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?

Using Social Media to Build Brand Awareness

One of my current marketing objectives is building brand awareness. This to make sure that folks in our target markets know to turn to us when they have a problem we can present a relevant solution to. Social networking sites offer a means to achieving this. There are a lot of channels but to get going the basic starting points are:

1. Find and join existing groups with interests related to our subject area
2. Add value to these by following discussions and blogs and actively commenting on them.

The natural progression from this, assuming I want to create a focus around my own particular subject area and build more visibility, would to start my own group(s). To make such a group credible and attractive then it must:

1. Incorporate powerful value-added content to build respect and credibility (not just be more top 10 lists for success!)
2. Have liquidity: in other words, there must be enough participants with enough goodwill to want to contribute their time and knowledge to the community
3. Be open with a willingness to take the good hits with the bad (but have a “listen and respond” strategy for dealing with the latter)
4. Have balance and not be perceived as a promotional tool for my products or services.

Experience shows that folks are willing to take a pinch of promotion with a main meal of value-adding content but any over-seasoning and the whole lot goes in the bin.

So here’s to my question, assuming I don’t want to brazenly promote my brand but do want to associate it with thought leadership, in creating my new community do I give it:

1. My existing (company) identity
2. A distinct but related sub-identity
3. A de novo identity
4. None of the above?

A community of individuals is a living, breathing thing that moves and shifts with time. It creates its own identity – its own brand based on its values. Arguably, therefore it shouldn’t (or even can't) have one imposed on it. On the other hand, there has to be some sort of identity for people to aggregate around in the first place. What's more, we all like to attach to certain identities – as long as it helps to take us to where we want to be.

The sequence of events in catalysing a community could therefore be:

1. Give it a label
2. Seed the community with quality content
3. Invite in proactive participants with relevant interests
4. The community builds its own values
5. The values in 4 become inextricably linked with the initial label.

If enough of a buzz is created around the first few steps then the bees should be attracted to the pot (or do bees just go to flowers and wasps and flies go to pots?).

Of course, there's no reason why web-based social networks should be any different from face-to-face ones in all of this. The National Slugwatchers Association might have an annual Slugfest meet and an online Slugfest community. Slime-All, a marketer of slug-related products, would want to be a participant in these communities.

So, before we get any more insecty (okay, slugs aren't insects), what are the experiences of B2B brands in this area? Am I being too obsessed with the whole branding of the community when the focus should really be on the value of the community itself? After all, we're all given names at birth but all the evidence is that it's our parents and peers and not our names that affect what we become (read Freakonomics Chapter 6 for the gen on this).

Please leave your comments so we can develop this dialogue. Cheers!

The Mystery of the Marketing-Resistant CEO

Over on the Marketing Misfit blog Mayra Ruiz highlights the case of the marketing-resistant CEO. Whilst this mindset may be a real mystery to many marketers it is a very common one and not just in the small owner/operator type business. What it demonstrates is the need for marketing to market itself effectively and clearly communicate the value it creates for the business. I've noted a few of my own thoughts on this below.

Customer-relevant brand positioning
For a company that is marketing software it would seem a tragedy to discard the opportunity offered by web 2.0 tools. They could be used to support a company's positioning as dynamic, innovative, tech-savvy and responsive. All attributes that most customers would value in a software vendor.

Show the money
This also demonstrates the importance of being able to demonstrate return on investment. I suspect the sales cycle here is relatively long so this is something that is very difficult to show in the short term. Referencabillity is key here - showing results from similar businesses or ones that the CEO relates to and respects would help.

Peer-to-peer
With all due respect to the marketing manager there seems to be an issue with the CEO accepting his position. They agree in the meeting but the next day the CEO's mind is changed. Get the CEO talking to the CEO of another client - they speak the same language and identify with the same issues. You never know, they might even get some business out of it.

Write a 3 minute guide
Does the CEO really understand what web 2.0 is really about? Let's face it, there are still plenty of marketing professionals out there that haven't taken the plunge. As has been pointed out elsewhere, up to now, the social media "market" has been characterised by hype and fragmentation. This doesn't present a clear picture to your average business person. A "3 minute guide to social media" to give non-marketing execs a snapshot of what's going on would be worthwhile.

Understand the plan
This story is not just about investment in web 2.0. The CEO is resistant to investing in marketing and sales. We need to get under the skin of the company's business plan here - are they targeting new business, existing customers? Clearly new business won't come without the investment and over time revenues from existing relationships are also likely to decline. Marketing investment needs to be integrated with the business plan and the links between that investment and cash generation shown. If the investment's taken away, show the impact on revenues.

Implement incrementally
Implement new channels incrementally rather than going for a big bang/all-or-nothing approach. Starting with a blog requires little or no cash outlay. The results from this will then support further investment decisions.

Brand building
If the CEO's involved in sales he will know the difference between calling a prospect that's never heard of his company and one that has. This should convince him that investing in brand awareness is worthwhile. Awareness builds trust and a desire to learn more if the brand is relevant to the prospect's business.

In summary, as in all marketing, the currency is relevancy. The customer here is the CEO and there is a need to understand his drivers and deliver messages that are relevant. For many, particluarly in smaller businesses in the current environment, immediacy and tangibility are key.

B2B marketing: catching the social media wave

Some recent opinion has posited that we as a profession (in B2B marketing at least) are being slow to adopt new social media channels. The inference is that we should do away with the tried and trusted and dive headlong into the deep, rewarding azure of social media.

For those of us that have been around a few (but actually not that many) years this is disconcertingly similar to the technology bubble of just under ten years ago. A very fragmented market, loads of hype, lots of confusion, a new dotcom pitching up every day. No one really knew where to put their money but there was loads of it so it got sprayed pretty much everywhere. With a highly inefficient allocation of capital many of these investments vaporised.

Arguably, however, social media has now entered a stabilised phase. There are a number of well established platforms and models. Until very recently this wasn’t the case and many marketers could be forgiven for sitting back and waiting for the froth to come off the market. With limited marketing budgets only so much can be devoted to the new and untested.

Some commentators have gone as far as to say you don’t need an ROI for social media. Again, this is reminiscent of the dotcom days when otherwise serious people were running around asking questions like: “What’s your business model?” as if the "old" rules didn't apply. Michael Porter struck a chord with me at the time when he sagely observed (and I’m paraphrasing) – there is only one business model: you buy something and then sell it for more than you bought it for. The questions for marketers now shouldn’t be: “What social media channels are you using?” but “Which channels deliver the most valuable dialogue with your customers?” The latter may or may not include social media sites.

Anyways, all this is sounding a little on the negative side. It shouldn’t sound do so because I’m a big fan. Why else would I be sitting here blogging when I should be tucked up in bed? No marketing professional would resist new channels if they are demonstrated to generate a return. To target them, marketers need to find out where on the web their customers are aggregating; how they can then engage with them effectively whilst still promoting true (and revealing) dialogue and have a strategy to deal with the results of that dialogue – both negative and positive. All this must be done in a measurable way whilst integrating with existing channels.

The good news is that this is an exciting time to be a marketer. There is a tsunami of new and innervating stuff out there for us to get to grips with. Amongst all this it’s also important not to forget the basics of brand building programs – the requirements for:

• Access to multiple media
• Integrated communications
• Measurement of results.

Finally, returning to the issue of speed of adoption of social media channels by B2B marketers it’s worth looking at the classic Rogers’ adoption curve. With just under a third of B2B marketers using blogs that puts us firmly in "early majority" territory. This may mean that we have some way to go to achieve truly community-focused marketing but think about the rate of diffusion of previous innovations (e.g. telephone, PC, internet) in the business environment and you might say we’re not doing too bad.

Biotech's week: of sells and cells

There's been more news and views this week on how biotech is weathering the financial storm. It's only a matter of a couple of weeks since analysts were telling the Wall Street Journal that the sector was a safe haven in a stormy market. That picture is now looking distinctly out of kilter with reality. Admittedly, at the time it didn't seem to chime with what was going on around the industry.

At the start of the year life sciences was on a bit of a roll but by the summer it was obvious that the economy was catching up with it. With biotech being seen as the riskiest area in life sciences (e.g. long investment timescales for drug development compared to areas like diagnostics and medical devices) it's perhaps not surprising that it's being hit hard.

A report this week from Burrill and Company said that in October biotech had one of its worst months on record. It states ominously that market meltdown "will continue to affect for the foreseeable future the flow of much needed capital into the sector." As we have seen and noted elsewhere this is likely to result in tightening on costs (release of staff and less investment in R&D) with some companies being forced to sell out at less than favourable prices.

On a positive front, my erstwhile state of Michigan has joined its more progressive peers by passing Proposal 2 on Tuesday. According to the Detroit Free Press MI voters approved the embryonic stem cell research measure by 52% to 48% against. Opposition groups including the Michigan Catholic Conference and Right to Life of Michigan funded scare-mongering ads showing images of humans with hooves instead of hands. Proposal 2 amends the state's constitution to allow MI researchers to use embryos surplus to fertility treatment requirements to be used as a source for embryonic stem cells in disease research. Proponents say that the capacity for ESCs to form almost any cell in the body provides untold potential for curing disease. Michigan can now compete and attract investment and talent in this important area.

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.

Market for mammoths

On a non-election day the news that scientists had managed to create viable mouse clones from frozen cells would no doubt have created a frenzy of media teeth-gnashing and dire warnings from the "Thought for the Day" slot. As it was, it still got a good deal of coverage - my favourite being the Daily Mail headline: "Cloning from the grave".

The story was a classic in how the media manages to mis-cover technology issues through a combination of glossing over the detail and headline-generating hyperbole. A mouse has been cloned from 16 year old DNA - next step the mammoth!

First of all, we need to start from the premise that the story is hard fact. Here a degree of caution should be exercised - it's not so long since a certain Dr Hwang's career went south (South Career!) due to false claims of human cloning. The present work was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences a second tier journal (usually where Science/Nature/Cell rejects end up) and one that relies on an old boys' network where papers submitted for publication are "sponsored" by members. Reproducibility is key: the work needs to be reproduced in other laboratories to verify it.

It would be a giant leap, in all senses of the term, to go from mouse to mammoth. For a start, any mammoth DNA will have spent the first few thousand years of its preservation in uncontrolled conditions. Even if the DNA is viable what current species would be the surrogate? It could hardly be shoved in a mouse - yes, we've seen human ears growing on mice but a mouse pregnant with a mammoth? I guess the nearest equivalent would be the elephant but they hardly lend themselves to the industrial reproducibility that would be required to achieve this. Finally, on the subject of our tusked, furry friends; what is the market for mammoths anyway? They would hardly make convenient pets unless you live on an iceberg. Given the latter are fast disappearing would probably require a large walk-in freezer to maintain them at a temperature at which they might be comfortable. Or perhaps Kubla Khan's vision: "A sunny pleasure-dome with caves of ice" anticipated this?

The media today also encouraged us to contemplate cloning ourselves from frozen bits. Apart from that rather exclusive segment occupied by the James Bond-style villain (Ernst Stavro Clonfeld perhaps?), again, what is the market for this? Anyone with an ambition to spread their DNA around the gene pool can do this by standard reproduction. Okay, you get diluted by 50% but at least the process is enjoyable.