Listening: the proof is in the "process"

The last couple days I've been writing on the role that corporate blogs play in this space and the many rules of the road that companies need to grasp before diving in (it's not nearly as easy as it looks).  Which brings me full circle to social media processes. See, the companies and clients I've been talking with are talking a lot about tools. Next to nothing about processes.

Yikes.

Not all companies need to be blogging. But all companies need to be listening. After all, a key value proposition of social media is that it gives companies the ability to identify new markets, new opportunities, potential risks and needed improvements.

But the blogosphere can't give companies any of these benefits if they're not listening. Yet telling companies they need to listen--while all well and good--is pretty darn nebulous. It's like telling companies they need to be good to their customers.

That's why we need to be telling companies to instill processes specifically for:

Monitoring conversations. This cannot be a bot that merely generates results when your company name is cited. You need smart humans who understand what types of conversations are relevant to your current or future initiatives. And many times the important conversations won't even mention your company, but a competior. 

Monitoring the space for new blogs, bloggers and brand advocates. I cannot stress this enough: do not only follow the so-called A-List blogs or big names in your industry or markets. Remember, fads and trends always start on the fringes and...only over time...make their way to the mainstream.  Plus, you might be overlooking brand advocates simply because you're not paying attention.

Assessing when companies should touch and when they should only look. This is a case-by-case, convo-by-convo basis if ever there was one. Sometimes it's important to voice-in on a conversation, debate or discussion. But many times it's better to let the market discuss while you listen and learn. Consumers want to be heard, but don't want to feel like companies are meddling or trying to control their opinions.

Identifying opportunities to improve products/services, innovate new product categories and increase market share. It's best to view the blogosphere as a huge R&D think tank. Since the feedback is unbiased--save "pay for posts" or blatant attempts at getting companies' names mentioned--companies are afforded a vast (and free!) research vehicle. But companies need smart researchers who understand what feedback, and patterns thereof, signal opportunities and gaps.

Exploring the "next big thing" (and then the next one). Discern hype from hope on new technologies, new applications, methodologies and buzzwords. Sometimes the next big thing is just the old thing wrapped in new words (this happens all the time), and other times these technologies are worth investing time and budget in.

Scrutinizing marketing tactics. I'm a big fan of innovating but I'm also a fan of learning from others. Companies need to scrutinize new promotional programs and tactics, even ones that might not have been leveraged in their respective industry. Some blogger outreach programs have done well, others have failed miserably. Find out which and why and benchmark best practices from this information.

While these processes apply to all organizations, the way companies will implement them will vary. For some organizations these processes might be conducted by the marketing department. For others, these processes might be better suited for the research team. Or the company may already be spread too thin, or lack the needed competencies, and need to hire new professionals or retain a service provider.

But ultimately the responsibility rests with marketing. Because information is just that and a big part of these processes--and realizing their payoff--is moving from information to intelligence.  After all, the whole point of companies instilling these processes is to help shape their strategies, plans, communications, R&D efforts, budget spends, customer service practices, even promotions. 

net/net: if you want to determine whether or not a company is a good listener, just ask about their processes.  Oh, please correct me if I've overlooked any process above (I wouldn't want to be a bad listener).

Comments

[Mario Vellandi]

After very recently reading a page from Mavericks at Work, I saw a unique connection to your writing from a passsage on open innovation and its effect on business. A common thread also from McConnell/Huba, and Mack among others. When businesses are open to the innovative potential of a vast number of brilliant people, or the simple intent of monitoring the pulse of communication in the task environment......it inspires less top-down arrogance, helps create new products faster, and promotes a greater focus on the customer.

What I sense is frustrating for us, is the perception that many folks see this as a pure extension of PR (though in a simplistic, overexpectant approach), versus the analytical listening (to gather intelligence) and the contextually selective response tactics we're promoting. It's the latter that can reinforce effective PR.

With open-innovation or open-conversation, the idea is to become a better learning organization that's more responsive. What do you say CK?

[Adam Broitman]

Hi CK

I am a new reader (by way of Jaffe, Berkowitz and Verdino)...

In response to your first point about not using bots, while I firmly agree with this sentiment, I would like to play devil's advocate on this one.

How do you propose major brands effectively monitor the type of volume of comments that occur in the blogosphere in an effective manner without artificial assistance?

I know that this is an old question, but I feel it has still not been answered.

I of course am familiar with the qualitative answer to this question, but I am wondering if you had some ideas on an approach that addressed volume

[CK]

@Adam: Welcome over here and thanks for reading. Please always feel free to play devil's advocate--that's how we learn and really sort through important subjects.

I may need to revise that line a bit but here's what I mean - the organization can't solely rely on bots/technology. Because they’ll miss out on too much. For example, and I kid you not: In response to asking two colleagues just over the last week how they monitor and listen to this environment they've responded "I do a search in google or technorati and see how many times our name comes up." When I asked if they read the posts, one said yes the other just wanted to see “how many times” his company was mentioned (so to him it was a quantitative play, even tho’ the convos might have been saying negative things…or might have held very useful info.).

The other did check out the posts. So I then I asked if he continued to follow that blog. But he didn’t. Then I asked if they had done any searches and analysis into conversations that cited competitive offerings and neither had. Both of these colleagues work hard and the fact is they’re either 1) not seeing the value in the convos (because they’re not really reading them or might find the sphere to be “a lot of chat”) and/or 2) are so overextended they’re relying on quick, quantitative searches.

But analysis is a very funny thing. And when companies are looking to develop new offerings or identify new markets they’re not going to be able to do a quick search. Why? Because those offerings won’t have ‘names’ yet attached to them. Instead people will be talking about needs or problems they’re having (which an offering can be developed around). So analysis in this space rests on clocking some serious time into following a lot of conversations and blogs--and it's far, far more qualitative than quantitative. And while co’s want to be able to improve, they also want it 'easy' (so they’ll want to rely on bots). But no technology can replace the analysis of a qualified human. The answer as I see it? Companies are going to need some core processes to reap the wealth of these insightful conversations. That may necessitate more work for their existing employees, a new hire or a service provider. My concern is that companies are thinking “tools” more than trends or research processes; that’s what I’m hearing/finding. In this space I don't see companies leading with blogs, I see them leaping ahead by listening.

Thanks again, sorry that was long!

[CK]

@Mario: I agree with what you're saying and thanks for pointing me to two other convos. And what you're saying about co's seeing the sphere as a pure PR extension makes sense, too. See, it's impossible to understand this space unless you're really "in it". I say this because I had NO idea (zero.zilch.nada) of the value until I dedicated time to it.

And now? I would feel completely out-of-touch and missing out if I weren't following the feedback and thought leadership we all discuss and cover. I still read the trades and love books, but open convos are the majority of my research.

And if I were a company? I would worry that I was missing out on valuable feedback from the market...along with insight on new offerings. But...and it's a BIG 'but'--unless co's are monitoring this space, and in the right way (i.e. those core processes), they won't know what they're missing. Just as I didn't know what I was missing a couple years back. And while I love having my own blog, the value is really in you guys' blogs.

My thinking is that we need to not only tell co's to listen but show them how. It's otherwise far too easy for them to use this space just for tools (blogs) and promotions (outreach programs), rather than as a primary research vehicle. Many will be busy trying to create evangelists rather than taking the feedback to create better offerings.

[Adam Broitman]

Don't ever be sorry for a long response, it was great..thank you :)

I think that there is a perfect middle ground between qualitative and quantitative blog monitoring. I am talking to a company now that has a cool tool for this type of thing, Relevant Noise (I don't work for them and have no vested interest in their product, I just like it)

Anyhow, I am glad we are now connected and look forward to working through some of these issues with you

[CK]

@Adam: There's also another aspect of research, I'll call it 'proactive' for now...and that's delving into new markets. For example, say my client has a tech offering and their customers have primarily been in, say, manufacturing. But now they want to drum up customers in, say, financial services. A good way of getting to know that audience is to follow their blogs (to understand the lingo they use, the needs they have, what they focus upon, what trends are really relevant to them, etc.). So it's a case of banking some "human" hours...but the research is otherwise free and, more to the point, unbiased.

Please do let me know about Relevant Noise and if it's worked well for you.

[Adam Broitman]

CK

That is a great point!

I love looking at social media as focus group, predictive marketing tool and a way of really getting to know the community in a human manner.

As for Relevant Noise, it does not add humanity but it helps parse through data and it is a great place to start. It looks at type of phrases in posts and lets you know if there are severities that need immediate attention. This is something that is tough to do when there are 10s of thousands of posts on given brand

[Cam Beck]

"Not all companies need to be blogging. But all companies need to be listening. After all, a key value proposition of social media is that it gives companies the ability to identify new markets, new opportunities, potential risks and needed improvements."

The tools we have at our disposal make it so easy to listen in to the conversation, there's really no valid reason to fail in this aspect of social media. What we do afterward, though, is replete with risks.

Although this is a process that lends itself to checklists (with this article as a starting point), a checklist should not replace actual thinking.

[Jonathan Trenn]

One thing I wanted to add is that I'd reiterate the idea of all of this being looked at as 'tools' as opposed to being part of a process. One often overlooked factor is that much of the impetus that got this whole train rolling are people who are in technology. People whose mindset is more, well, technical. Who think more in terms of tactics and not an overall strategy.

A few years ago, when I would tell people what I do or related concepts, I'd be called a computer guy. That's wholly wrong, but potential client bases thought internet solely equaled technology. So what we had was a bunch of tech types writing and reading blogs. You can still see it today as much of the top blogs are tech oriented.

Then, as larger clients started to demand digital and social media strategies, they'd turn to their agencies - agneices that were full of traditional types who had been avoiding and dissing new ways of doing stuff. But of course they wouldn't show their clients that they, at this point, didn't know a damn thing. But they viewed the blogosphere or social networks or just about anything else as 'tools'.

Smaller agencies or individuals were pushed aside and not listened to. So we'd then see some mistakes (as we still do). But those that would make mistakes would blame the newness of it all.

And, CK, I'd also add that your two friends that are too swamped to really take the plunge need 1) a change of attitude and 2) more bodies in their departments to do the very things you've been suggesting.

[Mario Vellandi]

This whole monitoring process, could really be part of an internal market intelligence (customer, supplier, competitor, trends) unit anyway right? That seems a natural fit, especially if there are limited human resources anyway.

[CK]

@Mario: It's absolutely marketing intelligence and whether they'll need to hire add'l competencies or place it on existing professionals will vary between co's. What I'm recommending is that these processes need to be just as core as their other intelligence/reserach processes (e.g. reviewing market reports from analysts, customer-focused studies, etc.). It needs to become core to their internal methodology.

@Jonathan: Thanks for giving it some background. When I think "tools" I think useful but not strategic; it's true. But when I think "processes," I think integral/core. Along with working against the tools/tech mindset is that "it's just a lot of chat". While we know that's not the case, to those not in this space they can easily see it as a bunch of kids/tech-heads chatting and ergo, a waste of time/labor.

[Lewis Green]

CK,

I just wanted to share that this series on social media presents some of your best work. Thank you.