Trust Top Trumps (April 27, 2011)

Who do you trust? If you're a parent, who would you entrust your children to for the afternoon or evening? And how does all this relate to social media and the Royal Wedding?

 

Bottom of the pile — The Establishment

The establishment category includes heads-of-state, politicians and the clergy. They move in a world of *the well connected* and enjoy VIP status due to who rather than what they know. The Establishment is not at all squeamish about having more than the commoner. They move in "high places" and almost seem to operate above the law.

Cases to consider: middle east, MP expenses and child abuse.

Observation: as trust and respect for The Establishment reduces, common people are less squeamish about calling it to account for greedy and inhumane actions.

Trust factor: untrusted by the majority, particularly Generations X and Y. Would you entrust your children to this category. No!

 

Next-up — Big Business

This category needs no introduction. It reluctantly plays by the rules and spends its huge resources to mitigate the effects of those rules on its liberty. Tax avoidance, sweat-shops and low pay are all more than nodding acquaintances of this category.

Cases to consider: HSBC Infrastructure Company Limited, minimum wage set at £6.08/hour

Observation: as trust and respect for Big Business reduces, common people quickly make their feelings of disgust known about inequality. Instruments such as off-shoring, futures and spread-betting are not understood, they are mysteries that generate huge profits and are seen as evil.

Trust factor: eroded to near zero. Would you entrust your children to this category? Don't be ridiculous!

 

Next — Celebrity

Celeb's gain wealth by being popular and for now commoners are happy to watch them rise to fame and enjoy the trappings that come with the territory. To the commoner the celebrity is a hero(in), someone that flies the flag of hope while sharing a common set of values and opinions. Gucci, cool cribbs and fake tans are all in. However celebs are given their ephemeral positions in a chart like manner, they come and go according to the whim Joe and Joanna commoner — they either sell copies of OK magazine or they don't!

Cases to consider: Katie Price, Julia Roberts.

Observation: trust in this case is an alignment of values and opinions. If the lifestyle choices of the celebrity resonate with that of the commoner and the celeb' hasn't out-stayed her or his A-list position, they're remain revered or atleast admired and trusted.

Trust factor: is a bit like share values which go down as well as up. Would you entrust your children to this category? Some might for an afternoon BBQ but not if there's an unattended pool.

 

Penultimate — Education

Education has transitioned from benevolent-giver seeking to improve man's lot in life to a culture of *bums on seats*. The prospectus has become less about appealing to academic research aspirations and more about a *sign here for a prestigious title* sales pitch.

Cases to consider: Pay £9,000 a year and join one of the above categories.

Observation: Education joins the ranks of Big Business by churning out degree qualified students that find themselves competing among the masses with a commodity qualification.

Trust factor: some predict the current degrees-for-jobs culture will implode and that Education is no longer trusted as the benevolent giver in society. Would you entrust your children to this category? We do, everyday, but we don't consider the education system to be entirely *safe*.

 

Top Trump — People Power

Common people are clumping together, joining voices of dissent and aiming their killer-blows at all the above. People trust their peers, especially relatives and people that live in the same vacinity; people with similar values and opinions to themselves.

Cases to consider: Lady Di. Who does your baby sitting?

Observation: like likes like. People power is now frequently brought to bear via social media where collective voices join to shout their collective likes and dislikes.

Trust factor: higher than all the above

 

One further thing to consider. Will Kate Middleton be more admired by remaining a so called commoner in attitudes, values and opinons? Or by becoming a Royal in both title and deed?

The fuel of change (Feb 6, 2011)

Technology has continued to improve the Internet and the Internet continues to change us; the millions of people connected to it. Over the past 10 years we've seen huge improvements in web technology and I'd suggest this has resulted in the rise of people power.

Internet reach

As an early adopter, I had access to the Internet at home long before the work place. Since then, its reach has extended from home, to work (or in some cases the reverse) and now to smartphones and iPads. You can carry the Internet in your pocket! And many do: there's an estimated 1.5 billion 3G handsets out there.

Websites have changed beyond recognition

Ubiquitous broadband, mega-pixel screens, improved browser technologies and sophisticated software developments have all combined to change today's web experience beyond recognition. Here's a couple of examples:

  1. Apple's homepage 10 years ago
  2. BBC's homepage 10 years ago

The Internet delivers a richer visual environment but it's not a passive broadcast space like TV. Many Internet users expect some degree of 2-way interaction, especially the generation that grew-up with it — Generation-Y. The Internet didn't replace TV in the sense that it gave more of the same, but it has equaled if not replaced the TV as the medium by which Values and Opinions are transmitted. And because it's a 2-way medium, the bigger voice is the audience not the broadcaster. And this simple numerical superiority has led to the rise of People Power.

What fuels People Power?

In a word: ideas. You might have thought I would say: social media! No, it's ideas that resonate and reach millions of readers in near real-time that has promoted People Power to king of the hill. Social Media is the meeting space where ideas are shaped and formed, where they gain inertia and are given momentum. Social media is the catalyst of change.

The new dynamic

Governments and organisations are aware of the power social media can exert upon them. Unlike advertising campaigns which were carefully constructed, impeccably timed and designed to travel in the top-down direction, *ideas* are expressed in the reverse, bottom-up direction. They arrive without notice and packaged in a transparent container labeled *brutally honest*.

Top-bottom

To play or not?

Some organisations worry about participating in social media. To not is no longer an option. It would be as absurd as not having a website or phone system but to play brings introduces its own issues. Direct and public feedback has a subtle way of enforcing quality of service and/or product — audiences trust the values and opinions of their peers. If your organisation is trustworthy, open and proudly stakes its reputation to all it says and does online it's likely to do well. If reputation is what you worry about and the idea of playing in the social media space keeps you up at night, your audiences will be talking about you anyway. Sooner or later, you'll have to join the party.

What is the fuel of change?

Ideas that resonate with people get carried on channels such as blogs, Facebook and Twitter. When there's a strong desire to change something, anything from a poor service that's affected thousands to an oppresive regime that's affected millions, these ideas gain momentum and are given velocity.

The fuel of change = problem + idea + social media + will

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

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.

The importance of Values & Opinions (V&O) (October 28, 2010)

If makes sense that if my values and opinions don't offend yours then we won't get polarised somehow. If my V&O is the same or similar to yours with 1 or 2 amusing differences, we're likely to be on the same wavelength. We identify with people similar to us. As an friend once said: "Like likes like".

In a world where online social destinations are the place to see and be seen, V&O is an intrinsic component of social success; a.k.a being popular, liked, trusted and followed.

Read the rest of this post »