Social Business Summit 2010- Looking at the Big Picture

Image by Worldle.net

The Dachis Group’s Social Business Summit 2010 in Austin has come to an end. Like many conferences, it featured a variety of dynamic speakers providing their view on the topic at hand whether it was macro trends or the specifics of their experiences. But what comes from this conference is a little bit more interesting than most…

Taken as a whole, the Social Business Summit 2010 presented a compelling case of how doing business has changedand how successful organizations like Intuit, Citibank, Comcast, Yum Brands (KFC), and many others are dealing with the change in a way that creates value for their organizations. But where the summit differs is in the organizational aspect of that change. Having taught Organizational Design & Behavior during my MBA program, this is always an area of business that I believe is overlooked when a disruptive event or technology occurs. My eleven years and counting in the online community/social media/interactive industry have provided numerous examples of how organizations embrace the change or ignore it.

For example, in Charlene Li’s session on “Making the Case for Open Leadership” I could identify with my own experiences in the Property & Casualty Insurance industry where closed, top down leadership is practiced with vigor. At Safeco Insurance Company, we sat on huge volumes of customer data that were stored untouched in company databases. In 1998, working with several agencies, brokerages, and employees, I put together a business plan for using the data as a means to drive down the combined ratio (the main metric for insurance companies) and generate new revenues. The plan was shot down immediately with the statement “we’ve been doing it our way for over 100 years and it works, why change?” Management at Safeco was unable to be open to ideas that came from its sales team (agencies) and employees in the field. Instead of listening and treating them as partners, and adapting to the market’s direction, Safeco was stuck in its past where control dictated that you told your sales team and employees what to do and didn’t want feedback. This idea was so culturally enmeshed at Safeco that as business practices changed with the adoption of the Internet in the late 1990’s, it could not and would not adapt. By believing that only one way communication worked, Safeco missed opportunity after opportunity in its business to stay successful. Instead it slowly died with consistent management turnover and poor financial results until finally Liberty Mutual purchased them. It’s not that Safeco senior management missed one opportunity, it’s that their management style and lack of vision missed so many that their organization became less relevant over time. 

But don’t think this type of thinking is relegated to heavily regulated industries. Citibank’s Jaime Punishill relayed to me at lunch that it takes time and a lot of pushing to move your organization, but it can be done if there are senior managers willing to listen. Citibank whether it wanted to or not is moving towards open leadership and working with its stakeholders to drive change (and hopefully value) to its shareholders.

Where does Open Leadership work? Our client Cisco was mentioned by Charlene. We helped Cisco launch its first online community in 2000, the Cisco Network Professionals Community. Over the years, we’ve helped launch and manage numerous communities for Cisco around the globe. There is one constant. While Cisco may have many of the same issues as any other large organization, it recognizes that command and control model of management doesn’t work. It lives and breathes the strategic and tactical oxygen of change, adaptation, and listening to the customer. While macroeconomic forces certainly helped Cisco in the 1990’s, it culture has helped it succeed where others like 3Com, Lucent, and Nortel have failed. Other successful organizations with this approach include our clients NetApp and SAP.

The second most important theme of the summit to me was the network. Not just a social network, but the network of customers, suppliers, employees, shareholders, and competitors. Too often conferences confuse strategy with tactics. Taken together, the summit’s sessions provided a strategic look at how business is moving quickly to a social business model and presented the tactical results to back that assertion up.

While I don’t agree with some of the comments about how corporations have ruined networks, trade, commercial transactions, etc. or how we’re moving back to a peer-to-peer economy,  I do agree that the network has always been in place. First it was local, then regional, then super-regional (think Europe), and more recently global. Large multinationals have made the economic process more efficient than it has ever been. Yet, it is still rife with inefficiencies. The understanding that building relationships with your network can make you more efficient is just catching on. For all the talk of rapid adoption of social media, we see far too many disjointed efforts where marketing, support, sales, and internal efforts are all operating independently (and inefficiently).

One great example of using the network properly is that of Intuit’s TurboTax team. Christine Morrison gave a wonderful talk on how it is about making money with the network while also meeting the network’s needs. The overall takeaway was that it is more profitable to pay attention to the network and become part of it than to try and dictate to it or worse, ignore it.

While there are differing opinions on how to utilize the network, several key features of successful networks are:

1. An executive who believes in the power of interacting with stakeholders and has the power to implement a plan, hire staff (in-house or outsourced), and measure the results objectively
2. An organizational culture that truly wants to listen to its stakeholders (lip service doesn’t work) and take action based upon what it learns
3. A focus on results that matter to the audience (customers, employees, suppliers, investors, etc.) which in turn translate into value for the organization in the long run

Corporate culture leads the way to long term success or failure (the Safeco example above shows what can happen when you believe that your organization can dictate to the network rather than work with it). And that’s what social business is all about to us. It’s not the technology, it’s about understanding how your targeted audience wants to interact with you and if your culture can withstand the change or not. In our consulting and management projects with Global organizations such as Cisco, SAP, NetApp, Intel, and others we’ve seen how this idea is so much a part of the firm’s success.  

So what was missing? Well from our standpoint, there were a couple of items that were either untouched or glossed over which are incredibly important to the success of any social business project. First is the issue of trust. Until the last session of the day by Lee Bryant, trust wasn’t even mentioned. Social business runs on trust. If you are unable to trust your audience, peers, employees, and other stakeholders you will be unable to act upon their input.

Second, the idea of globalization and culture was not discussed despite its implications on social business. There is a very large difference in how people do business because of their cultures. Social businesses must account for this. The culture in Japan is different than Poland which is different than Germany which is different than the U.S. Online activities reflect that difference. We’ve seen it in action in our work with Cisco’s NetPro Poland as well as SAP’s local communities around the globe. The one comment about global efforts was from KFC’s Rick Maynard who said ”We don’t have a global strategy, we have a strategy that we localize for differences.” While the network is global, local tactics that meet your audience’s needs demonstrate that you understand the local culture and how it impacts your communications.

Overall, the Social Business Summit was a success.If you take a strategic view of the content presented, you hopefully came away with a better way of looking at social business. There are several other folks who attended who have shared their comments and the tweetstream from the event as well:

• Steve Ellis
• iMediaWorks
• @CarrieBugbee (Tweetstream of #SBS2010 tweets)
• @adamcohen (Tweetstream)

We’re looking forward to next year’s event, you should too….

Mike Rowland, President

Back to the blog

Do You Use Social Media? Guess What…You’re a System Administrator

By Matthew Lees

The New York Times recently ran an informative article by Sarah Perez of ReadWriteWeb called “The 3 Facebook Settings Every User Should Check Now.” It’s about changes that Facebook made last December that affected user privacy, and what you can do about a few key pieces of personal information.

The article got me thinking about a Patricia Seybold Group report I wrote in 2007, entitled (rather cleverly, I thought), “Helping Customers with Self-Control…of Their Own Content.” The discussion and perspective in that report are even truer today than they were a few years ago, with the trend toward user control only increasing.

The upshot of the report was that, whether you blog or spend time on social sites or online communities, you’re doing more than participating in conversations, seeking out people and information, and creating content. You’re probably also deciding (1) who can see what, and (2) what they’re allowed to do with what they can see.

Well, guess what. That’s what system administrators do. Did you know you’re a sysadmin?

(Tell your parents. If yours are like mine, they won’t understand what it means, but they’ll be impressed. Actually, if your parents are on Facebook or any other social network, they’re sysadmins, too!)

Of course, professional sysadmins are trained and experienced in the subtleties and ramifications of managing access rights, setting up group/subgroup permissions, and troubleshooting things when problems arise. The rest of us are doing this as amateurs, whether we’re…

• setting permissions on our Flickr photos
• managing the privacy settings in our Facebook accounts
• determining what our public and private LinkedIn accounts look like
• deciding if your blog will accept anonymous comments or if people need to be logged in to comment
• deciding which groups of people (e.g., everyone, friends, or family), if any, can comment on our YouTube videos
• deciding what URLs in del.icio.us to share and what to keep private (for example, I’ll let most of URLs I tag be publicly viewable, but not the ones of my financial accounts)

As the Internet has enabled more and more of us not only to be Content Consumers, but also Content Creators and Publishers (the simplicity of blogging laid a lot the groundwork for this), the natural evolution has been for us to have control over this content as well. And it’s not just the content itself (your blog entries, forum posts, comments, video clips, photos, pictures, animations, etc.), but also the information about you (such as your profile information, both personal and professional).

The advantage of all this is that systems are increasingly giving us more control over both our content and profile information. Some platforms offer impressively – perhaps overwhelmingly – granular control of pretty much everything. This is a great trend, since it’s generally better to give people control over their own stuff.

But the disadvantage is that most of us don’t naturally take to this role or have the time to do it well. It takes attention to think through things and set them up the way we’d really want them to be. Most of us don’t have the bandwidth to do this for one site, let alone all the social sites and communities where we spend time. (Plus, things change over time, as with the Facebook situation above.) Therefore, as inexperienced and part-time sysadmins with a few other things on our plates, we may not be setting things up as well as we could. We typically rely on the defaults, which may or may not be in our best interests.

Why is this important?

• If you’re a technology vendor, you’ve got to figure out how to balance giving users granular control while making things easy for them to use. More tools, capabilities, and control is usually good, as long as you don’t confuse people, and having control over too much stuff can easily become overwhelming. Having an intuitive user interface can certainly help, but product managers have to draw the line somewhere.
• If you’re a social media user (and who isn’t?), you’ve got to decide how much time and brainpower to give the various settings on your content and personal/professional information at all the sites where you have an account. Most likely you’ll rely on the defaults, making changes only when a friend or colleague brings an issue to your attention, or when you come across a relevant article (or blog post!) that prompts your taking action.
• If you’re a community business sponsor, manager, or moderator, you’re looking to generate participation and sharing, while at the same time maintaining a safe and friendly environment. Participation can be enhanced by more open settings – the more people who can view things, the more discussion and collaboration will ensue – but if things are too open, particularly if users don’t realize or understand, conflicts can arise. How you set defaults, and how you communicate privacy and control settings is crucial. (Think about what can arise when a Facebook user doesn’t understand the consequences of giving visibility to Friends of Friends, for example, who you may not know…or trust.)

We haven’t even touched on other, non-sysadmin-related choices social media users have to make, such as how your content looks (control over design and layout; e.g., your blog header and Twitter background), and what people can do with your content (e.g., what license do you select to govern the photos you upload to Flickr?).

Decisions, decisions, decisions. For better or worse, though, in this do-it-yourself, connected, and increasingly social world, we’re all sysadmins now.

Back to the blog

Having an Impact

By Matthew Lees

I must admit that I’ve always liked the word “impact.” In just two short syllables it conveys significance and manages to be somewhat onomatopoetic. It both sounds like, and makes you think that, something important is happening.

Even when it’s used to describe something unpleasant, such as an automobile collision, the word brings an air of style. It’s much more refined than “crash,” and much more serious than fender-bender. (I’m speaking only of the noun; the adjective drops down more than a few levels in my book. While I’m fortunate, for example, never to have had an impacted molar, it doesn’t sound like a particularly delightful experience.)

In my role as an analyst and consultant, I use the word as part of the phrase “business impact,” to refer to the organizational benefits of online communities, social media, and social technologies. I’m not the only person who gravitates toward this term, of course but I have used it regularly and consistently over the years, much preferring it to the abbreviation “ROI” to help organizations focus on the bottom line. (While ROI is a perfectly valid and often necessary term, it tends to carry a bit of baggage.)

So when I first heard the name of Mike Rowland’s company, Impact Interactions, my ears perked up. I liked the sound of it from the get-go. It tersely and alliteratively says, “Let’s make a difference in the way you connect with others.” But there’s a large and vital difference between having an effective company name…and having an effective company. After getting to know Mike over the past few years, after having hearing him speak at conferences and other events, and after seeing him work to move the industry forward in a thoughtful, collaborative way, I quite resonate with his approach and his perspective. The company name fits.

I wouldn’t have taken this on otherwise. So it’s a great pleasure to have this opportunity to interact with you in this space. It’s a great responsibility, as well, to provide something of differentiated value amidst the depth and diversity of experience, knowledge, and opinions that pervade the blogosphere.

In the coming weeks and months, I’ll be writing about my observations on the interactions between people and technology, between business needs and customer goals, and between best practices and less effective methods, all as they relate to online communities and social media. I hope you’ll interact with me along the way – discussions are certainly more fun for participants and readers than monologues – supporting or questioning what you read here. That way, we can have an impact on each other.

~ Matthew

Back to the blog

Welcome to our Special Guest Blogger Matthew Lees

 

I grew up watching television shows where each week there was a “Special Guest Star” on an episode each week. These guests provided a little extra to the show and usually were cool celebrities. Think of all the villains on Batman for example or the Brat Pack on “Vegas” or the vacationers on Fantasy Island…or for those of you a little younger, the guests on the Simpsons.

Following that idea, I’d like to introduce our Special Guest Blogger, independent analyst Matthew Lees.

Matthew is a well respected analyst in the Social Media and Online Community World (see his bio here). He is the author of reports through the Patricia Seybold Group such as:

1. Selecting An Online Community Platform
2. Best Practices In Crowdsourcing
3. Analyst Report: Lithium’s Social CRM Suite

After reading his research and reviews of his findings, I thought Matthew truly understood how to make social media technology work in an enterprise organization. So, like all good social media practitioners I followed him on Twitter (@mlees) and his blog. Matthew and I first met in person at one of Forum One’s Online Community Unconferences. We’d been reading each other’s blogs and reports and discovered that we come to the industry with the same high level focus… using these tools to improve business results. While Matthew focuses on the technology and its impact, we focus on the process and the users. Together, we cover the issues that all enterprises need to succeed in their social media projects.

We decided in late December over a crab cake lunch here in Maryland, that we should find a way to collaborate together. Our idea is to inform, educate, and drive the best practices we’ve developed to a broader audience with this blog and our twitter accounts. Matthew will be posting here over the next few months both independently and collaboratively with our team members.

If you have a suggested issue of topic for us to cover, please contact us by adding a comment on this entry or by using our contact form.

So, with that said welcome Matthew!

Mike Rowland, President

Back to the blog

Social Media – The Global Story

The world is adopting social media at higher and higher levels according to a recent Neilsen Report.  According to the research by Neilsen, global time spent on social media sites increased by 82% in December 2009 when compared with December 2008. Pretty large increase especially if you look into the footnotes and understand that this research is based upon only U.S., U.K., Australia, Brazil, Japan, Switzerland, Germany, France, Spain and Italy. No China, no India, no Russia, nor are there any Nordic countries listed.

But this growth coincides with what we’re seeing here at Impact Interactions. We’ve helped develop and launch multiple communities in countries such as China, Russia, Italy, France, Germany, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Poland, and elsewhere over the past several years. And while clients are still interested in their communities in the U.S. their focus is shifting. We are seeing more interest in companies asking us to help them launch communities and social media plans in countries ranging from Japan to Russia to Brazil to Mexico.

The growth in third party applications such as Twitter and Facebook have helped companies to understand the potential reach of the medium, but it is the local language social networks like StudiVZ (German) which have helped in-country marketing teams decide that they must be engaged with their customers using social tools. So even as Facebook moves past these local social media/networks, the smart marketer understands that it’s not the tool so much as it’s the growth that matters in deciding whether social media is a good tactic in a particular market.

In our experience leading a social media workshop in Innsbruck, Austria at the prestigious Management Center of Innsbruck it was clear that our non-US audience were more engaged on local language social media tools including blogs and social networks than on the U.S. offerings. (In fact, it was there that I learned more about StudiVZ and other offerings.)

That doesn’t mean that non-U.S. members are not on Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn. But it does mean that for the savvy global marketer the research and identification of which sites or applications to use is a bit more difficult. While the strategy remains the same, each Internet culture requires a clear focus on localized tactics. That means a cookie cutter approach using the same tools like Twitter, Facebook, or other application across multiple markets will not deliver the results you desire.

Watch the growth, it’s here to stay. But also look for the smaller sites that can deliever more value to your organization when using social media globally. As the old adage goes “All marketing is local.” The same applies to social media.

 

-Mike Rowland, President

Back to the blog