voice of reason

Plans, gathering data and research are all necessary activities — they inform our decisions and build our reasons. But it's not the only way to formulate and execute a plan. The voice of reason worth following maybe your intuitive innerself, or if you don't have one of those, it could be the opinion that seems to run in an opposed direction to what the data says. Data makes a better slave than master when it comes to strategy: Treat Your DATA With Imagination, but Do Not Imagine Your DATA. When rational and intuitive reasoning collide the trick is to know when to call time on data and go with intuition. This is the key to wise decision making. 

 

Final thought: De Bono (1985) wrote "If you had complete and totally reliable information on everything, then you would not need to do any thinking"

Local Authorities on Facebook (December 13, 2010)

Since my last post on this subject I thought it worth revisiting the data. Why today? Today (13 December 2010) was the day English Councils discovered just how much they had to save as the waves of cuts begin to hit. Local government is required to deliver services, some funded by central government, others through community initiatives. And it's the latter a.k.a, Big Society or pay-for-it-yourself that means these organisations need to engage with citizens to:

— sell ideas
— explain choices, cuts and options
— ask for input and help
— gain commitment

Today was the day some lost their jobs while others had budgets cut to such an extent it will make tomorrow's challenge a whole new ball game. An interesting side effect of hard times is that strategic intelligence is driven up as hardships increase. This is the age of austerity, the age of doing more with less. And it's the age where councils seem to be engaging with their citizens using with social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. Will it enable them to do more with less? Only time will tell…meantime, some have joined the race to be liked.

In this post I've refreshed the date and concentrated on PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN FACEBOOK LIKES since my last post. Coventry County Council is still the notable leader in terms of Facebook success with more that 16,000 Likes!

Local Authority
 Pos. FB Likes (orig.) FB Likes (current) Incr. %
Darlington BC
 1 427 2,977 597%
Belfast CC
 2 611 2,565 320%
Tameside Metropolitan BC
 3 114 316 177%
City of Edinburgh
 4 171 438 156%
Brighton and Hove CC
 5 220 560 155%
Stratford-on-Avon 6 94 240 155%
Manchester CC
 7 172 425 147%
Sunderland CC
 8 577 1392 141%
Carmarthenshire 9 171 391 129%
London Borough of Brent
 10 118 264 124%
Wrexham County BC
 11 156 344 121%
Torbay Council
 12 387 814 110%
Bracknell Forest Council
 13 294 602 105%
Cambridgeshire BC
 14 92 186 102%
London Borough of Lewisham
 15 139 271 95%
Stockport Metropolitan BC
 16 138 269 95%
Stevenage BC
 17 141 262 86%
London Borough of Barnet 18 351 647 84%
Wakefield City Metropolitan DC
 19 109 192 76%
London Borough of Southwark
 20 432 738 71%
Rotherham Metropolitan BC
 21 104 175 68%
Maidstone BC
 22 158 258 63%
Allerdale BC
 23 140 218 56%
Coventry CC
 24 10,896 16,589 52%
Hart DC
 25 89 129 45%

Open for business (December 4, 2010)

Organisations of all types and sizes are currently engaged in social media experiments. Very limited, very cautious experiments. A little measurement here, a bit of coy chat there, you know how it is, we're currently in that in-between stage — curious but fearful of leaving known comforts for the brave new world. Where are you and your organisation in this spectrum:

1. Conservative — traditional marketing and pr + some social media monitoring
2. Progressive — senior managers blog, some tweets broadcast. Marketing orchestrate and tightly control all that's said
3. Enlightened — blogs and tweets flow, communication rules have been replaced with principles that protect personal, organisational and client interests. *Everyone* knows the values and opinions of the organisation. Conversations across porous boundaries are natural, human, honest, accountable

Level 2 organisations are giving social media a trial run but their understanding is still entombed in old-marketing paradigms. They have fears. Nightmares actually. Someone might do something like this…(pokey tongue shot of my daughter) metaphorically speaking.

Pokeytongue

 

Speaking openly about my own characteristics, I'm an odd mixture: a techy with EQ. I like facts not waffle, I love straight-forward honesty. Here's the worrying bit…even if being honest is going to cost me somehow, I will say it any way. Can't see the point in not!. All this means I can be seen as a maverick. Yet it's my belief that people want transparency and honesty, they want to know you're capable of saying *this is the wrong product for you, I shalln't take any more of your time* if that really is the case. My daughter has inherited a fair number of my wacky genes; she has the ability to shock me to the core and yet she is loved for her honesty and good heart.

Organisations cannot afford gaffs; leaks of a confidential matter, betrayal of a commercial secret or an expression of a sentiment, opinion or idea that's orthogonal to the group. So being a level 2 is seen as the practical solution. Audiences, however, know they're not getting the real deal. They're not seeing the people. This is the main difference between levels 2 and 3. It is the existence and universal understanding of a set of guiding principles. Rules and principles differ greatly, the latter offering a great deal of flexibility over the former. Take for example the stick man below. He's throwing and catching a package. Never once does he drop and break the item. So he's never broken the rule which states: "do not drop". But he has violated the principle: FRAGILE.

Fragile

 

To be a genuinely social organisation, the old rules of marketing have to be binned. People across the organisation need "to be on the same page" if they're to tweet, blog or write comments in the open forum of social media. To get to level 3 involves:

1. Trusting a wider group of people to engage directly with their peers and audiences (internal and external)
2. Equipping the organisation with a set of guiding principles — see Values and Opinions
3. Working through the pain of level 2
4. Scrapping old-world paradigms and replacing the velvet tongue of marketing with the authentic voice of individuals

An organisation that's genuinely open — engages with competitors to discuss ideas, engages with audiences openly and frankly — is not the same as the one that thinks the illusion of one-to-one marketing is a great ambition. The promise of 1-to-1 marketing appeals to the old-world marketer.

A social organisation is one that's confident in the power of ad-hoc, transparent communication. A social organisation empowers its people to engage in open conversation. A social organisation participates in authentic dialog not pseudo 1-to-1 marketing. A social organisation is *open for business* in a very real sense.