RSS Feeds
RSS to Email
Get our latest blog posts delivered straight to your inbox.Recent posts
Advanced ORM – Managing the Power Relations
by Tim Shier on 2010/05/11
All too often brands find themselves on the treadmill of engagement. They spend their lives trying to appease every consumer but quickly run into problems. Even the most streamlined bigger businesses DO have problems and despite best intentions, it just isn’t always possible to resolve them. This post explores some things which brands who are already engaging can do to take a more strategic view on the activity.
This is easier said than done. If we view the conversation taking place online as a relationship driving activity, then we need to approach it in the same way we would a normal relationship with a new potential friend. Fundamentally, this requires that we are mostly a good person (i.e. the business is normally providing to its brand promise) but provided this is the case then there are some things to remember:
- You cannot be everything to everybody
As is the case when making “physical friends” there is a certain group of people who you will and won’t get along with. All too often brands deviate from their core business and brand promise when engaging. They try to appease all consumers and in doing so appear fickle. Although the initial engagement promotes a feeling of achievement for consumers, a continuous flip-flopping to apologise for problems reflects poorly on the brand and questions its integrity. Consumers who are engaged with feel a sense of achievement initially but soon realise that the continual flip-flopping of the brand to apologise for problems amounts to nothing as integrity is lost. Without trust a relationship isn’t possible and brands should be very conscious of the line which they tow and ensure consistency. Brands need to stick to their point of view and be firm with anybody who is incorrect in their engagements. A response which is level, fact driven (with references) and personal is normally the best approach. Initially it may be tough, but in time consumers will begin to trust the brand and engagements will begin to hold more weight.
- You cannot engage everybody
As Clay Shirky put it, online communication is a numbers game. Trying to engage with everybody is time-expensive and builds the expectation of further engagement. Large brands need to start being strategic about who they engage with and rely on those individuals to perpetuate the conversation.
A number of criteria can be used to select who to engage with. On a basic level, influence and reach is a good measure but from a more advanced perspective, it should be viewed as a learning mechanism. In the same way that you would prompt your friends to modify inappropriate behaviour so to can this be done online. The use of Operant Conditioning (or Classical Conditioning if you have a LOT of money) can be used to train your community on how to engage in the online space. Identifying and rewarding (levering social value being the most effective) those who are talking correctly about the brand will train the community on how to respond. One can also begin to consciously limit engagements on any given day. Consequently a value will be assigned to individual engagements (according to scarcity of resource).
Take for example an individual who says something which serves your brand/marketing/communication objectives. You as a brand then promote this inidvidual through your newsletter, site, social media etc. Others see this and want the same for their own social worth. Consequently, they learn from it and - provided the reward stimulus is always the same - the community can be made to modify its behaviour as directed by the positive reinforcement.
- Don’t stop online
Just because you are the Online Reputation Manager doesn’t mean that you can only play online. In order to build a real relationship, the distance imposed by intermediating technology needs to be eliminated as far as possible. This could be achieved by making phone calls, organising face to face meetings or by participation in specific focus groups to resolve problems. Ultimately, the closer you can build your relationship with the consumer, the less likely he will be to complain, respond badly or generally not engage in a responsible way. Dan Ariely (in his book Predictably Irrational) argues that as soon as there is a relationship in play, the environment moves from a market norms environment into a social norms environment – where trust, respect and transparency are all key variables (rather than money, time and product).
In summary, we as brands need to be looking to build real relationships with small subsets of our communities. Attempting to engage everybody in a way which works for them doesn’t solve anything. Rather identify those who have a natural fit with the brand and invest heavily in building long lasting relationships – the real sort, where there is a bi-directional trust. Once established, this trust can then be used to grow the community.
Additionally, be willing to stick a peg in the ground and defend your territory. You will never please everybody, so leverage disagreements between consumers and the brand to build transparency, trust and integrity. Key here is to not appear confrontational but rather engage in a personable and honest way and the results can be hugely positive.
This post certainly doesn’t provide a completed framework and if you have any ideas please feel free to contribute below. I’m willing to engage positive and negative comments – we are, after all, still learning.
Comments
Andy Hadfield on 2010/05/12
So... which ones to ignore and which ones to serve? You are right, can't help everybody. Only help the influential ones? That smacks a little of favouritism.
I suppose I'm a little frustrated that, because the ORM industry is so new, people actually don't know. We sit on the cusp here... Social media for brands could degrade into a mindless Hello Peter style service channel, or it could offer insight, participation and value into a brand.
But with a fairly young internet audience, there's no good bets yet which way it'll go.
Does anyone know (or want to comment) on @ComCastCares - essentially the first big service channel attempt on Twitter, and whether they've managed to make the leap into engagement, or are locked into an ever increasing team to manage needs?
(I realised the other day, a HUGE problem with increasing size of a, say, Twitter service channel. Because 99% of your communication is service response, no one will follow you anymore. Who wants to follow "please email me at" x 1000 every month!)
Ah wel... if it was easy, it wouldn't be fun :)
Pawel on 2010/05/12
Great read Tim. Good point there Andy; just yesterday I was in touch with @vodacom and upon visiting their profile, saw a continuous list of the "please email me at" generic. But one thing to keep in mind is, if you're following, let's say @vodacom, you won't be seeing all those generic messages because they're all @replies and unless you follow the recipient, you're quite safe, so to speak.
To avoid falling into the service channel trap you mentioned, you can develop a Twitter policy. Perhaps limit your service responses, as Tim mentioned, and add variation to your posts. The CEO of Zappos has a simple set of Twitter rules; Each post must either inspire, connect, entertain or educate. If you do in fact use Twitter as a (partial) service channel, then add that in there, but mix it up.
Conrad Owens on 2010/05/12
I'm not convinced about Twitter as a primary online service channel but it can serve an escalation function for people who are not getting anywhere through other means.
It also depends on your product/service complexity. Comcast can probably tweet quickfix solutions to many technical issues on their services which can provide value to other followers. Not so easy in banking and financial services for instance.
Maybe big corporates are better off with a few separate Twitter feeds for communications, sponsorship, campaigns etc where they can engage more positively and specifically with smaller groups.
Service is an expensive game and most companies are trying to reduce costs in this area. I'm not sure a Twitter feed would. But hey it is nice to see the face of a real person at least.
Richard Wright on 2010/05/12
Great debate going on here guys and, once again, great post Tim.
@Andy Hadfield, i agree with you, in SA we are dealing with a very young internet audience.
I think the invisible line that @Conrad Owens pointed out is important. It seems that at the moment people in SA are using twitter as soap box to stand on and shout when all other means of redress has failed.
Will this eventually (d)evolve into a hellopeter style of interaction, lets hope not. However if it did, is it really that bad?
Firstly you don't have to pay twitter to respond, secondly it is cheaper to deal with electronic complaints than it is to seat an additional agent in a call centre (the more people using online means to complain/give feedback the less amount of call centre agents there will be). thirdly if executed correctly it serves companies well by offering consumers a "true reflection" of their brand - more meaningful and valuable than any advert or campaign.
We all know that social media and CGM has changed the way consumers can interact with brands and is in the process of changing the way consumers perceive brands. Given this, brands simply cannot ignore it, i think we have stop trying to control it but rather embrace it.
The trick is predicting the trends, preparing for your predictions and of course executing correctly
Zoe Barnett on 2010/05/13
Tim thanks so much for the insight! This article is really valuable, especially considering the space that I find myself in at the moment.
@Andy Hadfield you made some truly valid points about the ORM environment. The use of Social Media in SA is still very new but it is such a fun place to be right now .
I think the idea behind engaging with customers online is awesome. I personally love the fact that brands HAVE to be transparent and honest with their customers and I have enjoyed the positive interactions that occur when you are able to make that connection with a customer or potential customer online. But it does become a tough environment to manage if the brand you are “protecting” is letting customers down due to customer service or operational issues. This does indeed lead to a situation where “we are sorry” and “please send email to ..” messages abound.
When dealing with customers online, I have been following the simple rule of “engage”. No matter what a customer has to say, make sure that the community knows you are listening and responding. But reading this post has certainly opened my eyes to how we can change this in order to make interactions more interesting.
Perhaps it is time to start following @Pawel’s advice and begin implementing a Twitter Policy that is flexible enough to handle customer service issues as well as providing value to the online audience.
Thanks again Tim, looking forward to more info on this topic.