If you've been keeping up with the Dachis group then you may already be familiar with some of the ideas I'm going to present concerning social business. In that case, this post aims to serve as a case study for you to reference. If you aren't familiar with the term social business, distinct from social media, this post should serve as an introduction.
Instead of focusing on using social media as a tool to broadcast marketing messages, social businesses seek to use social media as a connection between consumers and companies. Perhaps the most compelling reason to engage in this sort of business is that it simultaneously increases the number and depth of customer touch points, giving brands more frequent and deeper interaction with customers on an individual level. With that in mind, one of the most important tasks for a social business is to develop a corporate culture and a corresponding set of tools that will facilitate social involvement from everyone in the company, rather than from one or two individuals. Skipping past this crucial step has a tendency to create reoccurring problems and render the company's outward efforts less effective.
Helge Tenno is an agency friend at Screenplay. He writes a compelling blog called 180/360/720. Last week Helge published an in depth slideshow detailing his thoughts on the future of digital marketing. I thought it was interesting and was lucky to catch Helge online just before he left for vacation.
Introduction: What makes you tick? Where do you work?
• I believe I represent two things: the first is an extreme passion for combining knowledge and finding ideas in different places, then putting these ideas together in order to understand stuff in new ways. The second thing is that I always question the status quo or the accepted idea. If everyone else believes something is true, there is an even bigger reason to challenge it. We often fall into these cultural traps and are way more likely to accept the status quo, or even a flaming new thought, than challenge it.
• I am currently working as a Strategic Director and Digital Planner at an interactive communication agency called Screenplay in Norway. We are a small company working directly with media companies, media agencies and brands in order to make marketing a better place. This is exciting and challenging as Norway has one of the most advanced and innovative digital populations in Europe; however, at the same time our businesses and brands have one of the youngest marketing cultures and some of the most conservative approaches to technology and digital.
What is a fan? The wikipedia entry says:
A fan, aficionado, or supporter is someone who has an intense, occasionally overwhelming liking and enthusiasm for a sporting club, person (usually a celebrity), group of persons, company, product, activity, work of art, idea, or trend. Fans of a particular thing or person constitute its fanbase or fandom. They often show their enthusiasm by starting a fan club, holding fan conventions, creating fanzines, writing fan mail, or promoting the object of their interest and attention.
As Marshall McLuhan said, the medium is the message. Thus, to misuse the medium is to disrespect the fan.
There are two distinct ways to approach the world. You can be a hawk, or you can be dove. Doves seek friendship and try to find areas of common interests between disparate groups with competing goals. Hawks can do nothing but attack, and they are constantly looking for enemies that they can define themselves against.
In real life (or business) you have to be able to play both roles. Game theory has shown that the best approach is to always start by being a dove, and when possible parry off (or just ignore) slight attacks. The advantages you achieve by working together with those around you offset any small attacks you may incur by being so open. But, when truly attacked you have no choice but to turn into a hawk. So the best strategy is really a blended one. It's be a dove most of the time, and a hawk only when necessary.
So what does this have to do with interactive marketing? Simple. Imagine your company is being insulted by an aggrieved colleague somewhere online, how should you respond? Well according to game theory it's always best to start by being a dove. Reach out, parry off any insults and listen to their complaint. If it's something that can be resolved, it's always easier to resolve it than to argue.
But, what if that doesn't work? What if the person is so intrinsically angry that reasoning with them isn't an option. Well, then one has to assess the damage that's being incurred. Most people who are upset have very little credibility. Their anger impedes their ability to think rationally. And that's usually quite apparent in their rants. In those cases, it's better to ignore than to argue. But, sometimes you have to respond. In these cases it's usually best to shed as much light on the situation as possible. Does the person attacking have a personal vendetta that's motivating them (ex-employee, ex-vendor, or ex-wife?)? If so, you can undermine their credibility by providing proper context. People tend not to believe the complaints of people motivated by revenge. If they're not credible, then the story won't spread and the damage is contained.