Community building: principles of mass collaboration

A recent post by Beth Harte: "Organic vs Inorganic Communities" looked at the characteristics of top down groups created for a specific reason - such as promoting a brand - and those that evolve organically around the interests of their participants. In my last blog post, I grappled with the question of how to create a community that allows a brand to promote itself effectively. Beth's post was very timely in this respect, not only in its helpful classification, but in highlighting that people know then they're "in a controlled and constructed environment".

This set me thinking about one of the case studies in Tapscott and Williams' "Wikinomics". In it they describe how IBM joined the open source community. A great example of how a major corporate brand entered into and built trust and credibility in a collaborative environment. IBM made a significant investment in integrating its activities within this organic community - ultimately to its substantial financial benefit.

By studying this example and several others the authors identified a number of "principles of mass collaboration". I've replicated these below and consider their relevance in the context of effective community building.

1. Take cues from your lead users - these are your opinion formers that others will follow. However, in the same way as listening to your customers is a good thing the art is in assessing these cues and seamlessly integrating with your business strategy (rather than being led down unprofitable paths).


2. Build critical mass - successful communities have a core group of participants that contribute their energies and enthusiasm to keep it motoring. This contribution of social capital creates the momentum that draws others in.


3. Supply an infrastructure for collaboration - there is plenty of infrastructure in social media whether it be Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter or others. The decision is really in selecting the appropriate platforms to participate on.


4. Take time to get structures and governance right - in Wikinomics this is written in the context of managing intellectual property, investment of resource, etc. However, the governance part is particularly important in the community context.


5. Make sure all participants can harvest some value - this is interesting the context of social networks comprising professionals. There will be partipants with non-commercial objectives (e.g. there to learn, develop their professional standing) and others that are looking to pick up business. Unresolvable tensions could evolve between these participants.


6. Abide by community norms and create conditions for trust - understanding these norms and thinking about ways in which you can genuinely add value to the community builds trust.


7. Let the process evolve - this highlights the fact that it is very difficult to engineer a community. Back to the point that people know when the're in a constructed environment.


8. Don't lose sight of your business objectives - these should probably be carved on the frame of your computer screen.


9. Collaboration starts internally - creating vibrant and multiway collaboration within organisations is good practice before heading outside the walls of the enterprise.


10. Finding internal leadership for change - even the most innovative of organisations can be very conservative when it comes to breaking down barriers between themselves and the outside world. "Are we going to lose our competitive advantage by disclosing our thoughts to the outside world?" will be a typical questions for many executives.


11. Hone your collaborative mind - this may mean shutting off the "compete at all costs" mindset to work for the common good. For brands that have historically operated on a "command and control" basis this can be a significant shift.

In summarising these points it's notable that a number of them are worthy of expansion and further discussion. What do people think?

Obama: the real change - from sales to delivery

Much has been made of the marketing force that was the Obama campaign. Reaching out to and energising new audiences. Effective utilisation of new and multiple social media channels. Trigger marketing (or at least creating the perception of responsiveness) but all the time tirelessly pushing the core message of change.

Within any business, a considerable investment is made in ensuring that the marketing messages concord with customer experience. The handover from sales to delivery is optimised to be efficient and delight the client. However, the new president's room for manoeuvre to implement his key promise - change - will be very restricted. Being long on rhetoric and big on charisma will not provide the answers needed on the economy, security and international affairs. Will the inevitable dissonance that arises as a result of the difference between promise and reality be as expertly managed as the campaign?

Experience from the UK suggests there may be no reason to worry. The 1997 New Labour landslide was delivered on the back of a change message. The 11 years since has shown that apart from a propensity to waste massive quantities of voters' cash very little has changed. We still have lack of leadership, sleaze, poor decision-making and lack of imagination in abundance. Voters become inured to lack of delivery on promises. Perhaps because Obama is who he is that's enough change for the electorate anyhow.

One has to hope that the abovementioned campaign approach of rhetoric, charisma and lack of policy detail isn't taken on board by the UK Tories as a winning formula. Cameron has been excelling for some time with the latter factor (and let's not forget that new UK governments don't get a several weeks handover period) but to the extent that the second (charisma) is to a large extent required to carry off the first, they wouldn't have a hope.

The electoral college system means that, despite the fact that nearly 47% of voters plumped for McCain, Obama achieved a sweeping victory. The UK doesn't have a gearing system like the electoral colleges that amplifies differences; however, the first-past-the-post system means that usually the majority of the electorate is disenfranchised when it comes to installing a government. It's an imperfect system but presumably the knowledge that we get an opportunity to boot them out a few years down the line and the immutable law that every action has a reaction (viz. the rise of Newt Gingrich in response to the first 2 years of Clinton liberalism) is enough to sustain the disenfranchised through those years of pain.

Initial thoughts on what the new regime will mean for our industry. As far as biopharma is concerned in Obamadom, the industry can look to increasing cost controls with expensive biotech drugs in the firing line whilst a greater role for generics and general price controls can be expected. DTC (direct-to-consumer) advertising is also likely to feel the heat with greater regulation. Pharma donated approximately $10m to the Obama campaign.