This post originally appeared on Semacraft’s ‘This, That & The Other’ Blog.

Listening and engagement. Very common terms in the ‘sociosphere’. We may have gotten listening right for the most part but engagement still has a ways to go. Unlike listening, real engagement seems to mean different things to different people making measurement all that more difficult. And probably futile. I do stand to be corrected on that though.

For some brands, engagement happens when their tweets get re-tweeted. For others it happens when people post on their Facebook wall. I like Jeremiah Owyang’s definition of engagement, it makes it easier to demystify this animal. However, I feel there’s a missing component. But first, @jowyang’s definition from his blog article about three years ago.

We seem to agree that engagement happens when visitors show some interest in the content. I think that’s a great place to start. But what happens after they show their interest? Not all of the interest visitors indicate requires some response from the brand but it is increasingly common for brands to [apparently] ignore direct requests for support/service. Take for instance Esteban Kolksy (@ekolsky). AT&T apparently was not treating him right. He tweeted his dissatisfaction at around 3am UTC on 21st Aug, 2010 and from what I have seen as of 1900hrs UTC on the 22nd, they hadn’t responded.

Because engagement connotes some kind of conversation and relationship, factoring the other side of the engagement is necessary in order to determine how well the brand is doing in the social spaces it’s present. If the content strategy is spot on, and the public is commenting, linking, tweeting and retweeting it, we can assume some engagement is going on. If some of that engagement involves questions, suggestions or opinions which the brand ignores, the level of engagement will be difficult to sustain. Even with new content. Why? Because humans don’t do very well in conversations with inanimate objects. A brand that doesn’t respond to engagement by engaging back is inanimate. Speaking back gives the brand humanity. Life.

So how does this affect social CRM? A successful implementation of CRM involves people, data, culture, process and  technology handled right. People and culture are the biggest parts of the mix. If the culture the internal people have isn’t very social, adoption of social CRM is doomed to fail. An inanimate brand in the ‘sociosphere’ is a sign of an organization with a poor social culture internally.

Would love to hear your opinion. Jump in anytime and interrupt my rantings…

In Africa, the image of a group of (usually men) sitting under a tree talking is fairly common.  In fact, many villages had a ‘the tree’ where people met to have informal meetings or just impromptu ones.  If you were new in the village, you made stopping by the tree one of your priorities (unless there was an invitation only meeting happening). When formal [read Western] education was introduced, it also happened under a tree. At least until the classrooms were put up.

We have new trees in Africa now. They are of a genus like none our parents ever did see. They are called Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, MySpace, FriendFeed….need I go on? We meet under these giant trees to connect with each other, build relationships, learn from each other, rally behind causes and so much more. Much more than the old tree could help us do.

I’m under the Twitter tree as @muchiri, the Facebook tree as facebook.com/muchiri and under the LinkedIn tree as linkedin.com/in/muchiri

Come to the tree. Let’s talk. Let’s connect. Let’s learn.

Originally posted at This, That & The Other a few hours ago.

In an interview with Tom Asacker on his new book Success Made Simple: An Inside Look at Why Amish Businesses Thrive, Eric Wesner makes mention of the dichotomy between efficiency and effectiveness in relation to technology and its impact on relationships.  It brought to mind what we hear so often nowadays, that a company is now ‘doing’ social.  

Have we forgotten that before doing social we were social?Can a business that is not social be effective in the social space? What quality of relationships would such a business have with its clients? While some businesses need less face to face (FTF) time than others, I believe some effort needs to be made to maintain effective relationships, not just efficient ones. Making ‘house calls’ on your customers may not be viable anymore because of the geographical constraints that may exist but a phone call, a Twitter message or even an email just for them would go a long way to building effective relationships.

For instance, my bank is a social one.  I think it is because the staff ask after me, my family, the state of my business and once in a while how a certain current event is affecting our sales.  I feel that they are keen on building a real relationship with me.  My previous bank had no such culture. It was more of the slam-bam-thankYouSir kind.  If my current bank establishes an outpost on one of the social media networks and continues to do what they do offline there, they would be great.  However, if my former (impersonal cold distant) bank, which has even invested in Relationship Managers,  attempted the same thing they would come across as unauthentic and insincere.

In short, the decision to ‘do social’ is a flawed one from the start because social business don’t have to ‘do’ it. They ARE it.

Don’t go out today to ‘do friendly’. Go out and be a friend.

Clay Shirky in his latest post ‘The Collapse of Complex Business Models’ makes a statement I find very important for businesses seeking to keep their audience engaged on the web.

“When ecosystems change and inflexible institutions collapse, their members disperse, abandoning old beliefs, trying new things, making their living in different ways than they used to.”  He describes these ecosystems as complex systems where the system’s principals assume that complexity is an automatic advantage.  It’s a post that’s got me considering how I go about doing business.

Complex systems collapse and when they do, they collapse into simplicity.  Clay speaks of some heavy stuff here so it seems really trivial to bring just one simple thought into this and yet it is the one thing that occurred to me.  How complex are the ecosystems we attempt to build around our client’s brands?  It could be as simple as site navigation or account security or even integration with various social media APIs (ok, maybe that last one isn’t so simple).

Visitors to websites are already inundated with a multitude of options online. Once they arrive at a space prepared for them, they shouldn’t have to continue sifting and figuring stuff out.  If they do, they will eventually disperse, abandoning the brand’s online space (probably off-line too) to try a new thing (read competitor).  Simple is the new black.

Is simplicity top of mind for your business?

I see this line in tons of marketing material.  There’s even a remote chance that at some point in the last 10 years I have used it myself (in some way). It’s what we like to think is our unique selling proposition.

The answer that follows the question is usually along these basic lines;

1. We are customer-centric
2. We are team players
3. We believe our customers deserve a personal touch
4. We provide a high level of service
5. We are the best at doing this thing that we do

Seriously. Everyone uses those lines! The whole approach makes your brand seem as boring as your competitors and unimaginative.  If you need to use the line, I think the reasons should be at par with these ones;

1. We are little, we are green and we are men.
2. We will shed blood for you (we love vampires too).
3. We are the only ones around here who can pronounce ‘nchtsm’ correctly.
4. We are faster the Usain Bolt.
5. We will, if you sign up, wear face paint in your brand’s colors for  month. Everyone of us!

So. Why should you customers buy from you? Do you know what separates you from ‘the rest’?

‘…and we can get you on Facebook because social media is big right now!’

That’s some scary advise.  But many organisations hear it all the time from their agencies when talking about marketing or website design.  No strategy, no governance, just multiple channels where the staff can put out great information about the company and its products. Yippee!

Balderdash! I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s what happened at Nestlé, although I choose to believe they went about it a bit more deliberately (being a multi-national and all).  The signs are there to show they have issues with their web governance structures. When their Facebook admin took on some fans in what became a very public and embarrassing spat, a very distressing sign became evident.

Why does Nestlé have a Facebook page? What was the rationale behind it? Did they (or do they) have an end-game for it all?  It would appear that they haven’t bought into the whole idea of social media completely.  By the way they handled the outrage on Facebook and YouTube, it is clear that the ‘social’ part of the media is lost on them.  Their Facebook page admin was rude to fans and their request for the removal from YouTube of Greenpeace’s KitKat video irritating.

What’s the lesson for business?  Here are a few.

1. Conversations about your brand are happening with or without you.  Nestle were not the ones who started the Kit Kat conversation on YouTube.  And they weren’t sent an invite either.  The public is having conversations about and around your brand in highly collaborative spaces like YouTube and Facebook.  Are you an oblivious subject? The ability to listen to conversations that affect your brand is a necessity in this day and age. The wisdom to decide which conversations to contribute to and how is imperative for brand survival.
2. You don’t own the conversation.  Nestle’s Facebook admin indicated that the company owns the page and creates the rules for engagement on that page.  Fans have to obey the rules or leave.  The thing is, the conversations crossed over from Twitter, YouTube, blogs and email.  This conversation was happening outside of that page on the public’s terms.  Facebook is not your blog. It’s a cocktail party and you’re working the room. What people wear to the room is a trivial matter. Are you contributing constructively to the conversation? Are you hang up on the hairstyles in the room? You don’t own the conversation and if you can’t contribute constructively you will be tuned out.
3. Establish and enforce web governance.  The decision to take down the YouTube video was made by Nestlé UK.  Did Nestle in Switzerland know the decision had been made and was being effected?  Who would negative sentiments be escalated to? The Facebook admin posted a status that some fans took exception to.  Who approved it? Who provided the guidelines for what the admin can or cannot say to the public in that space?  I’m not suggesting that such strict measures be put in place so as to stifle the company’s engagement on the social media front.  But I do think it should be clear how content (especially in times of crisis) gets approved and what the organisation expects from content posted on the different channels.
4. Prepare for disasters.  Bad publicity is a disaster.  Prepare for it they way you do for fires.  Do a drill, establish procedures and educate your staff about them.  What do we do when Greenpeace hijack our Twitter conversations? What do we do when our Facebook admin tells fans off? What do we do when our blog is accidentally redirected to a porn site (if that’s a disaster for your brand)?
5. Remember the point.  There’s a reason you decided to do this in the first place.  What was it? Keep it top-of-mind.  When things go south, at least you will have a clear picture of the bigger picture and how this affects the business goal your social media presence was aligned to.

Did Nestle drop the ball on the social media front? Could they have handled the whole thing better? I think ‘yes’ on both counts.  But then again, few businesses set out build communications channels for engaging consumers whilst planning what to do when activists hijack them.

What do you think Nestle could have done better? How can they salvage this?

Is it the market’s business what you do after hours?  Is it the customer’s business where you sourced your raw materials, whether the CEO is faithful to his wife or even the CMO’s stand on healthcare reform? Shouldn’t all that matters be the product or service the brand promotes consistently at the perfect price, place & packaging?

Divorce rates in the UK currently stand at about 11.5% per 1,000 married couples.  In the US, the rate is at 3.5%.   When you consider that marriage rates in the US are at about 7.1% per 1,000 this means half as many people are getting divorced as are getting married.  Obviously the idea of failed marriages is not a foreign one.  And then there’s the permissive nature of today’s urban society.  So why the outrage at Tiger Woods and John Terry for infidelity?  They are not even in the marriage business! They are sports personalities!

Apparently, the consumer’s business extends to what famous people do when they are not doing what they are famous for. On this side of the new normal customers aren’t choosing which brands to be loyal to solely based on the price or quality, it’s now about the other things the brand does when it’s not ‘at work’. It’s about all the other peripheral things that have nothing to do with how the product is produced.

What do you tweet about when you’re not tweeting about your product/service? What was your last ‘unrelated’ Facebook post? What have you done for your customers lately that had nothing (or little) to do with you?

Lesson for business? There’s no clocking out. You’re at work 24/7/365. You’re not helpful only when customer’s need more information about your product or following up on a proposal you sent. It’s now all about the customer and what they think is important. If your tweets, status updates, videos and photos are all about you then you’re just a self-obsessed brand people have little time for. Find out what your customers are passionate about and become passionate about them. Be helpful on the customer’s terms.

It’s how I think it is. What do you think?