Showing posts with label Organizing WOM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Organizing WOM. Show all posts

Thursday, November 02, 2006

Blogging Success Study Released!








It's been a long time in the works, but finally released!

John Cass (Backbone Media) and I conducted a research study with my class in Advanced Organzational Communication (Spring 2006) on what makes for a successful blog. We identified a number of best practices and also five themes that cut across all the interviews:


Culture: If a company has particular cultural traits worth revealing or a bad reputation it wants to repudiate, blogging can be an attractive option.
Transparency: Critical to establishing credibility and trust with an audience. People want to see an honest portrayal of a company and know that there are not ulterior motives behind the blog. Blog audiences respect a willingness to disclose all points of view on a subject.
Time: It takes a lot of time to set up, research and write a quality blog. Companies need to identify a person who has the time or whose schedule is freed up to make the time, or need to engage a group of people to share the responsibility.
Dialogue: A company’s ability and willingness to engage in a dialogue with their customer base about topics that the customer base is interested in is critical to its blogging success.
Entertaining writing style and personalization: A blogger’s writing style and how much they are willing to reveal about their life, experience and opinions brings human interest to a blog, helps build a personal connection with readers and will keep people reading.
You can download the study as a PDF (name/e-mail registration required) or read it online. The online report takes the form of a blog so that people can comment on individual sections and is hosted on the Scout blogging server.

Be sure to check out the summaries of the interviews with each blogger to learn more detail about each blogger's experience.

Thanks so much to all the bloggers who agreed to participate in the study, the students in my class who did the interviews, and the folks from Backbone Media (John Cass, Stephen Turcotte, Megan Dickinson, Kristine Munroe and Dave Alpert).

Northeastern University Press Release

-->
Tags:

Sunday, June 18, 2006

How Oblivious Is Your Company? Developing A Six Phase Model to Characterize A Company’s Level of Involvement and Engagement in the WOM/CGM Space

I recently developed a model to characterize where a company was in terms of their level of involvement and engagement with understanding stakeholder word-of-mouth and consumer generated media. I can’t say this is an entirely original model since I have attended a number of presentations where people have talked about how to get involved in the “conversation” that takes place among consumers. So if I’ve inadvertently plagiarized this from anyone just let me know.

And I should also say that it’s not my original model since I initially presented it to my students a couple weeks ago in class and they provided incredible feedback, and in fact proposed some new levels.

All that aside, I believe all companies can be placed along a continuum for each of these six phases. They might not go through these in a linear fashion and it’s not necessarily the case that the final phases are more evolved than the earlier stages (though you’ll probably detect a bias in the model for companies to strive towards the later phases). Different companies need to pick a level of involvement that’s suitable for their culture and their industry. However it is generally the case that early phases are more “passive” while later phases are more “active.”

Phase I – Oblivious

This label sounds a bit harsh but it amazes me how many companies don’t realize that people talk about them. They don’t think to pay attention to what consumers have to say and don’t benefit at all from any of their insights or ideas. Companies are in this phase because they might not know any better or have been trained to focus too much on a “control” mentality where they “push” the message out to a target audience. Ignorance, however, is not bliss.

Phase II – Indifference or Neglect


Phase II is not necessary to pass through, but it is an option that some companies take. In this phase the company is aware that consumers are talking about them but are indifferent and don’t care about what they have to say, or simply neglect to pay attention to it. This too is probably the result of the control-push dynamic.

Phase III – Monitoring


In Phase III, a company is aware that people are talking about them and consider it important enough to pay attention to. A lot of monitoring right now is taking place online and the reason some people first monitor the online space is because they realize there is the potential for widespread distribution of the message and impact. A few other interesting things to note about this phase: a) some companies only monitor the online space because they could care less if just a few people are saying in offline or private conversations because they don’t think that WOM has an impact (this can be a dangerous strategy since it represents a form of indifference); b) some companies are monitoring the space because they see it as a form of “competitive intelligence” with no motivation to engage in the dialogue (again, probably more of the control-push mindset); and c) other companies may be at the monitoring phase because they are cautiously dipping their toe in the WOM/CGM space to try and figure out what’s going on.

Phase IV – Listening

In this phase a company is not only monitoring the WOM/CGM but doing so with an intent to move towards more engagement. It’s a subtle but important distinction, and represents a key difference between “monitoring” and “listening”. Thus, in Phase IV, a company is listening for insight but also for understanding as a move towards dialogue (contrast this with some companies in Phase III who are just monitoring the space to make sure nothing bad gets said about them). Laurent Flores has talked a great deal about this (and later phases) on his blog. My colleague Lois Kelly has written an excellent book called Beyond Buzz about this topic as well. Listening involves a more active (even proactive) and attentive orientation and represents a crucial preliminary step to the final two phases: responding and joining in.

Phase V – Responding


In this phase a company takes the next step and responds to consumer WOM/CGM. Responding is a crucial element of acting on feedback provided to the company from consumers. This can also take the form of outreach to their stakeholders, and increasingly in the online world this takes the form of blogger outreach. This can be a delicate matter since the company doesn’t want to appear as being invasive or “interrupting” the conversations already going on. Jim Nail from Cymfony recently gave an excellent talk to my class about if and how to respond to negative WOM. In some ways, though, responding might be a little reactive because a company might be waiting for something to happen before they respond, but if a company is thoroughly committed to the fourth phase of listening, then responding becomes an extension of that proactive strategy.

Phase VI – Joining In


This represents the most active, committed, and dialogic phase. Here the company is an active, perhaps even passionate, contributor to the dialogue about their brand, products, and services, as well as general issues that face their category and industry, and even more broadly, the company demonstrates concern about topics that are of interest to their consumers. A company at this phase acts in accordance with the dialogic principles of co-creation of meaning making. You can identify companies in this phase by some of the following indicators: the company is seen as a well-respected thought leader in a topic of concern to its stakeholders; the company hosts and sponsors events of importance to its customer community; it supports or hosts forums on those important topics in online or offline venues such as blogs, message boards, events, and mini-conferences; it has a strong reputation of listening and being responsive to customer suggestions and complaints; it proactively seeks out feedback and critical scrutiny of its actions; it has a high Net Promoter Score (more people who actively promote and recommend it than detract from the company); and/or it has a reputation for being clear and transparent in its communication practices.

In summary, all companies can be placed on this continuum of passive to active involvement and engagement with their stakeholders. Companies can use this tool to identify where they are on the continuum and reflect on whether or not this is the best place to be for their corporate culture and industry.

As I mentioned above I don’t think this model is completely original, and there are probably others out there with their own existing models, but I’d love to hear feedback on this one and/or for you to share your own models that you’ve come up with. Thanks again to my students for co-creating this model with me!

* Image Copyright

-->
Tags:

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Word-of-Mouth & Avoiding the Silo Mentality

Jonah Bloom, the executive editor of Advertising Age, writes a compelling piece that appeared yesterday on AdAge.com (free subscription required; also available here). After praising the Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA) for making "smart moves" -- 1) engaging bloggers by inviting them to blog about the recent WOMMA Basic Training conference and to participate in the ongoing discussions about the role of word-of-mouth, 2) taking a firm stand on ethics by standing against shill and stealth marketing, and 3) anticipating concerns raised by the FTC -- he also challenges WOMMA to avoid a marketing "silo mentality." He writes:

The once concern with all of this is that with the emergence of such a strong association and what seemed from the conference to be something of a new-members club of executives, we could be yet again witnessing the cultivation of a marketing silo rather than the full integration of a new philosophy and skill set.
Bloom's essay is important for at least two reasons. First, it helps us understand that WOM is not just a sexy campaign but rather a larger philosophy of monitoring existing consumer-to-consumer conversations, creating spaces for consumer conversations and listening to them, early and ongoing engagement, relationship-building, shared control with consumers and other stakeholders, creating products and experiences that are worth talking about, etc.. (Of course, the sexy and creative campaigns can be an activity that grows out of the larger philosophy). Second, Bloom's essays recognizes the need to adopt a systems approach to how organizations communicate both internally and externally (that is, a way of seeing how all the parts and processes are interdependent and need to work together in order to be effective). Bloom argues, and I agree, that without integrating WOM principles into the whole of an organization, WOM will be seen simply as a boutique activity.

At the WOMMA conference Bloom facilitated a panel discussion on the challenges and opportunities when companies seek to integrate WOM into their corporate philosophies. Panelists included representatives from Intuit, BzzAgent, and Conference Calls Unlimited.

Disclosure: I am a member of WOMMA's Advisory Board.

-->
Tags: