Related articles by Zemanta
- Intriguing deck: Customer experience program KLM (via Fredzimny’s CCCCC’s) (fredzimny.wordpress.com)
2009 August 13
What are the marketing trends for 2010 and where does Social Media Figure in the mix? A report by Equation Research indicates some interesting trends that highlight that “Social Media” is certainly past being a fad and becoming mainstream.
The 5 Highlights
1. Current and Intended Social Media Use
When you break this down by company size, there seems to be a schism between Social Media use among small brands. Half (56%) of these smaller companies are currently pursuing Social Media tactics, yet almost a third (29%) are not planning any move into the Social Media space –small B2B in particular seem reluctant. Note: My experience in presenting proposals and interacting with different size companies seems to bear this out
The adoption of Social Media is well past critical mass –multiple published studies support this finding. While the quality of the implementations is difficult to assess, Social Media is now table-stakes. No business professional should be without a solid understanding of how this new world affects them.
2. Barriers To Using Social Media
This report seems to reflect similiar issues from another survey which I highlighted in a previous post “Survey Reveals: The Top 5 Social Media Channels Companies Are Using” where the survey conducted by Minneapolis-based Russell Herder and Ethos Business Law in July 2009 also mentioned very similiar barriers to using Social Media, with the two major barriers being
1. “We don’t know enough about social media to know where to begin” (Fear of the unknown and lack of knowledge) 37% of respondents
Note : This highlights an opportunity for social media consultants to educate and provide expertise
2. “There’s no established way to measure the effectiveness of social media (ROI)” 37% of those surveyed
For a more detailed list of the barriers for companies avoiding using social media see my recent post “28 Reasons Why The CEO Is Afraid Of Social Media”
3. Main Social Media Channels
Again the Top 5 are very similiar to those revealed in the survey conducted by Minneapolis-based Russell Herder
4. How are you measuring the effectiveness of your social media efforts?
5. How do you see this allocation (of Marketing dollars) changing in the next year?
This is where the report gets interesting where Social Media, Search Engine and OnLine Marketing take the top 3 positions in Marketing Trends for 2010 with traditional media, (such as TV and Print Media) taking a distinct back seat on Marketing growth trends.
Percentage of Companies saying that they would see a significant increase in spend in
Compare this to the percentage of companies saying they would significantly increase spending in traditional media.
So what did the report say were the implications of this distinct trend to Social Media and Online Marketing dollars being spent
Equation Research is a full service research execution and strategy firm working with an extensive list of Fortune 1000 clients including brands, advertising and PR agencies, other research firms and magazine publishers.
So what are your spending plans for Social Media in 2010?
One implication is that to boost speed, it is important to response to key staff right away. Because of the independence of value creation, this increases the effectiveness and efficiency at the organizational or project level. And maybe counterintuitive for you at a first glance: in my experience and opinion it also minimizes my own effort at a personal level over time.
If i get back back to people immediately, those who depend on me won’t absorb my time in other ways – including filling up my inbox, my voicemail, claiming my secretaries or booking (too-long) appointments, copying me on every possible e-mail, scheduling – boring – meetings just to et attention and trying to get me on board or committees to ensure meeting committment.
It was Tom Gilb in the eighties who once claimed “do not attend meetings”.
And from that perspective I acted (better and better supported by technology). I did this always in my belief that an Enterprise program that costs more than 50.000 Euro a day should be delayed by an employee who earns 50.000 Euro per year.David Allen‘s Getting Things Done pointed always to another direction. In spite of his recommendation I kept working with my practice. This post nuances the getting things done approach and focuses also on value creation.
Great to see how theory and operations can connect!
9:12 AM Thursday September 10, 2009 by Ron Ashkenas
I used to be amazed when I would watch my daughter at the computer terminal working on a high school paper, listening to music, eating a snack, and conducting simultaneous instant messaging conversations with a dozen friends around the world. Had her brain been re-wired by the constant use of technology so that she could concentrate on different activities and actually get things done; or should I worry that she was trying to do too many things at once?
Now a study from researchers at Stanford University suggests that
my concerns may have been well-founded. The study conclusions, reported in the Aug. 24 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, are unambiguous: “Multitaskers were just lousy at everything,” according to Clifford I. Nass, a professor of communication at Stanford and one of the study’s investigators. Despite starting the research on 100 college students with the hypothesis that multitaskers had some special abilities, the study found that multitaskers were actually quite ineffective at managing information, maintaining attention, and getting results. Compared to study participants who did things one task at a time, they were mediocre.While a single study of 100 students doesn’t prove anything definitively, it does reinforce what many of us have probably suspected – that trying to do too many things at once often means getting none of them done well.
In organizations however, the implication is much more pernicious because individual performance, for better or worse, is multiplied and amplified many times over. If dozens of people are reducing their effectiveness by multitasking, then the organization runs the risk of being tied up in knots.
Anyone who has been through a post-merger integration or a major systems implementation or a large-scale reorganization knows what I’m talking about. The success rate of big projects like these is around 30%. One of the reasons for this dismal track record is that well-meaning project managers try to cram everything in at once so that multiple work streams involving hundreds of people are simultaneously making changes in work processes, reporting relationships, technology usage and more – while everyone also attempts to keep going with their regular jobs. It’s an organizational version of multitasking, or multitasking on steroids. And just like individuals who (according to the Stanford study) reduce their effectiveness by multitasking, so do organizations. If it’s hard for one person to concentrate on a meeting while responding to blackberry messages while eating lunch, imagine what happens when you multiply the distractions by the thousands?
Before you turn in your Blackberry and refuse the next big organizational project however, let me suggest that the alternative to multitasking is not single-tasking. In this day and age, that would be too slow.
Rather the answer is to shift our mindsets from a focus on volume to a focus on value. Instead of checking off all the boxes and trying to get everything done, let’s identify those activities and initiatives that will truly add value. It’s OK not to do certain things, or to do them later. For example, in a recent merger, a team was debating whether to adopt Lotus Notes or Outlook as the standard email system. It’s an interesting discussion, but in the short term it’s not a value-creator for the combined company.We all have choices to make, as individuals and as managers of organizations. What can you do to make sure that those choices are based on value rather than volume?
Ron Ashkenas is a managing partner of Robert H. Schaffer & Associates, a Stamford, Connecticut consulting firm and the author of the forthcoming book Simply Effective: How to Cut Through Complexity in Your Organization and Get Things Done (Harvard Business Press, December, 2009).
On my quest for how to lead innovation projects this post drew my attention. Some essential points are mentioned by Stefan (and are by the way in line with Jim Collin’s recommendations from Good to Great).
I would also to include the external world into any innovation project, searching for members that do not have fixed ideas or are even not familiar with the item to be innovated.
Great to connect to and for constructing your innovation plans 2010
The chief thing you as an innovation leader must realize is that when it comes to making innovation happen, people matter more than ideas.
Take a moment to think about that. Many innovation initiatives fail miserably because their leaders don’t understand this simple fact. In fact, it is actually more important to have A-grade people than it is to have a slew of A-grade ideas because A-grade people can take a B-grade idea – or perhaps even a C-grade idea – and turn it into a successful reality. B-grade people, on the other hand, will struggle with even truly great ideas.
So before you get all fired up about generating a ton of ideas, first figure out how you’re going to match those ideas to people who can make things happen.
As you start this work, here’s another key point to remember: the skills needed to lead and manage a project within the existing core business – where innovation is likely to be incremental and resources plentiful – are significantly different from the skills needed to overcome the challenges and obstacles that greet almost any new business project – where resources may be hard to come by and the innovation involved may be significant or even radical. You need to staff new business projects with people having a mindset and toolbox that match this different challenge.
I recently coached teams working to create new business ideas with a big potential. The managers more or less thought this was business development as usual – as they usually do with core projects – and they did not understand the dynamics of such new business development or innovation projects. Their biggest mistake was that they attached people without passion for the specific challenge to the idea – you need people who have their heart and skin in the game when it comes to developing innovation projects, especially if it has some kind of radical or breakthrough potential.
You also need different people for the different phases of the innovation process. Just as some entrepreneurs are better at running a company at its very early stage and others are better at helping the business scale once the product is launched, so too are there intrapreneurs who are better suited both in terms of mindset and skills to various phases of the innovation process.
Once you accept the importance of finding not only the right ideas but also the right people – your company’s potential intrapreneurs – how do you identify these folks? A few possibilities – from the simple to the more complex – include:
1. Look around you
2. Internal business plan competition
3. Intrapreneur-in-residence program
Why not use this model to establish an intrapreneur-in-residence program within your company? This could be an adjunct to a business plan competition. Having identified people with intrapreneurial potential in the competition, you can assign them to the role of intrapreneur-in-residence for a set period of time. The key here is to define what role this individual would have; this should be based on what outcomes you’d like to achieve with such a program.
The approach is especially useful when companies work to develop a new platform of business activities that in the early beginning still consists of many small, early stage projects. You wait to see how this specifically talented intrapreneur should be brought into action and until you decide on a full-time executive role in one of the projects the intrapreneur consults on the many projects.
I hope you share my belief that people matter more than ideas. As a follow-up post to this, I will soon look into idea harvesting and filtering strategies and other techniques to make sure the ideas you generate are on target.
How Customer Support Organizations Must Evolve:
Companies need to stop treating support as lowly department to deal with customers problems, and start to advance their role.
Go Beyond the Official Support Domain
Some companies only support customers on ‘official’ requests such as calls to 1800 numbers or support tickets generated in help systems. The evolved support organization must go to where customers already are at, like in the social web to find, triage, and respond to customers. For example, Logitech was proactive in responding to my customer needs in Twitter –shifting the conversation to email and solving my problems. The many companies who have joined Get Satisfaction, conduct support on Twitter and Facebook are already demonstrating this value.
Become A Strategic Asset to Marketing
Outsourced support site Get Satifaction’s credo that “Support is Marketing” is spot on. As customers share their product experience with their trusted peers –they influence their network. Comcast’s Frank Eliason and his Comcastcares team as an indicator of a PR blessed support individual becoming a marketing asset. As a result, customer support experiences are indeed the scope of marketing. Perhaps the most trusted members of a company are not the VPs of marketing and their shiny blog, but the rough and tumble support technician who resonates and resembles a customer.
Influence Product Development
Customer touching groups have more insight to the needs of the market and must integrate with product development teams. For example, Intuit integrates community in their actual product –enhacing how customer voices influence their next-generation. Customer interactions should be recorded, prioritized and share with product teams who are designing the next generation of products.
Let Go and Allow Customers to Self-Support Each Other
In many cases, customers as a collective know more about the product set than a support team or product team do. Microsoft and other tech companies have developed a thriving community of customers that self-support each other in their developer forums. Companies struggle letting go of answering questions about products, but should instead use the right collaboration and knowledge capturing tools to allow customers to self support each other.
Become Proactive, Not Reactive
Support organizations must not only be responsive and wait for customer issues to go awry, but be proactive and head off issues before they become customer problems. Beyond companies forced to issue recalls, asking customers how their experience is going on a regular basis is key. Expect support organizations to develop advanced monitoring strategies and couple with CRM systems to instantly alert stakeholders of issues that can be corrected.
Anticipate, And Move Beyond Real-Time
Most companies already have 24/7 support organizations that can handle customer needs round-the-clock yet need to prepare for real time responses. Shuffling customers with issues (esp influencers) into a queue only amps frustration. The truly evolved support organization anticipates customer issues using proactive techniques mentioned above.
The path to the evolved state of support isn’t easy, to start with, companies should get started by:
Measure based on Value –Not as a Cost Center
Support organizations must not only measure based on customer sat, number of calls received and closed, but develop marketing and PR metrics. Measure on how many crises were diverted, new knowledge gleaned, and interactions in the open web.
Develop An Internal Marketing Plan
Get a seat at the table by demonstrating the strategic component of customer facing support efforts. Show marketing, product development, and leadership teams why your scope has increased –as should your internal influence.
Enhance Your Existing Processes
Put in processes that enable support in the real-time open web. You’ll need the right roles, processes, and tools to grow where your customers already are. Develop a triage system that integrates marketing’s efforts in social with your own internal processes to identify, triage, and react to customers.
Conduct Internal Training –and Fire Drills
New technologies require new processes, skills, and roles. Support organizations must train staff to learn new tools like mobile, social networks, and brand monitoring tools. Conduct internal “fire drills” and have contingency plans to avoid staying off this list.
Expand CRM and Customer Systems To Connect to Social Web
Customers are off the reservation, as should your systems. Learn to identify, prioritize, and capture customer interactions as they spread to social platforms and the to mobile.
Regular readers of this blog may be aware that I do not believe in the paradigm of true relationship between customers and organizations. I check the report mentioned. It was delivered in 2007. A long time ago before the crisis and its gigantic impact for the public and the customer morale. Anyway a good read because the point of views can contribute to creating your construct and context!
Sep. 09, 2009
By John I. Todor, Ph.D., The Whetstone Edge, LLC
Strong customer relationships are essential to a company’s ability to sustain profits and have a shot at growth. This was the clear finding of a worldwide study by the Economist Intelligence Unit. They found that 90% of senior executive concurred. Here’s the way they put it:
Low Trust Customer Relationships
Distrust of a company usually happens for one of two reasons. The first is the customer suspects or detects a one-sided agenda: the company is most interested in a sale and less interested in delivering what the customer needs or values.
Low trust in business, as is now generally the case, leads to suspicion which leads customers to adopt a one-sided agenda of their own. At best the relationship becomes competitive, at worst, adversarial. The classic example is the perception that a used car salesperson will say whatever it takes to sell a car. As a result, customers push hard for a lower price or other concessions.
Low trust contributes to closed mindedness—customers become immune to persuasion making it hard for a company to communicate effectively. This customer indifference has a serious consequence. Customers treat products like commodities bought on the best trade-off between price and convenience. There is no relationship, nothing to bring customers back to a particular business.
While many businesses believe they are the good guys and are worthy of customer trust, assuming customers believe the same thing is a big mistake. The general low trust in business tars everyone with the same brush. Companies can overcome this by deliberately shifted the focus of the relationship from their offering to the value customers get from using or consuming it. But customer must experience this. When they do, they are likely to become advocates.
Getting Started on the Journey
In the trust curve, there is a barrier between companies that are perceived to be focused on the sale and companies that are customer-centric. To get over the barrier the company must attract customers with a hopeful proposition: A proposition leads to a gratifying customer experience. I call this hopeful trust.
There are many online strategies that will attract a customer to a website or landing page. Some may even make a sale. But if they fail to accrue trust that convinces the customer that it is not a gimmick, it is a one shot event.
To get past hopeful trust companies must come through on a promise that is meaningful to the customer. They must also repeatedly engage with customers to demonstrate that the relationship has future value. Relationships build trust when customers believe the company will be there for them in the future. Trusting relationships simplify things in a fast-changing and increasingly complex world. With this kind of trust customers want the company to be around.
Does your company have a deliberate plan to develop this type of customer relationship?
My book, Addicted Customers: How to Get Them Hooked on Your Company spells out the psycho-economics principles that get customers engaged and lead to relationships customers value and reward with commitment and loyalty.
The Whetstone Edge, LLC, has applied the underlying psycho-economic principles to social media and customer relationships. Our framework enables someone to deliberately build in ways to build customer relationship rather than tactics that work temporarily and/or encourage customers to adopt a competitive or adversarial relationship.
If you are interested in learn how this psycho-economic framework can apply to social media, I suggest you consider my upcoming online course:
Building Customers Relationships and Advocacy with Social Media
This 3-session course is sponsored by the Social Media Academy. To register or for more details go to: Social Media Academy
As we are moving away from mere communication to real conversations in a business environment in which a control attitude is replaced by a collaborative urgence it is always good for front office managers to reflect on how CRM and social media are converging.
This great and extensive post from Esteban enables you to do so. Construct your mindset, connect and act!
Paul Greenberg put the stake in the ground by defining SCRM and said that we needed to grow if from there.
I agree. And it is in that spirit that I want to introduce this post. A little bit longer that most of my posts, but a way to start the conversation on what does SCRM look like once implemented.
In the first few generations of CRM we saw the basic three pillars (sales, marketing, and customer service), a common data model (probably the best innovation CRM provided to organizations), and common integration points to the existing systems in the organization: ERP, legacy, databases — even partner applications in occasions (look ma, no VAN!). The following picture is a basic representation of what CRM 1.0 looks like.
These implementations collected data across all functions in the front office, store it in a central location and use it. That data was all operational: who did what when, for how long, and what were the results. The promise of a “holistic customer representation” or “360 view of the customer” did not materialize since we were missing the most important item in the equation: what the customer wanted when they came to see us, why did they need that, and what was the result of the interaction. In other words, we had the content but we were missing the context and intent of those interactions.
Later we began to add “components” that complimented what we were missing. Created analytical CRM by adding analytics engines to it. Began to measure customer satisfaction via surveys and inserted that value into the customer records (not always). Became proactive by trying to get what we needed to make good decisions: context and intent. Products were enhanced, better integration added, and more powerful CRM solutions released.
CRM 2.0 was born, but not necessarily an improvement in the search for perfect customer knowledge. Despite collecting the information, and in some cases integrating it with the existing data, we could not mesh all the data, all the insights, and all the processes together. All our actions were reactive, and the customer was not directly involved as part of the decision-making: it was still company-centric in reality albeit the label of customer-centricity.
We began to include the customers perspective and we evolved more by adding EFM engines, predictive analytics (sales, marketing, and customer service), proactive customer service. We wanted to improve the relationship and get to work better with customers as we moved into CRM 3.0. There were some improvements in relationships – but the vast majority of the information we needed was still out of reach. Over 90% of customer feedback is in unstructured feedback: blogs, social networks, private conversations, chat and IM, emails and the like. Not being able to tap this data was limiting as to how much an organization could learn about their customers.
There were early attempts to explore this new world. Collaborative Customer Service (communities and forums), blog-trolling software with speech and tech analytics, different methods for feedback event beyond surveys (e.g. focus groups for customer service) were all attempts to collect and leverage this information. Some of them worked great, some of them not so much. Alas, the basic infrastructure for leveraging the information collected was still missing.
Enter the Groundswell revolution and the advent of Social Media into the enterprise. Organizations start to listen to customers. They acknowledge there is a lot of data about their business but don’t know how to find it or tap into it. We feel empowered by what we are discovering — but we still don’t have a framework to take advantage of this! The tools give some guidelines and insights as to how to proceed, but nothing really in the sense of strategy or what to do with it.
We are entering CRM 4.0 (amazing how Paul Greenberg’s book is also coming on version 4.0 — coincidence? I think not) and we need some guidance.
See the chart below for my proposed framework for SCRM:
A few things you will notice in this chart.
There is one more thing to talk about: the link between SCRM and Customer Experience. I believe this is where we will see the biggest improvement to organizations adopting SCRM.
Traditional Customer Experience Management relied on three components to do what it does: feedback management, business process management, and CRM . As we move forward into SCRM these components will change – as will the function of CE. See this next chart for a better idea of this change:
There are two things to note here. First, the number of components and simpler complexity of the architecture . By converting feedback management into the fourth pillar of CRM and taking some of the interactions between components as internal functions of SCRM the model has fewer “moving parts”. This is good from the point of view of implementing simpler solutions and initiatives for customer experience.
The second item to note is that Customer Experience Management has morphed into Social Customer Engagement. As customers discover how to converse with vendors better, and how to work directly within the “grid”, the term management is being replaced by the term engagement. In addition, we see more and more customers gravitate towards communities of one type or another – and while we continue to deal with customers one-on-one, we cannot ignore the influence they receive and the trust they place in it.
More on this shift in Customer Experience in future posts. Just wanted to introduce the concept.
Finally, an acknowledgment. As I was shopping these slides and concepts around I got to talk to Prem Kumar (@prem_k in the #scrm Twitter community). While exchanging ideas and concepts, he pointed me to his slideshare presentation on SCRM. He has a lot of the same concepts with more detail and more technically inclined. Unfortunately I had not see it before, or I would not have done the work I did.
I encourage you to take a look at his presentation for a better idea of how SCRM will grow.
OK, I am done now. Let’s open the floodgates of criticism and praise.
What do you think? What did I miss? What didn’t i miss? Any way you would do it better or different? Please let me know. Leave me a comment and tell me what you think is needed to move this to the next level – or what are we going to continue to support as we move forward.__________________