SVESMC Brings Bay Area Social Media Execs Together

Like you, I get hundreds of invitations to join LinkedIn Groups.  As a B2B marketer interested in industry services marketing and the implications of social media on an integrated marketing mix, I find very few of these groups to include true peers. Instead, these groups appear full of consultants wanting to make connections and peddle their services to larger organizations. It’s hard to find true affinity in LinkedIn groups and more rare to find one that functions as a true community.

The exception I have found is the Silicon Valley Executive Social Media Council (SVESMC). 

Ted Sapountzis, VP of Social Media Audience Marketing at SAP, introduced me to this group after we met for lunch in December of last year.  Ted and I met previously when we spoke on a Global Social CRM panel moderated by Esteban Kolsky in September at Cisco’s TelePresence Suites in Santa Clara. Social networking maven and meet-up extraordinaire, Tanya Kanzaveli, found me and extended the invitation. (I agreed to speak on the panel to experience Telepresence first-hand, if truth be told.)  

I am very glad Ted introduced me to SVESMC. This group works for me is because it starts with personal connections and then leads to the online world, not the other way around. As an example of another personal connection, Gurmeet Dhaliwal, VP of Internet Marketing at CA, who also spoke on that same panel is a member of SVESMC as well.  (Do you start to see how this networking thing works….?)

SVESMC’s mission is to help members create the most effective, extraordinary social media programs possible. It is a private community for social media leaders at predominantly high-tech, large companies. Through the Council, members share insights, ideas, and best practices in a peer-to-peer environment. Members hold conversations under strict confidentiality, allowing for open and candid discussions. There are no vendors, no sales pitches, and no outside “experts” — just honest advice and dialogue.  I like that.

Last week, SAP hosted the first summit for this council. Natascha Thomson wrote a great blog post summarizing the event. For me, the highlight was Ted’s talk about how SAP developed a marketing “dashboard” for measuring the impact of social activity around developer/user events in a business-meaningful manner (note: nothing confidential exposed here). If you’d like to know more, apply to Natascha to join the group (natascha.thomson@sap.com).  The group is closed — so you have to hunt for it on LinkedIn — and it takes the confidentiality promise very seriously. 

If you join, I hope to see you at an upcoming dinner, summit, or meet-up sometime soon.  Or to connect virtually through the group site on LinkedIn. Virtual or in-person, if you are responsible for social media strategy or execution at your firm – and want to connect with others who share the same enthusiasm and concerns around this new communication medium – this group is for you.

Twitter Popularity May Soar, but the Noise-to-Value Ratio Remains High

Sysomos, a Marketwire company that provides social media monitoring and analytics capability, recently published an interesting study it conducted on Twitter´s growth in 2010. In comparing Twitter usage between 2009 and 2010, they found:

  • Users with 100+ friends have increased by three-fold to 21% since 2009.
    (Note: I’m assuming “friends” means “friends on Facebook”, but I could be wrong.)
  • 22.5% of users accounted for about 90% of all activity.
  • 80% users have made fewer than 500 tweets.
  • “Justin Bieber” is one of top two-word phrases and top name in user’s bios.
  • Significantly more users are disclosing their location, bio, and Web information in Twitter profiles.

For me, the second finding in the list is the most interesting – that just over 22% of Twitter users account for 90% of the tweets.  It’s amazing that the “old rule of thumb” — that 20% of any population accounts for 80% of the activity, consumption, or item of interest — applies here.   Even more, 80% of all Twitter users have tweeted fewer than 500 times in total. (I am not a heavy-duty tweeter and I’ve post more than 800 tweets in about 2 years of participation.) There are a few ambitious individuals who have tweeted over 100,000 times (one is a recruiter and the other is a writer, so maybe it’s possible they have that much to say.)

Looking at the bio descriptions, I am struck by the fact that the Twitter population, as judged by their bio terms alone, appear to be younger in age, female, self- or unemployed, and fascinated with pop culture (reference the”Justin Bieber” statistic above).  However, I find it interesting  that “marketing” was the 20th most popular single word descriptor, and “business” was the 26th.  Twitter participation reflects a dominant consumer population, and there is only a modicum of B2B activity that makes it to the top of the popularity list.  Sifting through the noise will continue to be a daunting task without a social monitoring capability.

Bottomline: Twitter is very early in its lifetime — and remains an interesting combination of social phenomenon and communication channel. According to the study, 44% of users joined Twitter between January 2010 and August 2010.  That’s a microsecond in the history of media. Maybe my analysis reflects my own biases, so please take a look at the Sysomos study and let me know what you think.

If you have seen another study specific to business use of Twitter, please post a comment with a pointer.  Or tweet it to me at @lauraramos.  Thanks in advance.

SocialTech 2010: Building A Social Media Marketing Discipline At A Major Brand

Earlier this week, I had the good fortune to attend and participate in the first social media conference geared to B2B marketers. MarketingProfs sponsored an excellent event. I believe the 200+ who attended in person, and the 400 or so who listened in virtually, would agree. For a round-up of conference activities, here is a list of the best posts and articles I found on the event:

1) Ann Handley’s coverage of the event: http://www.mpdailyfix.com/the-state-of-the-b2b-marketer-in-social-media-3-trends-from-socialtech-2010/

2) Aaron Pearson from Weber Shandwick wrote a great post: http://www.b2bvoices.com/

3) #mptech daily read: http://paper.li/tag/mptech  (Search the #mptech tag on Twitter for more.)

For me, the price of admission was listening to Brian Ellefritz, Senior Director of Global Social Media Marketing, talk about his plans for creating a new social media marketing discipline at SAP. While “SAP” and “discipline” are synonymous to many, one might think that SAP’s top-down culture may struggle with the unruliness of social media a bit. To move SAP along, Brian adopted the “Social Engagement Journey” — a view of the stages large brands progress through when establishing social media marketing practices. Brian credits Sean O’Driscoll, and the team from Ant’s Eye View, with the concepts and framework he’s bringing to SAP.

According to Brian’s talk, the four stages along the Social Engagement Journey include:

Stage 1: Grass roots – characterized by lots of activity but little focus; lots of variation but little conformity. Individual teams pursue social media opportunities bottoms up. Charismatic personalities, who want to grab the spotlight as early adopters, tend to drive this stage where overarching strategy and leadership has yet to form.

To move along from Stage 1 to Stage 2, Brian offered the following observations and guidelines:

1) Find leadership – corporate entities like Legal and Marcom calm their social media concerns when adult supervision enters the room.

2) Don’t discourage the experimentation with too many rules or too much oversight.

3) Begin informal education – workshops – to form consensus around what needs to happen and how.

4) Increase and improve listening. In turn, better listening will improve content proficiency and efficiency.

5) Let standard tools and governance emerge. Grass roots teams find they need operational models, process, and a common tool platform to progress further.

Stage 2: Silos form – independent efforts start to coalesce around functional areas and some leadership, whether by design or accidental, starts to emerge. Co-opetition among silos can happen in this stage and can be disconcerting. Teams experiment with more tools, but a lack of focus on business objectives means processes have yet to align. Content generation continues to happen through enthusiasm and personal initiative more than strategy.

To mature Stage 2 activity, Brian suggested:

1) Don’t get caught up in inter-team competition. Those who stay true to good social principles – who walk the social talk – will rise to the top and others will adopt their ideas.

2) Progress tool strategies from ad hoc to formal vendor relationships and benefit from all the attendant training, support, etc.

3) Pay more attention to metrics. With tenures of 18 months or more, social media teams now need to answer tougher questions about investment returns and justification.

4) Focus on creating conversational content. Most marketers gear their writing around messages, lead generation, and holding prospects hostage to sales. Social marketing writers must get to know customers better and learn how to deliver content customers value.

5) Formalize roles. Social initiatives can no longer afford to run off of employee enthusiasm and activities executed during nights and weekends.

Stage 3: Operationalize – in this stage, the silos of activity merge, leaderships becomes clear, and the activity starts to feel more like marketing and less like chaos. Firms in this stage truly understand how their customers/prospects use social channels and engage with them in those channels. These firms also invest more in education and communication since practitioners now come from all areas of the business. Listening informs both tactics and strategy.

To evolve in this stage, companies should:

1) Focus training on roles and objectives, not just the tools. Instead of holding a “Twitter class”, sponsor “how to build a social conversation with <audience>” workshop.

2) Reset your listening strategy. Invest in tools like Visible or Radian 6 to learn more about where customer conversations happen, what your competitors are doing, and how strong your share of voice is. Use the data to determine where the market will take you next.

3) Advertise the heck out of successes, and invest in them further. Resist the temptation to focus on the laggards. Competition and public visibility will give them ample motivation to keep from being left behind.

4) Push silos of activity together. Create virtual teams of bloggers for example. Combine conventional email aliases and meetings with a community platform where practitioners can share successes, policies, and practices.

5) Don’t wait too long for governance to happen. Actively create discipline around strategy, ownership, priorities, and metrics.

Stage 4: Lifestyle – the ultimate stage is one where few firms reside today. Zappos may be the lone example of a company where social activity is part of it’s core structure and culture. Business units earn more autonomy to act socially based on business objectives, positive outcomes, and a common understanding of success examples. More rigor in metrics helps to keep employees engaged and competent in social discourse. In this stage, tools are optimized, systems are integrated, everyone buys in, and angels sing. (Well, the last won’t happen, but I wanted to see if you were still with me.)

A successful journey from social chaos to social engagement depends on many factors besides those outlined: your company culture, momentum, environment, funding, and the extent to which your audience is willing to engage with you socially. Yet, I think this model offers a good place for companies to assess their progress and to think about what they need to do strategically to move from one stage to the next.

Thanks for the enlightening talk, Brian, I really appreciated it!

Direct Marketers Are Tired Of “Social Media” Hype

I ran across a blog post by Dave Raffaelle, Executive Director, Customer Data Management at Quaero, who works with my good friend Michelle Boockoff-Bajdek (BB).  Dave highlights results from a recent survey of the Marketing Executive Networking Group where respondents picked the Web 2.0 terms they were most sick of hearing about.  Web 2.0, Social Networking, and Social Media topped the list.  Why is this? Dave shares some great insight, which I’d like to paraphrase here:

  1. Marketers already have their hands full trying to get their existing email and direct mail out the door. They may experiment with social tactics, but when they don’t provide a better return, marketers go back to what’s worked before.
  2. There are no enterprise or even entry level technology solutions that allow marketers to leverage social media or Web 2.0 efficiently and effectively to deliver targeted messaging and capture response to those messages. (I have more to say about this below.)
  3. Return on Investment (ROI) is still king. Until there is model for how a company can explicitly increase response and profitability from their social networking initiatives — as well as complement their existing marketing mix– social media will continue to be on the “nice to have” list.
  4. Social Media Marketing is daunting. Even though there is a lot of talk regarding the benefits of it and how a marketer can get leverage it, Social Media involves technology and concepts that are far reaching and many times beyond comprehension.

In my research with B2B marketers, I see part of the backlash around the terms “social networking” and ”social media” happen because the phrases are ambiguous.  They lump together technologies that are not necessarily social on their own, but *can* be part of an integrated direct program aimed at building prospect/buyer engagement in several steps. Getting marketers to differentiate explicitly between social media and Web 2.0 tools would help, but this requires marketing discipline and consistent usage that only time will produce.

Regarding Dave’s #2, I agree that enterprise and entry level tools are lacking. But truly social media — like wikis, voting, ranking, and idea solicitation — require a different marketing mindset than Web 2.0 tools like video, podcasts and widgets. The later we can treat like communication channels, the former we should not. I don’t see one set of tools addressing both, which complicates adoption further.

Regarding #3 and #4, I see measurement and business case as the big stumbling blocks today.  Many social media experts (including a few at Forrester) advise marketers to “just get involved” — because your customers are already involved and, if you are not, then you run the risk of your competitors getting there first.  I question this logic.  I think it is possible to justify the ROI of social activity, but the value comes from replacing/supplementing traditional brand building activities and for increasing customer (not prospect) engagement. Both are traditionally hard to measure and less interesting to management when the economy is sour and leads are at a premium.

To round things out, I would suggest a 5th issue: marketers don’t know whether or not buyers are engaging socially and, if they are, does this engagement matter in the purchase decision making process.  Oliver Young and I surveyed 1200+ B2B buyers recently to try to get a handle on this.  Understanding buyer social behavior is not easy because any one audience — technology buyers in our case — may or may not behave similarly to other audiences.  Social Technographics provides a model for understanding buyer social participation, but it must be applied to a specific cusotmer group and then it only tells part of the story.  More targeted, behavior-based analytics could really help.

Is there a 6th or 7th reason behind the backlash?  Let me know your thoughts.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.