Thanks for stopping by! Hey, why don't you do what all the cool kids are doing and subscribe to my RSS feed? You know you want to, so go ahead, be bad, be very very bad... :) Thanks.
I think one of the biggest challenges that companies both large and small are wrestling with at the moment is how to better engage with their customers. I think for many companies they are beginning to realize that the old stick your head in the sand and hope it goes away technique is just not working out and even more importantly, I think they are realizing that discussions and conversations are going to be taking place online about their company, products and services whether they get involved or not. Now that many are coming to this realization, the question is how do they go about engaging these online conversations while of course still protecting their brand and company?
At one time, I was under the belief that many of these companies don’t get involved out of pure apathy and lack of understanding. There might be companies out there that this is true, but as I have been working with larger and more established companies over the last couple of years, I have begun to realize that there are many other more complicated reasons on why companies are not engaging more with their customers online.
One of the issues that I have recently seen first hand take place is the risks that specifically larger companies take when engaging with people online whether it be in blogs, discussion boards or social networks. Unfortunately, we live in a litigious world which in layman’s terms means that you can be sued by anyone for absolutely nothing. And even though many of these suits are baseless and eventually thrown out of court, it still costs companies a great deal of money defending themselves from these lawsuits. I was having a discussion with a client of mine and he said something that stuck with me in regard to getting involved with these online conversations happening about his company.
He said, “There have been so many times that I have read something that I dearly wanted to respond to, but before I do, I need to weigh how much it will cost my company if someone sues us based on what we say compared to the any type of reward our company would receive from posting a response.”
It’s an interesting issue, one with many different facets to it.
So I have been a bit lacking lately when it comes to my posts as well as me responding to other people’s comments. I apologize for that and am absolutely going to try to do better. I thought I would start off the week with a question where hopefully can stir some great thoughts and debates.
I am doing a speech in front of the Charlotte chapter of the American Marketing Association on October 10th and I thought I would get your input and ideas as I put together what I want to say for my presentation. If you are in the area, please feel free to attend, I would love to see you.
So here’s the question. Is it a good thing for companies to try to engage their customers online? Does the good outweigh the possible repercussions that could come from it? And finally what are some of your ideas on how companies can engage online with their customers?
Popularity: 3% [?]
Technorati Tags: engage with their customers, online conversations
Great questions.
I guess I am having a probelm with the phrase “engage online”.
Are companies thinking they have to respond to customer’s comments? Why not let it be known that something such as a blog is content provided to help drop the veil between the customer and the company. What if a company provided information, watched the comments, and, without responding to a specific comment, responded in a general way. If the company is noticing a common theme among customer comments, maybe then they would respond to the overall theme instead of an individual…if they felt the need to respond at all.
So maybe a company doesn’t engage each customer, but maybe they create new ways of presenting old information online. I like the idea of using video to answer FAQs instead of just writing out the answer and question. An e-newsletter is another way to provide information to a customer on a regular basis. Overall, I like the idea of using video to personalize the information a company provides a customer. Google Analytics uses video extensively to help show their customers how to use Google Analytics (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=7A545E796C2CFA72). Does this help or am I way off base?
Good luck on the presentation. Are you going to video the presentation and post in on your blog?
Scott
Scott,
Thanks for the comment. I don’t think you are off base and I think your question is a good one. That is definitely one of the questions at hand. Not only do you respond to conversations happening online, but how you actually do it?
To answer your question with my own personal opinion, I think that in some cases posting information on the companies’ web site in responses to discussions that are happening online does not always work, because the people are not necessarily going to the companies’ web site.
I think the challenge is if someone posts a comment or a blog post on a very popular web site that is incorrect or even just totally made up, how does that company respond? They can put a release out on their own web site, but how many people are going to read it compared to HUGE amount of people who are reading the incorrect information on the popular web site.
So it is not only a question of if you respond, but how you respond.
Let me know if that makes sense to you and what your thoughts are.
Finally, I had not thought of video taping me and posting it here, but maybe I will, thanks for the suggestions.
OK…I’m with you now. But I’m not sure I have an answer now. It will be interesting to see what others have to say. I’m definitely going to be taking notes on this discussion.
Cord: To me, companies engaging their customers online is like parents talking to their kids about sex: your kids are going to talk about sex with someone at some point in time. It is best if that ’someone’ is you, and ideally you FIRST.
The fact is customers are going to talk about your company and product online now more than ever before. The question is do you want to know about it and try to learn from it?
Krista,
I agree with your point, but I think it is more complicated than you think. Using your example, absolutely, if I am a parent, I would want to be first and the person who talks to my kids about sex. But is just as important, the way I actually talk to them and not just who does it first.
If I walk up to my kids and start screaming, “SEX IS BAD AND YOU BE GOING TO HELL!!!” Even if I am the first to talk to them, the outcome from my talk is not going to be good.
So again, I ask the multi-part question:
1. Does it make sense to engage with your customers talking about your company online?
AND
2. How what you go about engaging these conversations?
Thanks Krista!
1. Does it make sense to engage with your customers talking about your company online?
YES! Have you ever heard a consumer say: “Man, I wish that company would just ignore what I have to say completely.”?
2. How what you go about engaging these conversations?
Search the internet for bloggers who are writing about you. Whether they are writing positively or negatively - respond. Don’t be impulsive. If you need to calm down for a few hours, it’s worth it.
But I think the risk of a lawsuit is small. If you’re saying stuff online that results in a lawsuit, then you’ve got bigger marketing/communications problems to address!
Nathania,
I agree with your answers, but let me play devil’s advocate for a second. Respond to bloggers whether they are writing positively or negatively. I agree, now who should respond? It is much different when you are a large company on who should respond and how.
If people are complaining about a product, then should it be someone from that product team respond, if someone is saying something about the companies finances, then should it be someone from the finance department, etc. etc.
I guess what I am trying to say is that it is not as easy as find people talking about you and then respond.
Do you agree?
LOL - Did Adam teach you to play devil’s advocate? JK
Companies should assign specific people - with proven social media experience - to be the face of their online media efforts.
Recently, I blogged about Dell computers 3 times. Each time, I had a response from Dell. In fact, they’re a model company for social media efforts large scale. Check this out:
http://brandautopsy.typepad.com/brandautopsy/2007/09/dell-and-social.html
Actually, I taught Adam.
Thanks for the link, this is very good.
Online consumer engagement is vitally important to all companies, but most especially for those on the larger end of the spectrum. With the slow, but steady demise of mass media strategy, companies have to be creative in the way they reach and secure new customers. Creating individual connections with potential consumers is one of the surest ways of producing that all-important repeat-customer. People are looking for more from businesses in which they invest. Between knock-offs and generic copies, products themselves are becoming more and more like commodities, so the extra things (like personal contact) that companies incorporate really make the difference in customer loyalty. The issue of “how [businesses] go about engaging these online conversations while…protecting their brand and company” is a touchy one. Clearly, misinterpreted or misinformed statements, and their litigious consequences, would be detrimental to a company, but the opportunity cost of allowing consumers to form primary bonds with competitor brands far outweighs the potential risk—especially when that risk can be diminished, as Nathania suggested, through properly trained media and consumer-relations personnel. The concept of employing company spokespeople is not new. Essentially, it just extends public relations to a new medium, and tweaks the structure of the classic press release to accommodate the variation. In terms of “who should respond and how,” again, I propose the PR department working closely with other involved departments. Delegations from the product team or finance department should absolutely be consulted for the necessary factual backbone of the response, but the skills of the PR team are uniquely suited to addressing consumer concerns with minimal negative impact to the company.
Abe,
Wow, very well written and great thoughts my friend. I could not agree more with your recommendations. I think the only thing I would add is that I believe when it comes to the PR department doing these types of outreaches and responses, there needs to be new blood in PR departments that understand social media and the web.
Based on my experience, most seasoned PR people do not have the experience when it comes to the web to do this. I see it all the time, they try to respond to things the same way they would respond to a newspaper article which will not work.
Great thoughts Abe, thanks for your great feedback!
Great discussion. This is what I am looking for in reading marketing blogs. My take-away from this discussion is there needs to be an upgrading in the PR depts to deal with engaging customers online and it should be the PR depts that handle the engaging.
Thanks for the topic here, Cord! I think part of the quandry companies have about engaging their customers in conversation online is that they have not already been engaging in ANY conversations with customers. The online channel, ideally, is just one more channel by which to reach out and build relationships with customers. As ABE said, having ongoing conversations with customers is how we create customer retention and loyalty. So if your customers are interacting online, you need to be out there interacting with them and learning from them in the online space.
Customers are having conversations about companies, with or without the company’s involvement with those discussions. Having the PR person be the one to respond concerns me, as I believe customers are looking for authentic responses, not carefully crafted company statements.
Creating a place on your own site, ie. a blog, is a great way to keep the conversation in your backyard - as long as you allow comments and take the time to respond. Southwest Airlines has done a good job of engaging with customers online, and they use their blog as a feedback channel for ideas, concerns, and questions. Everyone at SWA takes the time to write and respond including pilots and the CEO.
I think you have lots of good information for your talk here, Cord. Have fun with it.
You rock!
Now maybe I am being naive here, but I’ll add my piece.
Companies are started on the foundation of risk. Frankly, it’s a bitch to start a company, and a bitch to maintain one. But will that be a barrier or an opportunity?
What on earth are people saying that they are afraid they will get sued? If I say “Radio shack’s customer service sucks.” and someone from Radio shack steps up and says “Why? What happened?” You started a conversation. Maybe you get sued. That just sounds like a safe excuse to not have to take action. A better question is how many conversations can you start until you get sued? How many customers can you make feel like people? How many of those people can you value? And then how many of those people will value your company?
Is the fear of being sued really so great a company would back down on changing someones life (or changing someones perception of their company)? Isn’t it taught that it’s easier to keep a current customer than gain a new one? Do they forget that by getting customers to be treated like people they can be turned into fans and will bring an end result greater than a lawsuit?
I think what’s been said is like looking at my relationship with my girlfriend and saying “I am never going to respond to what my girlfriend says because I am not sure if she’ll a) sue me for it, b) break up with me for it, or c) love me to death because of it.” If any of these companies came to life as a single person, I don’t even know how they would survive.
It seems as if this conversation is talking about apples and maybe pears.
There’s a difference between promotional marketing and managing customer relations. Sometimes there’s a crossover, but more often not. And that’s when the confusion comes in. Should it be marketing/product managers who know more about a product? PR people who know more about dealing with stakeholders but my not know much about product details? Customer service types who may either be seasoned troubleshooters or a person 7000 miles away in India?
What organizations must do is what ad agencies must end up doing…integrate interactive knowledge and expertise throughout the entire organization. Or at least those who are in the above type of categories.
But first they must begin NOW to monitor the entire conversations going on…about their products, their competitiors’ products, the industry(ies) that they are in. By understand what’s being said from this point forward, they will be able to implement a better strategy for promotional marketing, customer relations, and defensive PR management.
That being said, I have to gently disagree with Abe’s view that “online consumer engagement is vitally important to all companies”. I say this because it seems that many of us perceive the blogosphere is filled with brand affcianados, disgruntled customers, and inquisitive researchers for each and every particular type of product out there. I say this is not true. For some brands, for some product categories, for some industries, it is absoultuely true. But for many, those conversations of which we speak, some of which we calling for our clients and prospective clients to engage in, aren’t really happening at all. At least not at the rate that a company has to create an entire internal practice.
That’s not to underplay the importance of customer engagment. It show me that in those industies where it is needed, it is now all the more vital.
@Jonathan: It’s true that for some companies, conversations just aren’t happening online. I would have to agree with Abe, though, saying that engaging people online is important (perhaps not /vitally/ but important none the less). If I may, I would like to put forth a few questions:
If there isn’t a conversation happening online for a particular company, is that something that should be looked at in and of itself? Is that a testament to a lack of innovation? A lack of passion for a product? Or is it a result of audience for that company? Etc.
Following that- if it is the audience, is there really /no one/ within that audience that has any sort of presence online? I find it possible but hard to believe. With that, why aren’t they talking about it?
Remember, a benefit to having a conversation online is that it spreads much, much faster and is quite involving and empowering.
One thing that I think is important is that it’s equally important to /start/ conversations as it is to /enter/ already existing conversations.
@Nathan
I agree that online conversations can be vital. What I am saying it that there are a ton of products out there that are commodity like. I just combed my hair. But we don’t blog about combs. The dishwasher detergent right now that is cleaning my dishes. The scotch tape that is here on my desk.
Mypoint is that often our conversations that we have on these blogs makes it seem as if EVERY product out there (or product line) is going to be blogged about.
In the end I believe that hurts the social medie field because it can be overdone. And the reality is that social media is a VERY IMPORTANT concept nowadays - for those companies that it should matter to.
But that being said, I completely agree with you.
I don’t think the question is “if?”, it is “how?”. There’s an 800 pound gorilla room that cannot be ignored. If businesses don’t create a forum to engage their customers, they will just go elsewhere to express concerns. Thus making it more difficult to have any form of control over the conversation.
I struggle to understand why many businesses fear their customers. Engagement with customers provides the most valuable intelligence that can be acquired.
The skill set required for engagement is a combination of marketing and customer service skills. Although handing it off to PR seems like the right place, it is impractical for most businesses because PR is outsourced and it would be very expensive. Perhaps there needs to be a new career training path to bring in qualified individuals because the value is so significant. You can’t just hand it off to interns because mishandled communications can and will blow up.
@Jonathan - A good point about commodity goods. That is also why I said earlier that at the very least, if no conversation is happening about your product, which may happen (and may be OK, depending on the company) I still think there should be a system in place to ensure that if one comes up, you know about it.
The reason for this is because people are infinitely more creative than us business people are. While we may think in terms of 1 lone blogger who loves combs like people love Apple, we limit ourselves.
For example, If I recall, there was a blogger who happened to really like a particular aspirin (not in the “I’m addicted and it’s great” way, but for whatever reason, really liked it. I think it was Bayer.). What if there was a Dr. blog who blogged about how great bayer was? What if a mother suddenly figured out that her detergent was also great at removing her nail polish quickly and blogged about it? What if someone used your brand’s tape to create a statue (which happened with post-it notes recently)? Those are conversations that /could/ be entered into. At the very least dropping a line saying “That’s awesome” and sending them 50 more post-it packs. Can you imagine what that small, single entrance could do? Does that tie in or did I miss your point?
I agree that some commodity goods aren’t going to have blogs and probably shouldn’t (due to some of the dilution you’re speaking of). And that they shouldn’t enter into every conversation, if any are even taking place. But I don’t think that means they should rule out conversations or online engagement entirely (though I don’t think that’s exactly what you were saying).
I also agree entirely that often as bloggers (or marketers for that matter) we stretch things past bounds they have a right to be stretched to.
See, to me you’re somewhat confirming my point. The reason you don’t realize is that I didn’t effectively write it here. Part of it stayed in my head as I headed out the door.
Yes, I agree that every company (or nearly every company) should have someone monitor what’s being said online about them. At least on some level. Even if its a lower level person who finds that every 87 days someone mentions something in their blog about their signature product.
But I think what we’re all saying doesn’t really pertain to the company that makes those small black combs that are sold in barbarshops. We’re more talking about companies that produce goods that are more likely to become brands, are more likely to have a reputation, are more likely to be tangilbly more pertinent to its customer base.
It’s the companies that have products that are more likely going to create, by their very nature, discussions…both online and off. The ones that cause people to seek advice about before purchasing.
The list of these types of products is huge as well. And they are the ones who must develop internal capabilities to address the challenges brought on my social media.
OK, I understand your point now on the specifics of company engagement online. And I agree now, as that’s a good point, that some products that really are brandless (like the generic black comb or the ‘mats’ that go on Burger King or Taco Bell trays) probably aren’t going to have much of a place online. I think we derailed slightly from Cord’s topic