Do you need a brand strategy on the social web ?

Summary : the presence of brands on the internet is a major concern for businesses entering the social web. But there’s a big difference between thinking and definining oneself as a brand and an ogranization. A brand is the expression of an identity while the organization is rather an action driven approach to customer service. Both should come together but, unfortunately, the social channel is often owned by the people in charge of one of these two approaches at the cost of the other. As recent surveus show, customers, even if they appreciate appearances, often prefer to value the execution of the promise. It’s time for organization approaches to replace brand strategues on the web.

Every time a new platform or service is launched on the web, the first question that comes is “how to make brands exist there.”. From a personal standpoint, as an internaut, I find it exasperating. I don’t want to rub shoulders with a brand or to become “friend” with it, most of all when it corrupts the system. You may retort me that I sometimes interact with brands and appreciate it. In fact I appreciate these interactions as long as it helps me to satisfy one of my needs. According to what I see, the more a business acts like an organization and less as a brand the more it succeeds at satisfying my needs. And, according to reports I mentioned in a previous post, it seems that I’m not the only one who thinks this way.
What is the difference between a brand and an organization ? And what are the deep consequences of the differences between a brand oriented approach and an organization oriented one ?

A brand is a matter of identity. “This is who /what I am, what I embody, my image”. Having a brand strategy is unavoidable when we see how much time we’re spending online and to what extent our online experiences impact our lives and decisions. Brands have to be known, have to let people discover and know them better, deliver a message that’s better understood when carried by conversations instead of declaration. So, having an online brand strategy is vital. But not enough. The post I mentioned above clearly shows that internauts, contrary to received ideas, don’t value neither social conversations with brands nor being part of a brand community. They want concrete and operational outputs.

For instance, let’s consider a clothing business. It can hire a kind of muse that will embody and carry the brand, make people buy its products. But if the product has a poor quality or when it need some cleaning, I not sure that asking the muse will be of any help. Not because the muse won’t want to help, but only because it’s not her job.

Another example. Everybody knows that I appreciate KLM a lot. Of course, they have a very good brand strategy but this is not the reason why I began to watch them and pay attention to what they were doing. It all started because of their effective organization strategy that once turned what could have a nightmare into a nice travel experience. Without excellence in customer service, brand strategy has little value and may even be counterproductive.

[Read more...]

Sorry but I’m not a member of your community

Summary : considering that one’s audience on the web is a community and treating it as such is more and more common. Is it always relevant ? In many cases the structure of the audience is very complex and can’t be reduced to a community approach. Most of time, communities are used to address individual issues, leverage a membership feeling that does not exist and, at the end, have a result that’s the opposite of what was expected and cause misunderstandings between brands and their audience….that’s seldom a community.

I notice that more and more enterprises, both on the web or by email, are now talking to me saying “dear community member” or “dear community”. I would not want to look asocial or be seen as an anti-community rebel, but it’s really starting to get on my nerves.

There are two reasons to that. First, I’ve seldom the impression to be a part of any community (at least those that think I am. I’m interested in what they do (for many kind of purposes…), period. But that’s not a important issue. In fact there’s worse : words have meanings and consequences. A community is something, a customer group is something else and an audience segmentation is a third thing. I don’t even mention isolated customers… The way one quality whom he addresses decided on the way they’ll be treated. In brief, by considering their whole ecosystem as a community, brands are making mistakes that may explain why they can’t get the most out of their approaches.

In my opinion, a community is characterized by a certain number of things, among them a shared interest toward something (ties between members and topic) and the will to operate together (ties between people). I’m sorry to tell that that’s not because your actual or potential customers follow you on twitter or self-declare as fans on Facebook that they are a community. The reason ? Most of times they have nothing to do the one with the other. That’s why, within communities, businesses can rely on a couple of passionate activists, the rest forming an inert mass.

In some cases, the group can turn into a community for a short time. For instance, when the majority of its members face the same issue and they get organized to fix it or weight enough on the enterprise so it will fix it. In this case, what made the transformation possible is the failure of the organization.To quote someone I heard earlier this year : “are all the people that go to the theatre to watch the same movie a community ? No. It’s rather a heap”. I’d add that if they don’t loke the movie or if it’s interrupted at the middle of the show, we may witness the formating of a  temporary but very actual community of those who want a refund.

That’s all as for ties between members. But the tie between members and the topic can be discussed too. Are communities brand-centric ? Not that sure…

[Read more...]

E-reputation needs ethics

Facing the incrreasing importance of social medias, enterprises have to manage their reputation fields and on a scale that are really new to them. They can either do it by themselves or hire external professionals who’ll put use knowledge and expertise of this new market to help businesses. There’s nothing really ne here.

But some promises are made to novice enterprises often leave me doubtful.

• “Eliminate negative contents”

I’d like to know how such a miracle can be made. Of course, if any content is defamatory and is a clear attempt to harm a company’s reputation, it’s a legal issue and the old good recipes may apply. But what to do with it’s an argued publication, relying on tangible facts ? Discuss, explain, negociate ? Why not, and it may work. But there is no way to promise the content will be deleted when it’s not reprehensible on a legal point of view. Maybe some think of threats and pressure, what is the best means to get the opposite of what’s expected and is the evidence of a lack of ethics if such means are used without telling the enterprise how the promised results would be pursued.

• “Generation of positive contents”

If negative contents can’t be eliminated, diluting them in an ocean of positive contents may be a good option. So, why not, provided things remain objective. But the danger of attempting to distort the reality is actual. I recently heard an employer brand director saying that businesses have to be cautious and not oversell there message if they want to avoid viloent backfires. But what to do if a clients asks his service provider to insolently lie ? Tell him that he should use criticizes to improve his product that if their client or their company sucks, social media won’t fix it ? Or say “Sir yes Sir !” ? I know many people that can have the first discourse but I’m also worried that many may choose the second.

Let’s be clear : disguising reality to show the best possible image does not bother me at all : that’s call advertisement. On the other hand, when these methods are applied to things such as reputation, where trust and transparency matter, that’s nothing but theft. Any professional who forgets to explain that to its clients commits a professional fault, nothing ing less.

Anyway, when advertisement and reputation are confused and the methods of the first applied to the second, the price is often high for the customer. Businesses have to do both but  should also avoid confusion.

Communication, e-réputation, marque, marque-employeur, medias sociaux, publicité

This is the world we live in

This is the nth update of a famous series I’ve already blogged the previous pieces before. No need to add anything. (Found thanks to Luis Suarez).

I’m still curious to know how “common people” react to this video.

One last thing. Luis draws the word “socialnomics” out the video. This words seems very relevant to describe the ecomic and societal context that is ours today. A meaningful replacement for the faded and meaningless “2.0″  ?

From the 5 eras of social web to transforming organizations

I had the chance to meet up with Jeremiah Owyang during his last coming in Paris. He presented us his report on the the future of social web. An interesting discussion followed, then we came to have a drink and carried on.

One thing I used to sense and which was confirmed is the specificity of european and especially french people according about privacy issues. Jeremiah launched the discussion on his blog, feel free to participate. Generally speaking, and I had the opportunity to discuss it many times whith German Friends, it’s obvious that social media adoption is a lot about cultural issues. Local culture on the web, both corporate and local culture within companies even if, considering enterprises, the fact people have to achieve things together, things they are assessed on, may help to unlock the cultural barrier. Language matters too. It’s an issue I’ll tackle in a later post, I just need to throw myself into Geert Hofstede‘s work again for what’s about internal issues. Common sense being enough to explain external ones.

During the presentation, Thierry De Baillon was quicker than me and asked : “the” question : how can these “5 eras” apply to organizations. Jeremiah answered that the model was only about the outside. We got deeper into this point later in the evening.

Jeremiah’s words makes a lot of sense : his work is about of internauts, consumers will behave and businesses have to understand that in order to adapt and not to lose their market. Let me add another point : in order to follow their customers and adopt appropriate strategies toward the outside, businesses will also have to change internally, for many reasons :

• efficiency : it’s impossible to have the needed culture, the vision and implement projects that will be successfull externally if they contradict what the company is, the way the work is done. There will be a moment when the elastic will break, when employees won’t be able to meet customers’ expectations anymore.

• credibility : it’s harder and harder to keep things secret, to make enterprises walled gardens. It’s impossible to be engaged in social dynamics with the market and, at the same time, to have internal practices that isolate people, refuse to accept everyone’s specificities. The only fact the market will learn, understand, how the company operates, to what extent organization and management are not aligned with the marketing promise, will ruin all the undertaken efforts. Would you hire a torturer as a babysitter ? QED. I’ll also add that the impact on employees would be very negative. They surely won’t accept to be less considered than clients, or to be accomplices of a masquerade. Bad for engagement and motivation.

• socilogy : future employees are also players of this under construction social web when the walk through the office’s door. No suprise that they will try to bring their usages inside the company.

In short, businesses will have to adapt to the reality of social web. Articulate with it. The challenge : avoiding to lose their clients and demotivate their employees. This makes me feeling like thinking more about this articulation, about what could be the “5 eras of the social enterprise”. What could they be, in your opinion ?

Thanks to Gil Yehuda for providing me with these few tips to help me getting started.

Personal Branding won’t go without Corporate Branding

Personal Branding is a very fashionable topic today. More than that, it’s a deep trend that is overdiscussed because of its yougness. A day will come that it will be so obvious that no-one will feel like arguing anymore. The purpose is to manage one’s reputation and professional brand in order to :

- those who are looking for informations about someone find what’s needed to assess his skills, his ability to do hold a defined job.

- this person appears as the “right person” when recruiters are looking for a defined profile without having any name in mind.

This may also help freelances to find missions but let’s admit it’s more about an applicant to recruiter relationship.

Being one of those who think that a good recruitement is more about bringing together people and companies who really fit the one with the other instead of making a selection, I think that the other side of the relation has to be improved too : the one that helps applicants to have a better undertanding of the company. Recruitment is like waltz or rock n’roll : you’ll never dance very long if you don’t get the right partner.

The current crisis that makes  so many people look for any kind of job musn’t make us forget major issues that will happen in the future.

[Read more...]