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

Determining marketing strategy: step one

First we need to understand where we are currently positioned in the minds of our target market[s]. Spend, thus strategy needs to be aligned with positioning. The five stages of consciousness [positioning] we typically focus on acquiring are....

awareness = you exist
interest = sticky trigger that resonates
top of mind = automatically on the ‘to be considered' and/or ‘take the call’ lists
preference = standard by which others are measured
conversion = best resolved ‘what keeps them up at night’

Logically we cannot achieve stage 5 'conversion' unless we have achieved the preceding stages. This excerpted video from a live staging of the classic McGraw-Hill "Man in the Chair" ad at the Business Marketing Association's 2009 national conference does a spectacular job of bringing this point home.



Additionally, the more stages we need to acquire the longer the process. To a certain extent the greater our resources the better empowered we are to speed up acquisition, but we also need to be very cognizant of 'diminishing returns' and 'waste'.

Our marketing strategies are typically segmented into three time sensitive categories; short term results, mid term results, and growth & sustainability. As discussed, the shorter the time frame the fewer stages we can appreciably affect; therefore the more granular our target and subsequent strategies. The following representation of the three categories and the goals I have associated with them is typical of B2B environments where our product/service falls under a high consideration/high investment purchase category. If your offering falls outside of a typical six to twelve month sales cycle adjust the time line accordingly.

short term results
6-12 month time line
acquisition goals: preference thru conversion
reach: targeted prospects
strategy: direct dialogue.

mid term results
13-24 month time line
acquisition goals: interest thru conversion
reach: targeted market[s].
strategy: community dialogue.

growth & sustainability
3-5 year time line
acquisition goals: awareness thru conversion
reach: broad opportunities.
strategy: seed and steward.

Our top down organizational needs will determine the percentage of marketing resources we can apply to each of the three time sensitive categories. If for example our organization is in 'critical care' mode, with an immediate need for revenue infusion, we may be forced to allocate >70% of resources toward short term results, but this is risky. Focusing almost exclusively on the bleed without at minimum stabilizing overall health is not sustainable. The best strategy is to architect a plan that nourishes a healthy state at all stages while continuously monitoring and adjusting for our vitals.

When branding interferes with persuasion.

I read two papers in the last week re Web Analytics Assesment/Usage.

Appraising Your Investment In
Enterprise Web Analytics

● research conducted in Q2-thru-Q3 2009 by Forresters

● authored by Forresters Consulting
● commissioned by Google.

The Cost of Free

● based on research conducted in Q2 2009 by Forresters
● presented by web tech experts
● commissioned by Omniture.

Both are informative reads - thank you to all contributors for making them freely accessible. And both appear to present the data and subsequent analysis in the light most complimentary to their commissioners business interests - S.O.P... Aside from the content of each paper, what I find most interesting is the profound differences in positioning.

Should you read each paper you'll notice...
Branding

• the Google version includes a persistent but relatively obscure mention of Google as the host through out.
• the Omniture version includes logo and their standard collateral look & feel through out.

Scripting

• the Google version is academic, void of product mentions or associative need/solution based content.
  
• the Omniture version is promotional with a high volume of product mentions and associative need/solution based content.

Objectivity

• the Google version includes full disclosure of research methodology. Is authored by the researchers, Forresters.
• the Omniture version discloses competitors. It employs the reputations of web tech experts cited as the presenters; John Lovett [senior analyst at Forresters Research] along with Tony Bradshaw and Tim Munsell [senior DaveRamsey.com representatives]. Note... presenter vs author may be a matter of semantics.
  

My questions is...
Which approach do you believe to be more effective?

My take...
If the consumer believes the data and conclusions presented adheres to unbiased and accepted research standards they are more apt to use the information to assess competitive 'value offered'. Therefore perceived 'truth of data' is a significant factor in the probability of tactic persuasion. Google's hands-off approach feels more objective, thus credible, thus able to persuade.

Given the Omniture paper is categorized as a 'workbook' it may not be entirely fair to make an apples-to-apples comparison. As a workbook I would suspect presenting participants with the data and interspersing it with [carefully crafted] questions, allowing them to form their our own Omniture affirmative conclusions, may be a more persuasive variation on the original approach.

To access a link to each paper please click on it's corresponding image above.

Asking for the cheque.

In yesterdays post I wrote about the frequent opportunity we are now provided by freeware developers to donate a few dollars in trade for using their application. This is a smart revenue generation tactic on their part. One I assume most of us do not mind being requested to participate in... providing we gain value for our contribution.

My question is 'How successful are these appeals?'

Situation
This morning when I opened my Firefox browser I was greeted with a number of 'thank you' pages from developer groups whose add-ons I had installed last night. All included some variation-or-another on an honest and simple request... "Should you like using the application we would appreciate a donation". And conveniently they provide a donate button directly underneath the appeal.

Problem
We are making the appeal before our consumers have had a chance to test drive the app.

A good comparative is when our server at a restaurant asks us 'how is everything?' right when we're taking our first bite. Not only is our mouth full of food, rendering us pretty much incapable of a legible response. But more to the point, we haven't had a chance to start forming a 'value' opinion yet.

Suggestion
First, change that initial communication experience. Simply thank our consumer for...

• taking the time to download and test our app
• trusting our solution
  

Second, set expectations... i.e.

From time to time we release feature updates for 'X'. [browser name] will prompt you when these are available. Our ability to continuously add value to this and other applications is in great part determined by you. Should you decide to upgrade when new features become available we would appreciate a small donation. Your support keeps our computers humming, your applications free of ads, and engineers working hard for you.

Third, update often. Requesting a donation at that time.

Providing our consumers are satisfactorily engaged with us/our product [?] our efforts should be well rewarded.

Free + Cloud = Careful Planning

We marketers now have a literal landslide of free and often powerful widgets and tools we can utilize for everything from community building to campaign tracking and analysis. Most of which are deployed on the cloud [a.k.a. hosted on someone else's servers] and are 'by design' pre-integrated with big brother CMS, CRM, ERP, and Social applications - also on the cloud. Cloud means we generally don't have to invest in hardware. And pre-integrated means we generally don't have to invest in heavy-weight configuration challenges. Also cloud applications typically provide what can be a significant advantage, rapid deployment.

My concern? What does all this free stuff really cost. Security issues aside, what happens to all of our data and content should any given provider cease to exist [atleast as we know and love them]. After all, free is not sustainable. The brilliant developers of these tools have bills to pay too. Thus, if they don't figure out how to make a buck, eventually they will disappear.

When assessing cloud tools in general I suggest looking for solid back-up options *and* how/if breaking the chain of tools deployed will affect the overall structure we have in place. Tools built on open source platforms for example, provide us some measure of a lifeline required to rebuild or bridge if necessary. It may not be easy, but atleast it's conceivable. Second, those tools that make light[ish] work of maintaining a secondary/internal repository are a much safer bet.

With the aid of careful contingency planning, we may miss a beat or three if a cloud tool disappears [free or otherwise] but it shouldn't cause permanent arrhythmia.

PS. Many freeware providers include a donate option on their download page. If you are so inclined, sending them a few bucks in gratitude is a mighty neighbourly thing to do!