Mitch Joel:

When the c-suite makes the call, everything changes. Don’t believe me? Just ask Michael Dell over at Dell or Tony Hsieh over at Zappos. These two business leaders (and there are many more) didn’t sell social business through their organizations as a marketing and communications initiative. They sold it through as customer service. We’re not talking about customer service in terms of the call center, we’re talking about the core of customer service: why are we in business?

We are in business to serve the customer.

Nothing more. Nothing less. The more we attempt to resist social business models, the more painful these next few years (and decades) will be.

So true. It’s more important than it’s ever been that the lines blur between marketing and customer service.

Leslie Gaines-Ross for Harvard Business Review.

Shoppers are seeing the choices they make in store aisles not only as votes of confidence in product quality but as votes of approval of corporate conduct. Just as in their charitable contributions, they want their money to support institutions known for integrity and for values they share. Appealing brand messaging will probably always catch their eye—but before making any serious commitments, they’ll insist on meeting the parents.

Companies can’t hide behind their brands anymore. Everything a company does can now affect buyers’ decisions. Consider the decisions you make very carefully.

In other words. Everything is marketing.

(via)

John Moore cites a recent interview he did with Daniel Milstein today.

Moore highlights an answer he gave to a question about how marketing has changed that resonated with me:

Strategically, marketing hasn’t changed. Marketing will always be about getting the right product and right message to the right customer at the right time in the right way. If a business does that, sales will happen.

Tactically, things have changed because of technology and consumer savviness. Marketers now have more ways to reach customers (social media, mobile, etc.). Because customers have more access to information, they’ve become smarter about making purchase decisions.

I believe really good marketing is, was, and will continue to be about getting the right message to the right person at the right time in the right way(s) to deliver the right results.

That summarizes it quite well. Too many people think that marketing has changed when it’s only the tools have changed.

Yes, the tactics have changed and, as marketers, we need to be more aware given the ability of consumers to spread their message and opinion far and wide. The thing is, it’s still about spreading a message that resonates with people.

The tools are different, the goal remains the same.

(via)

Yesterday, as every day, Mitch Joel had a great post that’s called The “I like you myth” and he raises some great points about social media and what it looks like when brands get involved.

In the early days, social media was a more personal, friendly type of media – hence the world “social.”

But, as brands have gotten involved and found some success, the definition of social has gotten much more hazy. Like any other media, some marketers are looking for a shortcut to achieve what they see as success, but the rest of us just see as annoying (telemarketing, email spam, many 30 second spots).

It’s no wonder that many people are uneasy about brands getting involved with social media because, as Mitch says, “Are these brands really all that social?”

Social conversation or high tech megaphones?

Mitch makes a great point when he says:

Personally, I’m less excited about the idea that brands can engage in a “conversation.” The more sniffing around I do, the less I see conversations and the more I see moments of engagement. For the most part, they’re not all that consistent and it’s hard to tell how the story comes together as an observer (what was the beginning, middle and the end?). What seems obvious between the brand and a consumer (a disgruntled or happy one) is somewhat hard to follow if all you’re doing is watching the back and forth take place.

Far too many brands see setting up a Twitter/Facebook account and linking to it from their corporate website with the fancy little icon as being “social.” That’s like going to a cocktail party, putting on a nametag and saying that means you had a great conversation. It takes a little more than just showing up. Yes, being there is part of the process, but setting up barren outposts all over the web for your company does little to build your reputation as a “social” company. More likely, it just gives your customers and potential customers one more thing to ignore from you and reinforces their opinion that you are worth ignoring.

“Like us on Facebook” is not a strategy

The best point that Mitch makes is the analysis of how far too many companies today are using social media.

Even the brands that we hold up as best case examples for engaging in Social Media still tend to have a massive case of narcissism going on. How often do you run into a Facebook page for a brand that you like and the main call to action is “like us on Facebook!” The lack of subtlety is painfully obvious. They want you (the consumer) to like them. If you (the consumer) would like to connect, share and exchange… you have to like them.

What does that do for a customer? Nothing.

Simply saying, “Look at us, we’re on Facebook! Aren’t we cool? You should like us. We’d really enjoy that.” That provides benefit for no one other than the company. (I would argue that it does little for the company too.) The days of a company’s presence on Facebook being a big enough reason for people to like them are over. Like all marketing, there needs to be a benefit for the person to like your company…or they won’t.

Being proactive, while tough, is best

Mitch wraps things up with a great idea that would be an interesting strategy.

Here’s a novel idea: it’s called, Social Media… Instead of consumers liking brands, why don’t brands start liking consumers? I’m not just talking about an autofollow command. I’m talking about genuinely and authentically taking the time to not only follow them back, but to add value to their community… in their spaces.

This is where the companies that will rise above the rest will focus – making a true social effort.

It’s something that must be done carefully because just running out and liking everyone in sight will seem a bit creepy and spammy. How about finding out which of your customers are on Facebook and liking them? How about finding out which customers are on Twitter and follwing them, then posting a response. Not a response like, “Sounds like you had a great weekend. You know what would have made it greater? My Product!”

Involve yourself in the conversation. Participate. Discuss.

Does this take time? No doubt.
Does this take a lot of work. Absolutely.
Does it do more to build positive opinion of your brand than any Super Bowl ad? Quite likely.

Remember, it’s called social for a reason. Treat it as such.

photo credit: takomabibelot

So many companies say that they exist to serve their customers, but if you look at their marketing materials/website/sales pitches, that message doesn’t come through. They are really there to serve themselves by taking all that their customers will give them.

The problem is, that only works for so long.

An abundance of choice, readily avilable reviews from other customers and numerous other tools make it tough for a company to hide their true motives anymore.

Obviously, a company exists to make money, but too many get focused on that money rather than the source of the money.

Two paths, choose wisely

Every business can choose one of two paths.

The first path is one of focusing on profits, revenue and how to increase those above all else. Certainly every business needs to be financially responsible, make money, pay their employees and grow. Nothing wrong with that.

The company I’m talking about is the one that makes every decision based on that money.

They don’t see their customers as people. They’re just sources of money.

A second path is one that is concerned with providing real value to their customers. They are just as interested in making strong profits, but not at the expense of alienating their customers.

These companies generally have a longer view of the business. They are looking for the first and every subsequent sale. They realize that they have to earn every vote of confidence from their customers (i.e. sale). It shows not only in how they treat their customers, but in how they treat their employees.

One can lead to the other

The funny thing is, often the companies that focus on the second path are the companies that outshine those competitors that choose the first.

Not to use the tired example of Zappos, but it’s a great example. Here’s a company selling shoes online. You can’t try them on before buying (something most people would like to do), but they have realized enormous success because they care about their customers and their employees and realized that the profits would come (and continue to come) after providing real value.

Be careful to stay on the right path

Many people will pay lipservice to this concept of treating people well, providing value and taking care of their customers, but when it comes down to it, they stagger back on to the first path. They are willing to compromise the quality of the experience they deliver to save a buck here or earn a buck there.

That’s a slippery slope because for every compromise, you remove one more thing that makes your company unique.

It is for that reason that you need to have a laser-like focus on continually delivering that experience (or a better one), even when it seems like you’ve “made it.”

Make sure that the great user experience you set up on day one is still in place on day 1,000, or you may not have many days left.

Great post today (as usual) by Chris Brogan. In it he laments the “cog behavior” that can sneak up on each of us if we’re not careful.

Chris defines cog behvaior this way:

> School teaches us to be good factory workers. We are trained to memorize the facts that our systems want us to believe. We interview for jobs that seek simplified versions of our complexity to approach tasks that have often been boiled down to repetitive systems that can be measured.

Essentially, he’s saying we can easily be “cogs in the machine” if we’re not careful. Now, that’s not always a bad thing, obviously. Sometimes, the routine, regular, expected can be just fine. But, one example that Chris cites made think about what can happen in the name of good consumer experience but fail to live up to expectations. He said:

> It’s when people act like robots at the human interface level that it bugs me. I noticed that my local CVS drug store was suddenly very into using my name at the pharmacy. “Did you have any questions for the pharmacy, Mr. Brogan?” “Welcome back, Mr. Brogan.” That felt great until I saw a badge that said, “If we don’t say your name, we will give you $5.” Pop.

You can’t force a small town feel

Chris then goes on to discuss how how customer service is often banished to a cog position. That’s the part that stood out to me.

It seems that often when a company hears about someone doing something well (or right) in customer service they try to force that on everyone. Sure, you may have one great rep who uses a person’s name when they talk to them because it’s natural for them.

But, you see that work, so you want all of your reps to do the same thing…even if that’s not their natural personality. Now, I’m not saying that you should ignore it if an employee is rude, but you also have to let them bring some of themselves to the job if they’re going to be effective.

What is that company trying to do?

They’re trying to force a small town feel by making each customer feel special, like they’re known and recognized by the person they are dealing with.

That’s like small towns used to be. You’d go into a local store and people would know your name. They knew because they saw you all the time, probably got to know you and genuinely wanted to talk to you.

Can you manufacture that? Not really. You can fake it, but it’ll be pretty obvious. Especially if you make it obvious.

Don’t come out and say, “We really don’t care.”

The bigger issue that Chris raises is the fact that the way CVS handled the desire to manufacture that small town feel basically ended up saying, “We really don’t care about you.”

How?

Because rather than letting their employees interact, or even encouraging them to use the customer’s name more, they required it. Then, they told their customers that if the person representing their company didn’t care enough to engage with you, they would make it right by giving you five whole dollars.

They basically took their most important touchpoint – that interaction between their representative and a paying customer – and degraded it to be the equivalent of forgetting to give someone a receipt.

I think it’s great to have your employees to engage with customers more personably, but do it right.

Encourage them to engage.

Give them the freedom to truly engage with people. (Don’t say, “Sally, your call time is too long!”)

Make sure they understand why it’s important for them to engage.

Get out of their way and let them represent your company…that’s why you hired them.

Photo Credit: faceless b

I think that companies need to start seriously considering the concept of an “experience manager” as a real role in the company. Someone whose sole responsibility is making sure that every touchpoint that a customer or potential customer can have with a company is second to none.

Consumer expectations are often set by past experiences, and every interaction either meets those expectations or fails to meet them.

Meet them – business will grow.
Fail to meet them – good luck.

Experience will be the new differentiator

In the early days of social media, the companies that got all the attention were the ones that were actually being social. The companies that embraced the idea that their markets were already talking and opened themselves to being part of that conversation were the ones who got the attention.

As more companies “join the conversation” it becomes less likely that you’ll stand out by simply talking directly with your customers. More and more, people expect companies to speak with them directly. It’s not the excitement it once was so you won’t stand out as much by simply talking to your customers. The bar has been raised.

What will quickly become important is to take those learnings from social media, those same philosophies espoused by social media and apply them to every part of your business. This means making sure that you set expectations for every interaction with a customer and do absolutely everything you can to exceed them. You know that people are talking, so you need to make sure they have as much positive fodder as possible.

That’s where the experience manager comes in.

Every interaction builds or tears down your brand

Expectations of interactions with companies have changed…dramatically. This is nothing new.

It’s important to realize that with tools like social media, meeting those expectations is more important than ever.

Here’s a simple example.

I live in a small town.

I mean “one McDonald’s” small.

A couple years ago, they remodeled and added a second lane to the drive-thru (exciting stuff, I know). The other morning, I stopped for a coffee on my way to work. A car pulled in shortly before me and went in one lane. I pulled in the other lane, hoping to move along quickly.

The person taking orders took the other car’s order and they pulled up before anyone asked to take my order. That surprised me.

Is this a little impatient of me? Maybe.

Is this a little nit picky on my part? Absolutely.

The thing is, my first thought was, “If they’re only going to take one order at a time, why did they go to the expense of installing a second lane? They could have stuck with having one car go through at a time.

The small things are only going to get bigger

Will this one experience do anything to hurt McDonald’s? Of course not. My point is, the small interactions, the ones that no one gives a second thought to are the things that people are going to base their decisions on in the future.

The winners are going to be the companies and people for which no interaction is too small.

What is the smallest touchpoint that you have with your market? How can you make that so great that no one else can compete?

That’s going to be the key…very soon.

Lately, I’ve been thinking about the theory behind how and what people share on social networks.

Lots of people will say that the best tactic is to create content (preferably on your own site) and then share it everywhere that you are active (Twitter, Facebook, Google+, you name it). The idea is that when you are on so many different networks, you likely have different people following you on each site, so you want to make sure that everyone sees what you’ve posted.

Then, the other day, C.C. Chapman had a post that called out the people that complain about someone sharing “too much.” His contention is that he’s going to share as much as he wants, it’s up to his followers to filter what he shares if they think he’s sharing too much. Or, if they don’t like it, they don’t have to follow him.

Can someone share “too much?”

I agree that the onus is generally on the follower to filter what they want to see and, if they deem it to be too much, stop following. They need to set their threshold for how much they want to see and decide for themselves. I don’t think that people should filter or hold back what they share. If they have content that they want to share, they should share it. C.C.’s right, if you don’t like it, stop following.

The thing that’s been on my mind is how should people think about what they offer/do to their loyal followers?

Lots of times, people will create that piece of content and then promote it everywhere, in the effort to reach whoever may be following them on that site, just in case they’re different than other sites. So, their loyal followers – the people who want to hear from them the most – are exposed to the same message three or four (or more) times. That can get repetitive and overwhelming.

If social media is like “drinking from a fire hose,” this makes it like there’s four or five hoses pointed at you.

What’s the solution?

How do we combat this flood of information? How do we decide what to share where?

It is a real concern that people may follow you on Twitter but not Google+ and it’s certainly in your best interest to make sure that those people see your content. Until there is one “super network” (maybe Google TwitBook?) we will be faced with the problem of deciding what to share, where to share it and how to make sure you don’t overdo it.

Not only is it a challenge to decide where to share what, it’s also a lot of work to make sure you post everything everywhere.

This is one of the benefits that I see of Google+ and its concept of circles to help filter who you share with.

It’s also the benefit of tools like TweetDeck and HootSuite. By seeing all of your networks in one place, it’s much easier to identify the duplicate posts and narrow down those people that tend to post the same thing everywhere. Then, you’re able to choose which network to follow them on.

The real challenge

Until they come up with that super network, it’ll be about picking and choosing. Maybe it’s Facebook for personal and Google+ for business. That’s up to each person to decide for themselves.

It’s up to you to decide how much you want to share and who you want to cater to.

Do you want to make sure you get through to everyone everywhere? Do you want to tailor your sharing to your most loyal fans that follow you everywhere? That’s a decision everyone has to make, but it’s something that I think is becoming more and more important to think through as the number of networks continue to grow.

As social media continues to grow in the mainstream and bust out of the fishbowl, there are certainly growing pains.

One of those pains is what scared a lot of the early adopters. Their fear was that as more people became interested and involved in social media, they would try to cram their “square peg” practices of marketing and communication into the “round hole” of new media.

Mitch had a great post the other day that outlined this incredibly well. His assertion is that many people equate marketing with spam – and they’re not necessarily wrong to do so.

For years, marketing essentially was spam.

• A company would come up with what they wanted people to know/believe.
• Said company would push that message out everywhere they could.
• People would believe those messages because they didn’t get any other messages from anywhere else.
• Lather, rinse, repeat while ignoring any customer opinion because it really didn’t matter.

This analysis of the old way of doing things isn’t anything new.

Changes thanks to social media

In the early days of social media, this model changed and companies weren’t the only ones distributing messages.

Everyone talked to everyone else and branding came to be as much about what other people were saying as what the company was saying (if not more).

You could get the “real” story about a company from other consumers just like you without it being filtered through the company.

Companies get “hip” to social media

As companies saw the power of social media, some of them did it right. They joined the conversation by being a trusted, useful resource. They provided content that customers could use in decision making, or content that people just plain found interesting.

Those companies that did it right knew that if they gave enough useful information, people would seek it out and when they were ready to buy, they would work with the company that they had the best relationship with – the one that gave them the information they enjoyed.

Too many companies do it wrong

Unfortunately, as the adoption of social media has grown, so has the number of companies doing it wrong.

Too many companies have seen the growth of social media, read the news stories and decided they need to get involved. They pay lip service to the “social” part and figure they’re joining the conversation by running ads on social media sites.

This is just spam for the 21st century.

With great power comes great responsibility

Despite what many marketers seem to think, social media is not a “quick fix” to the problem of people ignoring their marketing messages more and more.

Social media is not just another channel, it’s a complete shift in thinking about what marketing is, as well as what business looks like. “Doing” social media means being a resource. It means offering information and products that people want, not just forcing what you want to give them down their throats.

It means bringing the same social skills that your mother taught you to the web.

The most important skill in marketing

I believe that the “skill” that is most important in marketing and business today is patience.

Social media can help a company nurture what they have longed for – loyal customers. But, it’s not that easy.

Social media means raising the standards of the content that you distribute to the level that potential customers want. It means eliminating the expectation that a customer or potential customer “owes” you anything because you gave them that great content.

More than anything, it means building a relationship and waiting for the other person to see the same value in that relationship that you do.

When they feel that value, and when they need what you offer, they will buy. Not before.

If you’re not giving them a message or content that they value, they’ll ignore you forever.

Worse yet, if you’re forcing a message on them that they haven’t asked for and don’t find relevant (which, like Mitch says, is spam), they’ll tell other people to ignore you.

But if you regularly give them useful information that they want, they’ll enjoy building the relationship for the long term. It just takes time.

So, hurry up and wait.

Image courtesy of scrapetv.com

So, I listened to episode 109 of Six Pixels of Separation recently when Mitch was discussing about keeping track of all the content we all consume

(editor’s note…if you’re not listening to Six Pixels, well, you’re missing out. Start NOW!)

I sent him an email asking how he does it and he just blogged it and tagged a bunch of other people to do the same.

The reason I asked him is that I struggle with this all the time. I bounce between so many systems to manage it all that I was hoping to find something I hadn’t tried. I know, not the best way to do it, but hey…they’re smarter than I am, so maybe I’d learn something!

One thing I got out of Mitch’s post and the subsequent comments is the part that having something to do with the information plays in the process.

What I mean is that so many of them say, “I mark things I want to blog like this…things I want to discuss like this…etc.”

Part of my problem is finding posts, articles and other info that I tag, star in Google Reader, note in Google Notebook, Evernote, etc. and it just sits there. The biggest change I need to make is to actually review the information and use it for something. Rather than letting it just take up storage space, I need to review it and apply it somewhere.

So, thanks Mitch for inspiring me to revisit this and hopefully make some adjustments to my processes!