I visit hundreds of sites every month and am noticing a disturbing trend; 'the assumed knowledge error'. In our rush to achieve an 'expert' or 'latest and greatest' position in our markets' mind, we forget that not all visitors have an intimate understanding of 'what' we produce. Our focus on being smart is, at times, at the expense of being clear. We go on at length describing our expertise in 'X' industry[s] and will allude as to what we sell, but don't actually come right out on our landing pages and say 'we produce/provide Y to accomplish Z'.
Among the many offenders of 'the assumed knowledge error' are software and app providers when they invite visitors to download a trial version with out really explaining the product or offering a walk through on their site first. Unless the product is well known and comes highly recommended from a trusted source, our prospect needs to be convinced of value before exposing their computer to blackbox, and always at the back of their mind, potentially malicious code. This is true of SaaS or cloud products as well, as they too need to interface with our internal systems.
A simple example I ran across yesterday is a site 'twinfluenza.com'. Evidently it's some sort of game. The only descriptive content, letting us know what it is, is on the home page. It goes as follows:
Welcome!
Are you bored because you can't go out?
Are you quarantined? paranoid?
Then just login using your twitter account and start infecting people with twInfluenza!
For all I know it's a really great, fun, useful, etc app. Given the only description intimates that the goal of the game is to infect my Twitter followers, there's not a snowballs chance in _ _ _ _ that I'm going anywhere near it though. Had they explained what the game actually does and effectively removed perceived risk I may have tried it out. After all I'm an active Twitter user and new media enthusiast. It's not my intent to embarrass or discredit teams such as twInfluenza, rather the opposite. Presumably they've invested alot of sweat equity in creating their app and it's not actually malicious [or Twitter would shut them out] and subsequently deserve a shot at success. I suspect with a little tweak of their descriptive content and maybe a little show-and-tell they'll be much better positioned to achieve the goal.
In short... understanding of what it is we specifically produce is an absolute precursor to making the sale. Accepting this to be true, it is a mistake to assume our prospects already know what it is.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Monday, March 15, 2010
The Twitter Challenge
...and similar social platforms!
This post is for those who utilize social media for lead and/or revenue generation. Not for those, such as myself, who simply utilize the platform for shared learning.
In a B2B business arena, where our marketing efforts are designed to inevitably lead to profitable revenue generation, is our fixation on social media somewhat paradoxical. Shouldn't our efforts produce more than what they cost? For some, the very few, their social media efforts are richly rewarded. But for the large majority the opposite is true. Why?
Consider this, among Twitter users, the median number of lifetime tweets per user is one. This translates into over half of Twitter users accessing their accounts less than once every 74 days. [source Harvard Business Review ] These are most likely the users noted in Barracudalabs 2009 Annual report which states that 51% of Twitter users follow less than 5 people and 60% follow less than 10 people [view report]. Why? For one reason or another they're not engaged in the service; therefore not absorbing and increasing their interest in you or your brand.
Now you might say "I am targeting active users". Doug Kessler, Creative Director and Co-founder at Velocity Partners sums up the folly of this strategy very well in a post '7 Incredibly Rare Mistakes in Social Media Marketing'. Here he sites mistake #5 "Forgetting that your ten thousand ‘followers’ on Twitter aren’t really following you at all". Why?
Well let's disregard the 60% of users who aren't appreciably active. How about the most prolific contributors? Those who account for 90% of all Tweets. Surely you are seen by them! Hmmm... not so much. These users typically utilize applications such Hootsuite, Tweetdeck, etc.; tools that allow users to create numerous Tweets and schedule them to publish at set intervals during the day. In this instance, with this group, Twitter is not an interactive community for shared learning/conversation. Predominantly it's a broadcasting tool with the app helping them to execute a high volume, saturation strategy. Therefore, users of said applications are not actually on Twitter viewing your contributions as their Tweets are being published.
You might say "This doesn't matter. They view my Tweets through their chosen application." To this, I say 'not likely'. The lions share of these contributors, atleast the majority of successful and subsequently influential in the bunch, follow upwards of a thousand -to- tens of thousands of people. Maybe they're just being polite, following those who follow them [again, not likely]. Or it's the result of their 'build their follower base strategy'. A strategy which does not include their hanging on the edge of their chairs waiting for your next Tweet and/or searching it out. Either way the result is the same; a tonne of competitive noise. Unless you Tweet or are ReTweeted at the exact moment they happen to be viewing their incoming Tweet stream, you'll never be seen.
So how can you increase your odds of an appreciable ROI? First find those remaining 30% of users who are personally engaged in the medium. People who are following say upwards of 30 and downwards of 100 people. They are active[ish], more accessible, and significantly - probably the real person whose name is attached to their account. They are what I define as the Twitter longtail. The probability of these individuals seeing our Tweets is much higher because there's much less competitive noise a.k.a other Tweets that will nudge ours out of view. Think of a Twitter users incoming Tweet stream like the results of a Google search. You want to be on the 'first page' so to speak. For example, per iProspect, if 'you/your company/what-not' are presented on the first page of Google results the probability of getting noticed is 68%. Hence if you are connecting with individuals who are following a lower number of Twitter'ers, your odds of presenting on their first page and subsequently achieving your conversion goal are greater. Timing, activity, etc play a very important role of course, but determining your target market is step one.
In closing, if a significant objective of your Twitter involvement is to generate leads, just showing up and contributing won't cut it. In sales and marketing, social media is a tool... not an end result.
This post is for those who utilize social media for lead and/or revenue generation. Not for those, such as myself, who simply utilize the platform for shared learning.
In a B2B business arena, where our marketing efforts are designed to inevitably lead to profitable revenue generation, is our fixation on social media somewhat paradoxical. Shouldn't our efforts produce more than what they cost? For some, the very few, their social media efforts are richly rewarded. But for the large majority the opposite is true. Why?
Consider this, among Twitter users, the median number of lifetime tweets per user is one. This translates into over half of Twitter users accessing their accounts less than once every 74 days. [source Harvard Business Review ] These are most likely the users noted in Barracudalabs 2009 Annual report which states that 51% of Twitter users follow less than 5 people and 60% follow less than 10 people [view report]. Why? For one reason or another they're not engaged in the service; therefore not absorbing and increasing their interest in you or your brand.
Now you might say "I am targeting active users". Doug Kessler, Creative Director and Co-founder at Velocity Partners sums up the folly of this strategy very well in a post '7 Incredibly Rare Mistakes in Social Media Marketing'. Here he sites mistake #5 "Forgetting that your ten thousand ‘followers’ on Twitter aren’t really following you at all". Why?
Well let's disregard the 60% of users who aren't appreciably active. How about the most prolific contributors? Those who account for 90% of all Tweets. Surely you are seen by them! Hmmm... not so much. These users typically utilize applications such Hootsuite, Tweetdeck, etc.; tools that allow users to create numerous Tweets and schedule them to publish at set intervals during the day. In this instance, with this group, Twitter is not an interactive community for shared learning/conversation. Predominantly it's a broadcasting tool with the app helping them to execute a high volume, saturation strategy. Therefore, users of said applications are not actually on Twitter viewing your contributions as their Tweets are being published.
So how can you increase your odds of an appreciable ROI? First find those remaining 30% of users who are personally engaged in the medium. People who are following say upwards of 30 and downwards of 100 people. They are active[ish], more accessible, and significantly - probably the real person whose name is attached to their account. They are what I define as the Twitter longtail. The probability of these individuals seeing our Tweets is much higher because there's much less competitive noise a.k.a other Tweets that will nudge ours out of view. Think of a Twitter users incoming Tweet stream like the results of a Google search. You want to be on the 'first page' so to speak. For example, per iProspect, if 'you/your company/what-not' are presented on the first page of Google results the probability of getting noticed is 68%. Hence if you are connecting with individuals who are following a lower number of Twitter'ers, your odds of presenting on their first page and subsequently achieving your conversion goal are greater. Timing, activity, etc play a very important role of course, but determining your target market is step one.
In closing, if a significant objective of your Twitter involvement is to generate leads, just showing up and contributing won't cut it. In sales and marketing, social media is a tool... not an end result.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
How can I help?
When spun together, these are four of the most powerful words in the english language. They initiate thought, discussion, and quite often are the catalyst for great invention. In sales and business development what we do after we speak these words is what determines our success.
Here are my 5 steps to achieving sales success.
For me, these 5 steps are tried and true. When properly executed eighty percent of the time it earns an order. The majority of which end up being either a hybrid or the best feasible solution. True, this approach takes alot more time and effort on the front end. Equally true, unless the decision makers change, it means we effectively own the account and all it's future business.
Here are my 5 steps to achieving sales success.
- Listen: This is where most run into trouble. It takes alot of discipline to listen for the purpose of learning NOT for the purpose of responding.
- Learn: Most customers will try and be helpful and explain what they believe the problem is. However, what they are typically describing are the symptoms. For example, when we have a cold the runny nose and congestion are the symptoms not the underlying cause. And after all, if they were an expert on the topic, odds are they wouldn't need to be consulting us. Ask probing questions; get to the underlying challenge.
- Research: Gain permission to speak with others who are, or could be, affected in the customer organization. Read some case studies, speak to your internal resources, speak to your suppliers. I am a firm believer in 'there is rarely such a thing as new'. Most challenges and solutions have occurred before, so look outside your niche for similar looking problems and how they approached solutions.
- Analysis: Although I stated there's no such thing as 'new' I believe it is equally true that few customers experience the same mix and impact level of problems. Therefore, no two solutions are identical or perfect. So here's where we really earn our pay, intelligently considering all the inputs and variables and potential outcomes of 'X' given responses.
- Respond: Here our job is divided into two projects.
Response 1 - "We can absolutely resolve your problems. Understanding the challenges you are dealing with and having researched possible solutions we suggest...."
This first response solution ensures our customer recognizes we have intelligently and thoughtfully crafted a solution that directly resolves their stated problems/symptoms. In doing so, we show respect for them, the time they invested in us, time they invested in determining where their challenges reside, and most importantly that we effectively listened to them and learned.
Response 2 - "Our proposal will effectively resolve your present situation. What I have also done is look at the underlying factors that caused the situation and have prepared an addendum proposal which will......"
The second complimentary/alternative response solution directly answers our consumers unstated problems/drivers. As the subject matter experts we are positioned [and arguably compelled] to present to our clients 'the best feasible solution' for their long term health and prosperity.
Why the two responses? That's alot of work!
Why not just respond to the stated problems/symptoms? Lets say we were lucky enough to NOT be up against a competitor. Someone willing to go the extra mile and prove [in the clients mind] that they are indeed the expert and care more about their health and prosperity than we do. We may gain a short lived profit or ROI advantage but the longer term pain and cost of dealing with recurring issues typically eats up that spread quickly. And all we are left with is customer bad will - a customer that will probably not choose us the next time.
Then why not just respond to the unstated problems/drivers? First off, it's unsettling and disrespectful to our client. Instead of hearing how we have determined we can 'appreciably improve their overall health and prosperity' they're thinking 'darn it' you haven't listened. My nose and head [the symptoms] are killing me - I asked you to fix that. Second, inevitably the cost of the longer term and/or wholistic fix is going to be greater than the cost of an antihistamine - monetarily, and in time and effort. Bigger than expected solutions take time to warm up to and appreciate. In the mean time our client has response 1 'the safer - looks and feels like what they expect option'. It'll keep the doors of discussion open. Doors we need open and keep us in the race. After all today they may only be interested in fixing the congestion. Then once you've proved your worth you're in a far better position for them to trust you with the bigger solution.
In the end, whether our client chooses the safer option, a hybrid, or the 'best feasible solution' we have proved we care and are willing to go the extra mile. Significantly, we earn their loyalty, respect, appreciation = preferred status for future purchases.
For me, these 5 steps are tried and true. When properly executed eighty percent of the time it earns an order. The majority of which end up being either a hybrid or the best feasible solution. True, this approach takes alot more time and effort on the front end. Equally true, unless the decision makers change, it means we effectively own the account and all it's future business.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Beyond Good is Useful
Think about 'why' we use the web. We' are looking for something. Right? It may be information or perhaps entertainment but either way we are looking to consume something. In the marketing game, providing your 'something' meets the 'what I am looking for' criteria, the player which efficiently acquires & retains the most consumers has the best odds of winning.
Previously, 'retain' was a big challenge. If our audience must continually seek out what we offer, we run the risk of losing them to other 'somethings' that may have caught their fickle interest. In the last few years a common 'good' marketing tactic is to provide consumers with an opt-in tool that 'pushes' desired content/information to them - think an RSS feed of your newsletter for example. This way consumers do not have to seek us out - we go to them. For the nimble, this tactic was a source of significant competitive advantage. The problem with a competitive advantage of course is that it's fleeting. Once others pick up on it, it becomes a common commodity with a tonne of competing noise a.k.a. no loner an advantage.
Today competitive advantage can be found in providing consumers with a relative 'something' that transcends your product/service. This 'something' is often a digital share or web social tool.
Branded widgets and apps are clever and 'useful' push tactics that can regularly prompt our audience to perform a personal-positive-outcome action. This is clever because the benefit activity [X] delivers, is then psychology connected to your brand/products/services. Executed well, widgets can be an excellent launch point for achieving today's competitive advantage goals.
Here are a couple of examples of big brand widget implementations.
When we embrace digital technology, the possibilities are endless.
So also remember to think beyond the web for 'useful' tools. How about offering trade show delegates a branded USB stick with your promotional materials loaded on it. It costs less than a 10 page glossy brochure and there's a high probability the recipient will keep, use, and appreciate you for it. [Sit outside near the convention facilities doors and watch delegates as they leave. You'll be shocked at the volume of promotional materials that are dumped already at that point. Many don't even wait to do the purge at their hotel room.] For a fraction more money you can add more value by attaching the USB on a lanyard. Delegates can wear it around their neck for convenient access to load other materials. Now you have walking billboards. A prime real estate billboard I might add. The USB should hang at the same eye level and beside everyone's name tag - the first place you look when introducing yourself to someone at an event.
Finally, when architecting a marketing campaign, rule one is we cannot rely on one great tactic, no matter how useful, to accomplish our goals. We must economically incorporate as many 'in-line' touch points as possible to guide our audience toward the finish line. Therefore, don't abandon tried and true 'good' tactics. Integrate the new with the old and proliferate for increased breadth, loyalty, and acquisition.
Here are a few links to widget provider sites to get you thinking...
Widget Box
Widgets Lab
Web Wag
Previously, 'retain' was a big challenge. If our audience must continually seek out what we offer, we run the risk of losing them to other 'somethings' that may have caught their fickle interest. In the last few years a common 'good' marketing tactic is to provide consumers with an opt-in tool that 'pushes' desired content/information to them - think an RSS feed of your newsletter for example. This way consumers do not have to seek us out - we go to them. For the nimble, this tactic was a source of significant competitive advantage. The problem with a competitive advantage of course is that it's fleeting. Once others pick up on it, it becomes a common commodity with a tonne of competing noise a.k.a. no loner an advantage.
Today competitive advantage can be found in providing consumers with a relative 'something' that transcends your product/service. This 'something' is often a digital share or web social tool.
Branded widgets and apps are clever and 'useful' push tactics that can regularly prompt our audience to perform a personal-positive-outcome action. This is clever because the benefit activity [X] delivers, is then psychology connected to your brand/products/services. Executed well, widgets can be an excellent launch point for achieving today's competitive advantage goals.
Here are a couple of examples of big brand widget implementations.
- Having a tough time remembering to drink your daily recommended water in-take? Millions of us are. Try this Johnson & Johnson widget. http://bit.ly/Hydration-tracker_TLblog13
- Have you ever forgotten to send someone birthday greetings? Hallmark can help you to remember. http://bit.ly/Hallmark-reminder_TLblog13
- Want to know which products or services can earn you bonus membership rewards points? American Express to the rescue. http://bit.ly/Amex-rewards_TLblog13
When we embrace digital technology, the possibilities are endless.
So also remember to think beyond the web for 'useful' tools. How about offering trade show delegates a branded USB stick with your promotional materials loaded on it. It costs less than a 10 page glossy brochure and there's a high probability the recipient will keep, use, and appreciate you for it. [Sit outside near the convention facilities doors and watch delegates as they leave. You'll be shocked at the volume of promotional materials that are dumped already at that point. Many don't even wait to do the purge at their hotel room.] For a fraction more money you can add more value by attaching the USB on a lanyard. Delegates can wear it around their neck for convenient access to load other materials. Now you have walking billboards. A prime real estate billboard I might add. The USB should hang at the same eye level and beside everyone's name tag - the first place you look when introducing yourself to someone at an event.
Finally, when architecting a marketing campaign, rule one is we cannot rely on one great tactic, no matter how useful, to accomplish our goals. We must economically incorporate as many 'in-line' touch points as possible to guide our audience toward the finish line. Therefore, don't abandon tried and true 'good' tactics. Integrate the new with the old and proliferate for increased breadth, loyalty, and acquisition.
Here are a few links to widget provider sites to get you thinking...
Widget Box
Widgets Lab
Web Wag
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
What is a Marketing Director / Strategist / Manager?
Recently I've chatted with executives and recruiting teams charged with hiring a Marketing Director, Marketing Strategist, or Marketing Manager. There seems to be a good deal of confusion among the non-marketers as to what to expect from these roles. For this post I thought I'd offer my generalized but otherwise accurate definition.
A marketing director/strategist/manager is... part architect and part technology enthusiast. We are always passionate about the big picture and mentoring the individuals that bring the vision to life. We are perpetual students of business, business intelligence, and numbers. Today more than ever, we are knowledgeable as to the technical capabilities, compromises, and requirements of the electronic tools that empower our profession. Finally, through experience we've acquired the real-life wisdom for creating and guiding marketing strategies, budgets, plans, assets, systems, processes, and KPI's that will truly effect profitable business results. We wear a dozen hats and juggle them well.
A marketing director/strategist/manager is not... an expert in the physical creation of all the individual components that make up the marketing plan. For example, I am very knowledgeable as to what a well optimized website looks like, and in a 2.0 world how it should perform. I've even developed a few sites myself! This knowledge however, is a far cry from being a qualified website developer. These web professionals have intimate knowledge of database architecture, design, flexibility, and scalability. They dream about the intricacies of usability on the multitude of browsers and platforms. They have strong working knowledge of all of the various development languages and tools one can employ on the web. Each and every category of marketing includes a similarly lengthy list of competencies. A qualified director/manager will bring on professionals with the required qualifications.
In short, it's your marketing director/manager/strategist's job to determine what is needed to meet organizational needs, architect an integrated plan that delivers on those needs, put together a team with the specific development expertise that is required, guide and mentor the creative process, monitor on-going results, and massage the plan, the mix, the controls, the team, and the assets as situational events occur. Shake-it-up and repeat.
A marketing director/strategist/manager is... part architect and part technology enthusiast. We are always passionate about the big picture and mentoring the individuals that bring the vision to life. We are perpetual students of business, business intelligence, and numbers. Today more than ever, we are knowledgeable as to the technical capabilities, compromises, and requirements of the electronic tools that empower our profession. Finally, through experience we've acquired the real-life wisdom for creating and guiding marketing strategies, budgets, plans, assets, systems, processes, and KPI's that will truly effect profitable business results. We wear a dozen hats and juggle them well.
A marketing director/strategist/manager is not... an expert in the physical creation of all the individual components that make up the marketing plan. For example, I am very knowledgeable as to what a well optimized website looks like, and in a 2.0 world how it should perform. I've even developed a few sites myself! This knowledge however, is a far cry from being a qualified website developer. These web professionals have intimate knowledge of database architecture, design, flexibility, and scalability. They dream about the intricacies of usability on the multitude of browsers and platforms. They have strong working knowledge of all of the various development languages and tools one can employ on the web. Each and every category of marketing includes a similarly lengthy list of competencies. A qualified director/manager will bring on professionals with the required qualifications.
In short, it's your marketing director/manager/strategist's job to determine what is needed to meet organizational needs, architect an integrated plan that delivers on those needs, put together a team with the specific development expertise that is required, guide and mentor the creative process, monitor on-going results, and massage the plan, the mix, the controls, the team, and the assets as situational events occur. Shake-it-up and repeat.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
CONTENT WAR Is Google truly stealing revenue?
My take on the search engine vs. publisher debate.Admittedly as a marketer my job would be significantly harder should I not have access to the plethora of free news content I now enjoy. This said, I firmly believe neither I, nor anyone else, has a fundamental right to consume for free what others have paid to create.
Let's compare the attempts at 'free' bike share programs around the world to 'free' news share on the internet.
Second, the bike share programs have significant positive attributes for all concerned. Lowered emissions and congestion with improved user health and regional awareness to name a few. The same benefits could be spun as an argument for free digital access to news. The reality? The ideal in its free form is not sustainable. From Amsterdam in The Netherlands, through LaRouche in Paris, and Portland, USA these free bicycle programs have gone the way of the Dodo bird. Why? 1"An inability to compensate for the cost of theft and vandalism."
...or is the real threat exposure?I am by no means a fan of most news publishers. In my humble opinion their financial woes have nothing to do with Google, Yahoo, Bing or any other search engine. Their decreasing revenues are in most part the result of poor product development. A fact that search engines highlight. With the aid of search engines we can quickly filter for quality content. If a publisher chooses to pump out unstimulated content or thin rehashes of the same stories they have spun for the last week, they will feel the effect visa vi fewer consumers. Online or offline, fewer consumers means fewer advertisers and lower premiums. After all, publishers sell promo space in both mediums. The same thin content pain goes for magazines and journals as well. Just as I'll get up and leave a conference room if the content of a presentation is laden with marketing fluff [and I'm a marketer] I'll take my valuable readership else where when articles are peppered with brand mentions and product plugs.
What is obvious in the search engine vs publishers debate is that they can generate far greater revenue as partners than they can individually. For both parties, the bulk of their revenue model rests on their ability to deliver an audience. I suspect recent plays in the media by Rupert Murdoch and some other newspaper owners are more red herrings than accurate predictions of a future without 'ready access to information'. Indeed the days of making off with locked bicycles may soon be gone. But just as bike share programs are evolving into sustainable models, so too shall search engines and publishers figure out a mutually beneficial model.
Google's floated answer to the problem today was the catalyst for my writing this post. Here's my quick assessment of their solution.As I understand it, a single visitor will be able to access a maximum of five articles per publication after which the reader will be required to sign in. I can't imagine that publishers will sign on for this. For one I'd be interested in knowing how many visitors to any given site read more than five articles per viewing. Sadly, as mentioned above, the majority simply don't produce that much new and interesting content. Also the ability to track a session is traditionally the result of cookies; something a visitor can easily delete in order to extend their access. Granted Google is one heck of an intellectual power house [the driving reason why I think they're amazing] so the tracking tool[s] they use to monitor a session may very well not be cookies.
Final thoughts...I'd wager many of us categorize Google as Robin Hood in this scenario. Taking from the rich to give to the poor. They reinvest a respectable percentage of the wealth in building powerful tools that they make available to each and every one of us - free of charge. Right, wrong, or indifferent, it certainly makes it hard to not love them.
Citation:
1Wikipedia article re bike sharing initiatives: http://bit.ly/WP-bikeshare_TL-post11
Post Image:
Freely sourced from: http://bit.ly/JFenzel-image_TL-post11
[note: original image source unknown]
Citation:
Google's floated solution. American Free Press [AFP]: http://bit.ly/Google_PR_TL-post11
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Social? Contribute where and what will add value.
A rising number of B2B executives over the past couple of months have said to me 'they feel their organization needs to be actively involved in social networking'. This, followed very closely by their request for advice as to how they can gain an appreciable presence on Twitter, etc.
Aside from discussion surrounding my questions... why? and to what end? My 50k-foot advice is always the same. First determine where your relevant communities are interacting. This requires a decent amount of research. Is it really Twitter? Maybe. Or are we knee jerking? In B2B, the answer is just as likely to be news groups, forums, or other less sexy but potentially more relevant spaces.
Once the space is determined, listen & learn. Another investment. Understand what a valuable contribution sounds, looks, feels, and tastes like. In the introduction to the book 'Built to Last', authors Jim Collins and Jerry Porras write "What is the true price of a book? Not the fifteen- to twenty-five dollar cover price. For a busy person, the cover price pales in comparison to the hours required to read and digest a book." Applying a value rational to our posts, where our intended consumer has no vested interest [they didn't buy it] and can easily click away, our contribution should at minimum be worth the equivalent value of the 'read & digest' professional time. Think about the quality of content we often see. Do we really care that Joe is at the airport waiting for his flight, or Mary is anxiously awaiting Susan's keynote speech? For most of us the resounding answer is NO. We tune out and turn off... quickly. However if Mary posted highlights or nuggets of wisdom from Susan's speech AND it was relevant to us, our business and it's needs, would we positively take note? For most of us the resounding answer is YES.
In short, the concept of community 'share' is not new. Not by a long shot. And yes, there is very little doubt any B2B organization can benefit from some logical, intelligent form of contribution. The challenge is, we are playing with very easy-to-use tools that only require a click of a button to publish [community/social platforms] and an incredibly powerful publishing engine that never forgets [the web]. My advice? Employ the tools well... think twice, get creative, and contribute where and what will add value; for all parties.
Associated reading material: AIIM Industry Watch Report
Collaboration and Enterprise 2.0; Work-meets-play or the future of business?
© 2009 AIIM - Find, Control, and Optimize Your Information
Aside from discussion surrounding my questions... why? and to what end? My 50k-foot advice is always the same. First determine where your relevant communities are interacting. This requires a decent amount of research. Is it really Twitter? Maybe. Or are we knee jerking? In B2B, the answer is just as likely to be news groups, forums, or other less sexy but potentially more relevant spaces.
Once the space is determined, listen & learn. Another investment. Understand what a valuable contribution sounds, looks, feels, and tastes like. In the introduction to the book 'Built to Last', authors Jim Collins and Jerry Porras write "What is the true price of a book? Not the fifteen- to twenty-five dollar cover price. For a busy person, the cover price pales in comparison to the hours required to read and digest a book." Applying a value rational to our posts, where our intended consumer has no vested interest [they didn't buy it] and can easily click away, our contribution should at minimum be worth the equivalent value of the 'read & digest' professional time. Think about the quality of content we often see. Do we really care that Joe is at the airport waiting for his flight, or Mary is anxiously awaiting Susan's keynote speech? For most of us the resounding answer is NO. We tune out and turn off... quickly. However if Mary posted highlights or nuggets of wisdom from Susan's speech AND it was relevant to us, our business and it's needs, would we positively take note? For most of us the resounding answer is YES.
In short, the concept of community 'share' is not new. Not by a long shot. And yes, there is very little doubt any B2B organization can benefit from some logical, intelligent form of contribution. The challenge is, we are playing with very easy-to-use tools that only require a click of a button to publish [community/social platforms] and an incredibly powerful publishing engine that never forgets [the web]. My advice? Employ the tools well... think twice, get creative, and contribute where and what will add value; for all parties.
Associated reading material: AIIM Industry Watch Report
Collaboration and Enterprise 2.0; Work-meets-play or the future of business?
© 2009 AIIM - Find, Control, and Optimize Your Information
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
