I love the fact that the comments my readers leave on the BrandBuilder blog are an endless source of topics for me to write about. I am seriously considering devoting one or two posts per week to either giving your brilliant opinions more exposure and/or answering your questions. And in that vein, why not start today, right now?

Here’s an astute question from Sonny Gill: in regards to characteristic n.8 in my post about “Becoming P2P: Principal characteristics of the new social business“:

Company/organizational culture is something I love getting into and am still learning a lot about.

One point of interest that intrigues me – and what you mentioned – is empowering your employees. Giving them not only the tools and structure to succeed, but empowerment and reinforcement from internal leaders – the attitude that not only spreads throughout the company but outside of the office also (as we all know, work/life intermingle so much). I say it’s intriguing because it’s such an integral part in making this culture change and a P2P business a success.

The biggest thing that companies will be asking though when reading this post, let alone your upcoming book, is ‘how the hell do we accomplish this?’ It sounds/is great, as how businesses function – internally and externally – is evolving, quick. But there’s definitely got to be a huge buy-in and sense of what a P2P culture looks and feels like.

The best way I know how to answer that question:

Don’t sell change. Ever.  Instead, sell results. That’s what execs really want anyway

As always, the old adage about leading horses to water stands firm. First, you have to realize that “companies” aren’t what you’re working with. What you’re really dealing with are people. In other words, companies don’t make decisions. People make decisions. Particularly, leaders in this instance. If the leadership within a company refuses to commit to the type of change that will yield greater success for their business in the future (and starting immediately), I can’t help them. Heck, even Tony Robbins, Zig Ziglar and Dr. Phil can’t help them.

What’s important here isn’t to sell change. Nobody likes change. It’s scary, it’s risky, it’s unpredictable. You’ll never get very far selling fear, risk and uncertainty. Especially to that crowd. So you have to approach change from a very different angle: From the end result. From what they actually want to accomplish.

First things first: Uncovering the true objectives of an organization’s leadership team

Before you do anything, you want to uncover the leaders’ specific objectives (or wishes, even) and then create a picture of what the company (as an organization) will look like in this “fantasy” version of the future. This takes more work than it sounds. You would be amazed how many CEOs have absolutely no idea where they really want to be in 5 years. They’ll tend to throw around numbers that sounds good but aren’t based in reality, like… “We’re at $8.3B in revenue this year. I want to be at $12B by 2012.” Because $12B in 2012 sounds cool and the investors will love it. But that’s bullshit. It’s all about swagger, not reality.

In cases like this, when you ask the CEO how they’re going to get there, you get an equally nonsensical answer like, “we’ll sell more stuff” or “we’ll expand into new markets” or some other such generalization. No specifics. No action plan. Nothing but pipe dream. That’s dangerous and counterproductive. What you need to do is get them off the cowboy plan and get them back to reality: You have to get specific about their goals. These types of sessions aren’t about impressing anyone. They’re about getting down to business, which starts with getting back to reality.

If they want to hit $12B by 2012, fine. Work your way backwards from that. What’s it going to take? Probably some key acquisitions, first and foremost. Is that even possible? Are they in a position to pull it off without risking too much exposure? Does it even make sense to try and grow that quickly? What else do they need to do? Look for strategic partnerships? Expand distribution? Capture more market share? All of the above? Okay, you have 24 months. Show me on a 24-month schedule/timeline how you currently plan to accomplish that.

And guess what: Most of the time, that plan doesn’t actually exist.  It got as far as being turned into a few bullet points on a slide in someone’s powerpoint presentation six months ago. So you have to start from scratch and see what’s realistic and what isn’t. You have to work out all of the contingencies. It isn’t rocket science, but it takes work. And it takes organization. And it takes commitment. Before you can even get to how a company is going to address empowering their employees through a real cultural change, before a company is ready to actually pull this off across all of its departments as a matter of policy, it has to know exactly where it wants to go and what it will take to get there. Not only that, but the leadership team has to both understand and accept that such empowerment is one of the ways they will get there.

Second: Mapping out the start, the “finish” and everything in between

Growth, change and success are hard. You have to map it all out, starting with where you are, where you want to go, and all the points in between if you want to have a shot at actually pulling it off. So change management, which is really what we’re talking about here, starts with that process. And that process starts with painting a crystal clear picture of what you want the organization to look like at the end of the process. (More like a milestone than a finish line, but that’s a topic for another day.)

Now, in order to hit the numbers the CEO threw at you, you really have to be able to create a detailed snapshot of the company in this specific future. What it looks like. Where it operates. How it operates. How it is structured. How it executes on its activities. You have to not only create a snapshot of what it looks like on the outside, but also on the inside, layer by layer, like a CAT scan.

Understanding changes in cultural dynamics and the evolution of technology, you can then zoom in from the portrait/snapshot of the company to its structure, then to its processes, then to the skills of its members. From there, you can reverse-engineer the adaptive phases that the company needs to go through.  To be realistic, the example I gave you (24 months) is too short when it comes to true cultural change for a company that didn’t have much of a culture to begin with. It takes time for organizations, especially large ones, to develop the kind of social  and emotional sophistication to do this well. It takes maturity, and maturity takes time. It isn’t something you can accelerate or optimize.

In this example then, the company’s strategy would focus a lot more on acquisitions and partnerships than growth through cultural change. But it isn’t to say that a cultural evolution couldn’t begin to happen during that time period. In order for the strategic changes to be a success, a lot of internal work needs to ensure that these changes won’t become a liability when it comes to simple things like customer service, customer experiences, internal communications between divisions, brand erosion, etc. You can’t divorce culture from infrastructure. Companies that don’t understand that always fail at creating efficient (and sustainable) versions of either.

Basic Lessons to keep in mind:

Anyway… Long story short: The most important thing when trying to get buy-in is to help clarify exactly where the company wants to be in 5, 10, 20 years. Not pie-in-the-sky bullshit, but specifics. Once you have that, you can paint a clear picture of what the future of the company NEEDS to look like. Now you’ve flipped change on its head. Instead of selling uncertainty, you’re selling clarity.

Knowing where you’re going is 90% of getting there. Most company execs are so focused on meeting numbers this month and this quarter that they just aren’t able to look beyond the here and now long enough to actually drive their businesses anywhere. They’re too busy reacting to the next pothole  or turn ahead. By helping them see 1 year into the future, then 2, then 5, than 10, you can help them impact their numbers now, this quarter, this half, this fiscal year, by giving their performance context in relation to where they want to actually take their business.

That’s a big part of what I do, and everything has to start with that. Before you can get to cultural change management, you have to make sure the leadership team knows where it wants to go and what it needs to do to get there.

The caveat: Lazy execs and the reality of horses that just won’t drink

But with all of that, if the CEO and the COO and the VP of this and that just don’t want to change their ways, if they are more committed to their game of golf and corner office and third McMansion than to the success of their business, there isn’t much I can do to help them. I already know I can’t fix stupid. I’m pretty sure I can’t fix lazy either.

People have to want to be successful, and it can be hard to convince a late career exec making seven or eight figures  and eying retirement in five to ten years that success is about more than the wealth they’ve already amassed. Success is a frame of mind they either want to have or not. The biggest lesson for them is this: Success doesn’t live in the past. Memories do. Success lives in the here and now and tomorrow. It really doesn’t matter what you accomplished ten years ago. What matters is what you’re doing today, and what you’ll accomplish next. Anything else is just ego. Throw away the plaques and the trophies. They aren’t who you are.

A guy who just wants to enjoy the trappings of success but isn’t willing to work his ass off to perpetuate that success is a guy who’s given up. That kind of individual is completely worthless to me, and more importantly, to his/her organization.

Unless the rest of the management team and I can appeal to their sense of pride and self worth, and tap into the ambition that fueled them in their youth, they’re basically in the way. Folks like that either have to get back in the game or move on if you want the organization to evolve. I can’t light a fire under their ass every single day. I can do it for a while, but eventually they have to step up and want to run the ball all on their own.

So, all this to say that you won’t win them all, Sonny. Execs who have grown complacent, live in denial and refuse to accept that their companies are headed straight to the crapper in ten years are beyond being reasoned with. I’ll only get so far with them before I move on to someone who won’t waste my time.

In the end, I can’t help people who don’t want to help themselves. And since organizations are really collectives of people, you either find leadership teams made up of people who are willing to do whatever it takes to save and/or make their businesses kick ass, or management teams made up of people who are happy to pretend that everything is golden even though their business is either stalled or in the tank. Usually, the latter are the first to blame the economy or cheap imports or whatever else they can throw a cat at to explain slow, flat or negative growth rather than take the blame themselves.

I’m not a miracle worker. I wish I were, but I’m not. I help people who are serious about making their business truly successful and are looking for good honest help. The rest, I try not to waste my time with. It’s far too precious as it is.

At some point soon, I’ll actually go over how to create really solid internal cultures both from the top down (trust, leadership, mentoring and hiring practices) and from the bottom up (trust, engagement, tribe mentality, alignment with the organization’s belief system), so don’t go too far. We’ll visit this topic again.

Thanks for giving me my topic today, Sonny. Cheers.

Yesterday, I talked about the disappointment (to put it mildly) I feel whenever I run into a pointless social-media related conference. Particularly the kind that charges significantly more than the value it actually delivers, and essentially serves no purpose other than to further inflate the social media hype bubble instead of actually advancing the discipline. If you haven’t had a chance to read it yet, click here to go read it now.

Judging from the comments the post generated, this topic evidently struck a nerve with more than a few of you. Some of the comments were so good that I figured I should share a few of them with you today.

From Mack Collier: “The worst thing you can do for your event and the attendees is pick the speakers first, then the topics.”

Like you, I will only speak at events that stress teaching and learning. If the attendees can’t be sent home with a plan of action for how they will move forward with their social media efforts, then I won’t be a part of that event. This is a BIG reason why I am in no hurry to speak at SXSW again. I spoke there last year, was on a fabulous panel with Mario Sundar, Kami Huyse and Lionel Menchaca, but on the whole, SXSW is NOT where a company that wants to get up to speed on social media should be spending the time and money.

Now, before I got into my rant about speakers, I’ll add something that attendees should look for. Lots and lots of networking time. Not just with the speakers, but with each other. Look for interactive sessions, or open mic sessions. The more time attendees have to interact with speakers and each other, the better. That’s where the REAL value of the event comes in. It’s great that sessions are live-streamed, but that’s not where the value is, the value is in the hallways and during dinner. If the speakers at an event leave the stage and run to the airport, that’s a HUGE red flag.

As for conference organizers, the WORST thing you can do for your event and the attendees is pick the speakers FIRST, then the topics. If you say ‘OMG we have GOT to get Joe Rockstar to speak!’ then you’re screwed. You pick the topics that your attendees need to be taught about, THEN pick the speakers for that topic.

Second, you have GOT to paid your speakers. Even if you just cover travel, this is a must. Let’s say you don’t pay your speakers. That means they are out $1,000-2,000 just to get to the event. So that means they walk in the front door knowing they are a coupla thou in the hole. And how do you think they will make up that money? By trying to PUSH THEIR SERVICES on the attendees. Nice! And their presentation? Do you really think there’s much incentive for them to spend hours on making a kick-ass custom deck? The only customizing they will probably do is to add a couple more slides about THEMSELVES and how you can WORK WITH THEM.

Nice. Conference organizers, you get around this by PAYING your speakers. Don’t give them the ‘well no we can’ t pay you, but you’ll have access to HUNDREDS OF POTENTIAL CLIENTS!’ line. That’s BS. Those ‘potential clients’ are serial conference attendees, and are going to take copious notes and run home and try to do this stuff for themselves.

And as you said, there are WAY too many social media conferences. Case in point: A couple of months ago Social South was in Birmingham. Wonderful event, admission was $200, and should have been several times that. But the NIGHT before SoSo at the EXACT SAME VENUE, there was a FREE social media seminar where ‘experts will teach you all you need to know about using LinkedIn and Twitter to make $$$!’ And you better believe since this was a ‘free’ event, that attendees were subjected to a ‘free’ commercial by these ’social media experts’ on how they should HIRE THEM.

The social media conference circuit is quite frankly bloated, and broken. Hopefully organizers will pay attention to this post.

From Valeria Maltoni: “The multiple tracks and rushing to decide on what will be good from the program doesn’t cut it for me.”

It’s a really good discussion to have not just for social media. Branding and marketing conferences, international communications conferences come to mind, too.

I’ve attended my fair share and I can tell this community here – I like it how you all came in and discussed it from different angles – that the multiple tracks and rushing to decide on what will be good from the program doesn’t cut it for me.

Learning the same way I eat and am social, I take my time to enjoy the experience, absorb the context and connect with all present. Fewer speakers and some sessions to warm up with a topic and have a real discussion would result in a less disconnected and more useful experience – both for the participant and the speaker.

From John Heaney: “Is the best you can offer a 45 minute presentation on the 6 Best Facebook Fan Page Tips?”

Like you, I’ve become frustrated with the number of social media acolytes whose primary function appears to be trumpeting the importance of social media as the next great marketing channel.

We get it, already.

Want to know what’s tough? What really consumes our time and effort? Making social media efforts work. Day in, day out, engaging staff, management and clients in social media (or is that new media?) channels.

Believe me, I know how to give a kick-ass presentation that will have C-level executives salivating over the prospect of implementing their own social media initiatives. I can power through a captivating Keynote presentation that convinces them that delay is potentially ruinous.

Then, however, I have to execute a real life campaign. Design a researched strategy that makes sense for their organization and integrates with their existing marketing efforts. Design guidelines and policies to protect the organization. Introduce the campaign internally. Train employees. Train some more. Then train some more. Generate compelling content, then try to recruit internal talent to contribute their own. Market and promote the company blog, Twitter contacts, fan pages, YouTube channels and any other selected channels to targeted prospects and an existing client base. Then do it every single day. All the while tracking SM activity and tying that activity back to authentic and measurable business activity. The revenue-generating kind.

Now, can you help me with that? Or is the best you can offer a 45 minute presentation on the 6 Best Facebook Fan Page Tips?

(Right on.)

From Scott Gould: “We, the conference organisers have been hoodwinked into building celebrity events about quantity and not change incubators about quality.”

We need this kind of talking, because to be honest, we (the conference organisers) have been hoodwinked into building celebrity events about quantity and not change incubators that are about quality.

It took a lot of hard work and resistance to make Like Minds what it was (and what it will be) – as so many people wanted to pitch in with their ideas for making money and not imparting value. It takes guts to hold that type of event at the risk of financial loss.

From Amber Naslund: “A conference built putting tools in the forefront is leading with the wrong message to start with.”

The social media hype has us waaay too focused on the tactics and tools, and not nearly enough in the broader business implications. A conference built putting tools in the forefront is leading with the wrong message to start with.

I think that one gets missed a lot because the organizers are in the making-money-with-events business, not the teach-people-to-do-their-jobs-better business.

You can go read the rest of the comments (and leave your own) here. In the meantime, keep them coming.

Update: (added Monday 3 November 2009 – 13:50)

From Steve Woodruff: “I’m impatient with hearing the same old same old tired generalities, especially when it is dressed up in meaningless biz-jargon.”

Over the years, I’ve attended many, many conferences – some awful, some forgettable, and a few outstanding.

I’m getting impatient.

I’m impatient with thinly-veiled sales pitches from sponsoring companies during sessions. If you’re going to have sponsoring companies, set aside a specific time in the event when they can present their solutions openly to the audience.

I’m impatient with speakers who think their role is to walk through a series of slides and do a verbal data dump. If you cannot spark interest, tell engaging stories, use helpful analogies, facilitate discussion, and (yes, this matters) speak with a reasonably pleasing voice, then don’t be a presenter.

I’m impatient with attendees who are satisfied with passive information reception. We deserve and should demand better.

I’m impatient with hotel setups where you cannot get some light on the speaker. Really – you CAN do this.

I’m impatient with hearing the same old same old tired generalities, especially when it is dressed up in meaningless biz-jargon. If it’s not practical, real-life, and fresh,  put it on a blog somewhere where it can be ignored. Because that’s what your audience is doing.

I’m impatient with a lack of daring. Try newthings. Shake things up. Get some creative thinkers in your advisory board and plan, from 9-12 months out, how you’re going to make things better.

As I watched Scott Gould, Drew Ellis, Trey Pennington, Daren Forsyth and Maz Nadjm address a capacity crowd at Exeter’s  #LikeMinds conference two weeks ago, it occurred to me that not all conferences are created equal. In fact, I realized that conferences tend to fall into two very distinct categories: Conferences that provide real value, and conferences that provide very little value. Before I go on, let it be said that #LikeMinds falls squarely into the first category.

Since I was one of the speakers at #LikeMinds, it’s natural for some of you to assume that I might be… biased, right? Fair enough. I can understand how you might think that. But the truth is that I have spoken at a number of conferences now, and I have no problem telling you that not all of them have fallen into the “valuable” category. In other words, if #LikeMinds were just another conference with little value, I might not necessarily come out and say so, but I also wouldn’t tell you it is something when it really isn’t.

Moving forward, you can feel pretty confident that I am speaking my mind here, and not giving credit where none or little is due.

LikeMinds '09 R.O.I. panel

So back to the topic at hand: The sold-out Like Minds Conference in Exeter, Devon (UK) on October 16th. The line of attendees outside before the doors officially opened, pretty much wrapping around the block. The impressive roster of speakers and panelists spanning two continents. The spectacular venue. The stunning live video stream. The twitter wall. The specific focus of the event. The global vibe. And perhaps most importantly, the £25 admission fee.

Yes, that’s right. Only £25. And £10 for students, as I recall.

Meanwhile, all across the US, social media-themed conferences typically charge what… $200? $500? $650? And for what? Wait… don’t answer that. We’ll get back to that in a sec.

Don’t get me wrong: I have no problem with conferences, social media or otherwise, charging $200 or even $650 to attendees. All I ask is that in return for those types of fees, these events offer at least $200 or $650 in value (respectively). It’s only fair. Heck, if a conference wants to charge $2,000 for admission, as long as it provides equal or greater value, have at it. In truth, the Social media world needs high level conferences of this type, and I would GLADLY spend $2K to attend a social media summit that actually delivered real value.*

No, my beef with rapidly growing number of “social media conferences” is that their $250 or $650 admission fee only buys attendees about $25 worth of value, as opposed to serious conferences (like #LikeMinds) that easily provide $650 worth of value for a mere £25.

Moreover, the fact that pointless social media conferences seem to be popping up everywhere has me scratching my head and wondering when the idiocy will stop. Let me ask you a simple question: Do we really need a social media conferences every week?

Of course we don’t. But with everyone and their brother suddenly looking to rebrand themselves as social media gurus, the demand for a accelerated conference circuit has hit a kind of fever pitch in 2009, with many organizers and speakers feeding on a self-serving loop of crap. Explained in as few words as I can, the former are looking to make a quick buck off the Social Media craze while the latter are so desperate for exposure that they will do just about anything for ten minutes of it.

Watch this video and we’ll continue the discussion in a few minutes:

If the video doesn’t launch for you, go watch it here.

Okay, now that you’re back, let’s continue our little discussion, starting with some typical low-value conference dynamics:

A. The problem with an increasing number of social media conferences: An upside-down value model

As we just discussed, on the one hand, you have the growing army of would-be social media gurus looking to make a name for themselves. This is the crowd furiously sending emails and DMs to conference organizers, begging them for opportunities to speak at their events to get a few conference gigs on their resumes.

On the other hand, conference organizers see in this endless stream of guru wannabes a welcome cash cow: Those confident enough to speak will gladly fill up session after session of their conference schedules for free in exchange for exposure. Enter the “Return on Engagement”, “Tweet your way to success” and “What will we call Social Media in 2010″ breakouts. Wonderful. As if the internet weren’t already filled with these kinds of remedial turds posing as legitimate expertise.

The rest, those not speaking, are evidently more than happy to part with $200+ for the opportunity to rub elbows with internet-famous bloggers and perhaps befriend an A-lister or two in the hopes of raising their own profile in the SM world.

Below, some X-Box Live friends help me illustrate a typical high yield, low value conference model: A small number of speakers with valuable content the organizer actually has to pay isn’t enough to offset the large number of speakers with derivative content who will gladly fill content gaps for free. This model minimizes cost, maximizes profit, and guarantees a relatively low conference value for attendees. This is quickly becoming the norm across North America. No wonder most businesses look upon the social media “crowd” as a joke.

When you realize that an event that attracts 400 people at $200 per admission can gross $80,000, it isn’t hard to see why these things are popping up left and right, and for no other reason than to generate revenue. And as long as you, the folks who attend these types of events, are willing to fork out two bills to sit in a series of hotel meeting rooms for the better part of a day to listen to 20-40 minute presentations about how wonderful FaceBook is, how many people use Twitter, or how this company or that organization “engage” with customers using free tools you use in the exact same way and with greater success, these types of pointless events will continue to sprout all over the place. The margins are just too good for people to just stop putting them on out of… professional integrity.

What’s the solution? (Aside from putting on better conferences and events, that is?) A gut check would be a nice start. Stop going to every social media conference on the calendar. Become a little smarter and pickier about your choices. Start by looking at the overall roster of speakers. Then look for an actual point: Does the conference have a topic? A theme? A thread? Or is it just a mash of speakers covering every topic from how to network on LinkedIn to measuring web traffic using Google Analytics? Be smarter. Do your homework. Learn to spot the signs that a conference exists solely to extract money from your wallet.

Acceptable price-point: $0 – $75/day.

Next: A slightly better breed of conference.

B. The balanced Social Media Conference model: Investing in solid content pays off in the long run

In the model below, you have a more balanced approach: The ratio of established speakers (assuming relevant and actionable content) to aspiring speaker is slightly greater. In this scenario, the conference organizer is at least attempting to balance profit and content by mixing the really good stuff with some cheap filler. (Yes, kind of like the average bottle of whiskey on the middle shelf behind the bar.) This  balanced, democratized model ensures that attendees will enjoy a much greater quality of content  and networking for their money than the first model would have provided:

As mentioned in the previous section, this type of conference should also have a point. This can be demonstrated either by creating an overall theme for the conference (measurement, integration in the enterprise, customer service, best practices, etc.) or several specific tracks within the conference that will allow CMOs, CSMs, ITMs and other attendees with unique needs to go learn specific things as opposed to being forced to sit through a disjointed soup of “worthless FaceBook is great”  and “let’s measure ROI in impressions” presentations.

Incidentally, conferences that charge upwards of $300 for presentations lasting less than 45 minutes are a waste of your time. Nothing can be covered in depth in under 30 minutes. If you spot a preponderance of 10-15 minute presentations on the conference schedule, skip it altogether.

So to recap, this type of conference’s three signature features are: a) at least as many respectable speakers as unknown speakers, b) a point/some kind of thematic structure, and c) presentations lasting more than 10-20 minutes apiece.

Acceptable price-point: $0 – $600/day, with $600 pushing towards truly outstanding content.

Next: The very best kind of conference – The summit.

C. The pinnacle of Social Media conference models: The best practices-style Summit

In this model, the organizer’s priority is obvious: Assembling the best minds on any given topic in the same place at the same time. The quality of the presentations, panels and discussions should be high as every speaker has been hand-picked for the quality of their content and delivery. This type of conference/summit is the rare gem that actually puts you in the same room as the world’s brightest minds and true expert. Bring a notebook or two, because you will probably be going back to the office with hundreds of pages of notes, all of which worth pure gold. If one of them pops up in your neck of the woods and you have an opportunity to attend, clear your calendar and get your ticket. No matter what this event charges, you will get your money’s worth by attending and learning as much as you can.

Unfortunately, many of these types of event are either by invitation only or put on for membership-only organizations, so make sure you are properly connected at all times. If you aren’t cool enough to receive an invitation, at least know someone who can help you secure one on the DL.

Acceptable price-point: $500 – $5,000/day depending on the level of the summit. Some focus on CEOs while others cater to VP-level execs. The price can vary greatly from one to the other. On average, shoot for $1,000 to $1,500./day (Considering that most of the presenters charge upwards of $2,000 per day, you’re getting a bargain even at the very highest end of that spectrum.)

Why you will now only see me at conferences with a legitimate reason for being:

Why am I telling you all this? Two reasons:

The first is to give you a heads-up: Before you start spending your summer vacation money on a half dozen worthless social media conferences over the course of the next 6 months, be aware that you could easily be throwing your money away on a bunch of hot air. Do your homework. Don’t just attend social media conferences because they’re there. Research the speakers, the topics, and more importantly, ask yourselves this simple question: What will I learn there that I couldn’t learn for free or on my own by spending a little quiet time with our friend Google? Stop paying unscrupulous conference organizers to put on crap events. Please.

The second is to let you know that effective immediately, I will not be participating in any conference that provides little or no value to attendees (you guys), and this for three pretty simple reasons:

1. I don’t need the imaginary validation some people believe comes from becoming a staple of the US social media conference circuit. It’s a self-perpetuating ego trip. Nothing more. It’s completely meaningless and stupid.
2. There comes a point where spending more time speaking than actually doing becomes counterproductive… and frankly, a little suspect. Anyone who has time to speak at 40+ conferences per year doesn’t have a real business. They’re a professional speaker, not a professional doer. No thanks. That isn’t who I am.
3. There is absolutely no good reason whatsoever why I should ever lend my good name to the type of event that isn’t truly serious about helping businesses from around the world better understand, develop, integrate, manage and measure social media. That’s what I do. That’s what I am passionate about. If speaking at an event doesn’t serve that function, then it is a waste of my time and yours. Why should I lend my name to an event like that?

In short (and in case you hadn’t figured it out) I am serious about what I do, which these days basically consists in helping as many businesses as possible not only recover from this recession but emerge from it in better shape than they entered it. What it does not consist in is trying to become Mr. hot sh*t Social Media guru by showing up at every odd conference I can smooth-talk my way into. So aligning myself to every tom, dick and harry who puts on a horse and pony social media conference makes no sense at all in my world. I hope you guys won’t hold that against me.

And to be clear, if some of you want to try and become the next big thing on the Social Media conference circuit, I won’t hold it against you. I’m sure there’s money to be made there in the next couple of years, and the masses need good advice and insights into how social media can help them improve their lives. But if you don’t take that role seriously, if you aren’t responsible with the trust the public puts in you and your relative expertise, don’t be surprised if you pop up on the wrong end of my bullsh*t radar.

Conference organizers, you have your work cut out for you. If you want to create relevant events that will endure for years to come, I’ll be happy to help. By all means, let’s talk. But if you’re in this game to make a quick buck, don’t even bother sending me an email. I want nothing to do with what you stand for, and we’ll all see you on your way down.

In closing…

Both the #Likeminds team and the audience/participants reminded me that conferences with a purpose are as wonderful and valuable as conferences without one are a waste of time and an insult to our collective intelligence. When the most valuable information to come out of a marquee social media conference seems to be that “social media “will probably be called “new media” next year, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that we’ve lost our way as a professional community. We can do better. We should do better. We have to do better.

After having attended three social media conferences while in the UK and a funeral while in France (yes, we’ll talk more about that as well), I came to the realization that the level of discourse about Social Media in the US needs a serious kick to the arse, and fast. This isn’t a game. This isn’t a fad. While the Twitternets were busy RT’ing an article that a distracted Fast Company blogger wrote about all the cool parties he went to in Vegas for BlogWorld as if it were gold, while pundits discussed the finer nuances of whether or not “Social Media” should change its name to “New Media” in 2010, our European counterparts were busy asking hard questions about how to actually plug social technologies and processes into the enterprise. How to sell it to their bosses. How to actually measure it properly. How to budget and plan for it. How to train their staff to use it. How to create a working social media management structure within their organizations. How to adapt their management cultures to the new realities of a perpetually networked and socially-empowered world. In other words, how to move forward from here.

Yep, while the US social media conference circuit was busy navel-gazing and playing rock star to its own eager fishbowl, real businesses with real problems were asking real questions, out there in the real world, where companies make and lose real money, where jobs are either created or lost, and where the world of business either adopts new ideas or moves on without giving it a second thought. Not next year, not in six months but right now. This week. Today.

In light of this, I hope everyone had a blast partying like rock stars in Vegas. Where’s the next party? Los Angeles? New York? Miami?

We can do better. We’re going to do better. And yeah, we’re going to start right now.

To be continued…

* Such a global best-practices summit is currently in the works. Details soon.

Posted in adaptation, competitive edge, conference, conversations, social media Tagged: brandbuilder, conference, LikeMinds, olivier blanchard, social media ]]> http://thebrandbuilder.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/3-conferences-and-a-funeral-part-1-good-conferences-vs-pointless-conferences/feed/ 70 Olivier Blanchard Crottes de chiens 1 LikeMinds '09 conference 01 conference 02 conference 03 http://thebrandbuilder.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/becoming-p2p-principal-characteristics-of-the-new-social-business/ http://thebrandbuilder.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/becoming-p2p-principal-characteristics-of-the-new-social-business/#comments Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:41:54 +0000 Olivier Blanchard http://thebrandbuilder.wordpress.com/?p=2866 ]]>

Skip this indented part if you’re in a hurry and you already know how the term P2P came to be:

Though I am sure that someone thought of it long before I did, I coined the term P2P in 2008 in response to a question someone asked me about the evolution of business. The individual was asking about differences between B2B and B2C (business-to-business vs. business-to-consumer for the uninitiated) and it occurred to me that the context of the question required that I remove those two categories from his line of thinking. I suggested that he might want to look at the way businesses communicate more in terms of P2P (People to People). Thus, the idea of P2P was born – at least in my world.

Fast forward to today: Dozens of presentations, trainings and speaking engagements later (and well into writing the book on this ), I thought it would be interesting to start outlining some of the characteristics of the type of business that thinks of itself more as being P2P than B2B or B2C. I was thinking about it so much this week that I actually had a dream that I was writing this post last night, which prompted me to write this in the real (awake) world this morning. So here we are.

By the way, what we are talking about here isn’t an evolution from B2B and B2C to P2P, but rather a cultural shift that allows businesses to - while still falling into a B2B or B2C category when it comes to their relationship to their markets - see themselves primarily as P2P organizations from a cultural and operational perspective. Does that make sense? In other words, businesses don’t cease to be B2B or B2C when they adopt a P2P “lifestyle”. They just get better at doing business, basically. MUCH better.

If you skipped ahead, welcome back. Start reading now.

What might a P2P business look like? Well, that may be  too long a topic to cover in a blog post – hence the book, but what I can share today is a short list of characteristics you might find when encountering (or looking for) such a business culture. Here are the first few that jumped to mind:

1. The P2P business doesn’t hire though job sites or advertising. It hires by inviting candidates already connected to the company through social networks, both online and offline. New hires rarely have more than two degrees of separation from their new boss and team, meaning they are either connected directly to at least one of them via a social network or came personally recommended by someone connected to a member of the team. In other words, the P2P business hires people it knows, respects, trusts, and has a relationship with instead of relying on a “human resources” bureaucrat to pluck complete strangers out of a resume pool.

2. The P2P business no longer has a Director of Social Media, just like traditional B2B and B2C businesses no longer have a Director of Telephones: Social Media is completely embedded in the organization from an operational standpoint. What does that mean? It means that every department, from HR to Marketing to Product Development to Customer Service to Community Management uses Social Media the way they use any other tools and channels to do their jobs. There is no longer a separation between “traditional” media, “digital” media, “telephonic” media, “Water Cooler” media, and “Social” media. The company uses Social Media fluently to communicate with people inside and outside the company. (Note that I did not utter the word “customer” once in this paragraph.

3. The P2P company doesn’t block FaceBook. The P2P company doesn’t block Twitter. The P2P company doesn’t block LinkedIn.  It doesn’t frown on access to community platforms like Ning. As a matter of fact, the P2P company helps its employees participate in online and offline networks more effectively through training and development instead of trying to insulate them from those “dangerous” online community platforms. As a bonus, since HR is no longer tasked with recruiting complete strangers, its staff manages this function beautifully.

4. Within the P2P business, the I.T. department no longer plays the role of cranky gatekeeper when it comes to adopting and deploying digital tools. The I.T. department has morphed into the T.E. department: Technology Enablement. Former I.T. professionals with passive-aggressive tendencies who get in the way of employees using the latest and most effective digital tools no longer have a place in the P2P Business. (Buh-bye. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way back to the ’90s.)

5. P2P Brand Managers are among the most sophisticated business strategists on the planet. No longer do they mostly be concerned with push messaging, self-serving marketing communications, trade dress and the ever ubiquitous logo redesigns. Their skillset has now exploded to meet the needs of an increasingly complex organization and marketplace.

• They are now fluent in the four precepts of effective P2P program ownership: Development, integration, management (where monitoring lives) and measurement.
• They are personally involved and invested in the communities that support and align themselves with the brand(s) they manage.
• They are now equally involved in every step of the product lifecycle process, from ideation, design, development, manufacturing, testing, launch, and management.
• They spend at least as much time in the world as they do inside the bubble of their corporate office, because they realize that is where their brand and products actually live.
• Brand Managers are now mobile. They are cultural anthropologists as much as they are business managers. They look to free themselves from the corporate cocoon as much as possible to keep their perspective fresh and their insights untainted.
• Brand Managers have become socio-cultural designers. Think about that for a minute and then think about it some more. This is key.

Why this change? Because the P2P business realizes that since everything touches the brand, the brand requires an advanced level of strategic, tactical and management sophistication not currently found in your average brand manager. These folks are highly connected, well traveled, intellectually curious, passionate leaders, not just mid-career marketing professionals with 3-5 years of product launch experience.

6. The P2P business understands how to smoothly blend campaigns with its daily mix of activities. Though it is naive to think that there is no longer a division between PR, Advertising, email marketing, web “marketing”, mobile marketing, customer support and community engagement, these roles and the deliverables they create work seamlessly together. Two reasons for this:

• A structure now exists that both requires and enables  lateral communication through  real time collaborative tools between all deliverable owners. (Nice corporate-speak, right? Gotta love it. See (7) below.) In other words, the left hand talks to the right hand a) because they can and b) because they must.
• Doing business any other way is just stupid and management at the P2P Business understands that all too well.
• See (5) above: The Brand Manager and his staff are actually capable of managing this level of complexity now.

The P2P business knows how to integrate project teams from outside firms and agencies. They are now embedded in the business rather than treated as an external element.

7. The P2P business only uses corporate speak to make fun of corporate speak – and out of a sense of responsibility: Keeping that dying linguistic tradition alive will serve as a lesson to future generations that the world of gray cubicles, and cretinous business language almost destroyed business in the early 21st century. Footnote: For whatever reason, Bullshit Bingo meetings usually happen on Mondays and Thursdays. Don’t ask me why.

8. Employees of P2P businesses don’t hate their jobs. Why? Because they are empowered by their management team to collaborate with employees and the communities they touch. As a result of being  clearly aware of their operational boundaries and because they receive ongoing, multilateral support from their organization, they know how to act professionally when dealing with the public. While roles and org charts are still clearly defined for obvious reasons, employees enjoy a greater level of operational flexibility, working across silos/departments when their breadth of skills match the needs of a particular project or program.

For the organization, this interconnectivity helps break down silos, helps accelerate project completion time-lines, and reconnects the company organically with the outside world (their markets). From an employee perspective, it results in a dynamic ecosystem which fosters professional and personal development on a day-to-day basis. Empowered, engaged employees are usually happy employees. Happy employees usually create fantastic customer experiences and help make good companies great.

9. The P2P business no longer outsources its customer service. Period.

10. The P2P business partners with like-minds. Put simply, it understands that the partners it aligns itself with say at least as much about its brand(s) as it does on its own. Even when partnerships are meant to be purely strategic or tactical, they signal an alignment of values that the marketplace (the community) is quick to take note of and interpret. The P2P business understands that public opinion drives its brand. It no longer puts itself in a position of having to defend its choice of strategic partners. Cultural compatibility is now as important as strategic benefits. Call it a positive byproduct of transparency, and a welcome farewell to the corporate need for PR’s much maligned (and increasingly ineffective) spin function.

11. In case it wasn’t obvious: People would sell their grandmother to work there. Not just because the P2P company pays well (it might not) but because it is known to be a fantastic place to work, learn, and build lasting professional and personal relationships. People who work there are happier than most, professionally engaged and fulfilled, consider themselves successful (their definition may differ from yours), and wouldn’t dream of working anywhere else.

That ought to get the conversation started.

Speaking of P2P implementation… Without revealing too much too soon, I would start planning to attend the February 2010 #Likeminds conference in Exeter, Devon, UK. Bring a thick notebook and a couple of extra pens. That’s all I can say for now.

Cheers.

Posted in 2009, account planning, acts of rebellion, adaptation, culture, customer experience, customer relationship, evolution, excellence, P2P, relationships, relevance, social media, social network Tagged: b2b, B2C, brandbuilder, business, culture shift, evolution, olivier blanchard, organizational change, organizational planning, P2P ]]> http://thebrandbuilder.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/becoming-p2p-principal-characteristics-of-the-new-social-business/feed/ 45 Olivier Blanchard UK09 061fbP2P http://thebrandbuilder.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/first-things-first-the-social-media-roi-presentation-from-the-likeminds-conference/ http://thebrandbuilder.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/first-things-first-the-social-media-roi-presentation-from-the-likeminds-conference/#comments Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:10:35 +0000 Olivier Blanchard http://thebrandbuilder.wordpress.com/?p=2856 ]]>

Answering questions at #LikeMinds -Exter, Devon, UK

If you’ve missed seeing videos on the blog these past last few weeks, you’re in luck: I have some video for you today.

By now, you’ve probably seen the full version of the “intro to Social Media R.O.I.” deck I presented at SoFresh this summer, right? (If not, go check it out here.) You can also browse through most of the videos from my F.R.Y. and R.O.I. blog posts on www.smroi.net (which puts everything in one convenient place for you). And then there’s this recent piece by Mashable on the subject (which I highly recommend, by the way).

So what’s the latest? My presentation and ensuing panel discussion at the inaugural LikeMinds conference in Exeter, Devon, UK on October 16th.  We’ll be talking a lot more about Like Minds in the coming days (and weeks, and months) but for now, let’s focus on these two videos, which are essentially captures of the live feed provided during the conference. In these videos, the panel and I clarify what Social Media R.O.I. is and isn’t, and answer well crafted and at times difficult questions from the crowd.

Catch Part 1 here.

Catch Part 2 here. (That’s the one with the panel discussion. Very good stuff from the crowd and panelists.)

I also recommend that you take the time to watch Scott Gould’s intro, Trey Pennington’s keynote and Maz Nadjm’s presentation among other solid video content from #LikeMinds.

Cheers,

Olivier

Speaking at the #LikeMinds conference in Exeter, Devon, UK

Hang tight, kids. I’m trying to figure out what topic to open up with after my epic 10-day trip through the UK and France. I have hundreds of pages of notes bouncing around in my head and topics flying out of my… moleskine (what did you think I was going to say?) so it may take me a few hours yet to figure out where to start. And that isn’t even factoring in the pictures and videos I need to upload and edit. I am still in email management mode, and it may take a few days to sort it all out. 75 emails per day x 10 days… Yeah. I need interns.

Several things are certain though: Things are going to change around here.

First of all, expect less musings and more practical advice. The last thing the world needs is more abstract dreameries about brand management, new marketing, business 2.0, social media and the types of topics covered in this and other blogs of its kind. There’s plenty of that on the internets already and the last thing I want to do is add to an already overabundant pool of personal opinions.

Second, now that I have spent the better part of my stay in Exeter and London with some of the brightest minds in  business, brand management 2.0 and the Social Web (from Sky News, Edelman, Nielsen, the BBC, WC Group, 4 Walls and a Ceiling,  WorldEka, Limenoodle,  Red Cube, iLevel, tweetmeme, FreshNetworks, Sinuate, Optix Solutions, and Aaron+Gould, to name but a few on a list as long as it is brilliant) I have a much clearer understanding of the level of dicussion businesses need when it comes to preparing themselves for the next decade, particularly in the US, where the army of social media “guru” we’ve been lamenting about has been reaping a harvest of shameless crap on the backs of their unsuspecting clients.  For shame. Seriously. For shame. I hope there’s a special circle of hell for you if you fall into that category of a person.

In short, you, my readers, and companies wanting to improve their situation and their customers’ lives in the process all deserve better, and we’ve wasted enough time bleeding philosophy about market leadership, what social media XYZ is or isn’t or the value of effective measurement. We’re going to get down to brass tacks and talk about things that will make a real difference in your business.

Third, well… Hold on to you socks. We’re about to see how fast this V12 can really go. I have some pretty exciting announcements to make over the coming weeks.

Back in a bit with more. In the meantime, if you haven’t already done so, you need to go check out all of the incredible content from the #LikeMinds Conference I attended in Exeter, England, including some solid videos and photos of several of the presentations.

I am going to be in Europe for the next week or so.

Don’t worry, I will most likely be blogging from France and the UK. (We’re all good.) That said, my ability to approve comments may be limited, so don’t get stressed out if your comments remain in approval limbo for up to a day or two. Likewise, my access to email, Skype and Twitter will most likely be spotty, so don’t stress out if an email , IM or DM goes unanswered for a bit.

Oh, and in case you want to stalk me, here’s where I’ll be:

Dates and places:

October 15 London and Exeter (UK)

October 16 and 17 Exeter (UK)

October 18, 19, 20, 21 Nice, Cannes, Toulon (F)

October 22, 23, 24 London (UK)

So if you’re in London, Exeter or anywhere near Cannes while I am there, let me know.

I’ll throw more details at you once I’m in the old country.

Happy travels to all.

Now that we’re hopefully beyond the “what is social media and why does my company need to understand it” phase, let’s move into some practical thinking.

First things first: The four principle components (or building blocks) of any social media program, each with its very own management imperatives. They are (yes, in order): Development, integration, management and measurement. This is important to point out because it lays the foundations for structure and the assignment of specific roles within the context of Social Media. (Hint: A Social Media practitioner isn’t necessarily a jack of all trades. Some are strategists. Others are communicators. Others still like to play with numbers, not people. In other words, you need to realize that just because someone is a Social Media practitioner doesn’t mean they are suited to perform any and all Social Media duties your organization requires.)

In an upcoming post, I will outline some of these types of roles, but for now, let’s take a very brief look at the four building blocks of any well structured Social Media program, especially in the enterprise space:

Development is basically the strategy behind your Social Media program. The build. The framework. Someone at a Director or C-level has to put the strategy together. That someone has to ask the macro questions:  How can Social Media help the company? What are we trying to accomplish? How can we build a program that will accomplish these objectives? Who will be the principal players? Where will the funding come from? What should the program look like? What should be its macro components? What time-frame are we working with? What and when will the milestones be? What needs to happen in order for this program to happen and be successful? What tools will we use? How will we gauge success?

Integration is the plugging-in of the program into the organization: Training staff. Recruiting staff. Working across silos to incorporate the social media program into the company’s current activities. Working with HR to develop social media policies, guidelines and training. Working with PR to coordinate corporate communications. Working with customer service to embed Social Media into existing customer support initiatives. Working with IT to make sure the company’s Social Media ecosystem is swift, painless, and secure. And so on. You get the picture. The integration piece requires someone with operational leadership experience. Someone who knows a) how Social Media fits into every department’s world, and b) how to actually work with department heads and key staff to smoothly embed Social Media into their processes.

Management is the day-to-day execution of the Social Media program. This can look like a multi-layered management structure (most likely for an enterprise-space company) or it can be a one-man show (small business or business in its first year of dabbling in Social Media). Types of activities that fall under the management umbrella are things like community engagement, customer support, business intelligence, market research, content production, publishing, monitoring, etc. This is hands-on work. We’re outside of the realm of strategy here. This is pure execution. Where the rubber hits the road.

Measurement is… well, you know. Someone has to measure success, failure, even stagnation. Incidentally, measurement doesn’t just involve overall financial impact (ROI) and non-financial impact. It also involves the performance of individual departments based on their specific goals and objectives. (The Customer Service team is certain to use a very different set of metrics to define success than, say, the Public Relations team.) Certain campaigns may also require separate measurement independent of the entire program.  And drilling deeper still, measurement also involves individual performance: If, for example, a community manager is evaluated on their ability to grow their community by x% and respond to a minimum number of daily queries, then measurement lives there as well. In other words, in addition to the macro components to measurement that we usually talk about (like ROI), don’t forget the layers of micro components as well.

As you may have guessed, one person probably shouldn’t handle all four elements of a Social Media program unless they absolutely have to. There are three basic reasons for this:

1. Most people, no matter how talented and hard-working don’t have all the skills required to do it all (or do it all exceedingly well). Some people are analytical by nature (measurement), others are fantastic strategists (development), others – operational superheroes – see how all the pieces fit (integration) and some are natural charismatic “get it done” powerhouses and avid consumer advocates (management). Rarely do you find strong analytical, strategic, management and integration skills in just one person.

2. Even if you do find that one person, s/he probably can’t handle that complex and involved of a workload for very long without suffering a spectacular burnout. Even the most multi-talented social media manager/director can’t do it all. Try to integrate a social media program across several departments AND be an effective community manager AND be responsible for program measurement to senior management. Good luck with that. Spread the load.

3. Community managers and customer service representatives probably don’t need to worry about silly things like R.O.I. What they need is an environment that allows them to engage with the public without having to worry about measurement and strategy and integration. Some things just don’t go well together. If everyone can just focus on what they do best, everything will flow much more smoothly. Specialization isn’t a bad thing.

If this all seems like common sense, you’re right. It is. But how many Social Media programs, even among the world’s top social brands actually have such a structure in place already? (Don’t worry. You don’t have to answer that.)

Just food for thought. Again, this might not work for every company… but it probably does.

This comment by John Heaney was so interesting that I just had to share it with you guys today. It describes a real world application of some of the suggestions I shared with you in my last post:

A recent SM implementation with a national staffing firm confirmed virtually everything you wrote.

From a design perspective, I adopted the hybrid avatar to incorporate the individual’s face with the company logo. I’ve found that using a black and white head shot and overlaying it with the company logo in color is an effective way for the company’s color to pop out and creates a distinctive visual cue that is recognizable in the stream of tweets blowing by on the user’s monitor.

We insisted on a corporate twitter ID for each staff member instead of using their personal twitter ID’s for precisely the reason you described: we want to maintain ownership of the relationships built with clients and prospects in the event that an employee leaves the firm. They may leave, but the Twitter account and all of its followers stays with the company. We made the investment in building their network and we recognize the enormous value in 500, 1000 or 5000 devoted Twitter followers.

Although we did create a corporate twitter ID, we find that it is not really used an an interactive ID, but as a way for individuals to find us and direct future communications through one of our employees. The corporate Twitter ID is constantly monitored, but there is virtually no interactive traffic and its tweets are generally PR related – announcements of office openings, new hires, new company blog, etc.

Once the structure has been designed and implemented, it’s as crucial to have someone monitor all the corporate twitter streams. I’ve discovered employees who have tweeted inappropriate comments, revealed too much personal information and have used language that would never be allowed in any printed communications from the company. Every tweet reflects positively or negatively on the company and needs to be monitored for brand and message consistency. I wish it could be done automatically, but they actually have to be read and corrective action taken before any damage is done to the company.

Again, yes, there are many ways to skin a cat, but some tend to be better than others.

Keith Burtis asks a pretty interesting question on his blog today:

I have been working with a few brands of late that have told me that they prefer to have their logo over a human face as their avatar on twitter. At first I had a real problem with this. Personally I love how Scott Monty has created his blended avatar with Ford. I also like the way Olivier Blanchard humanizes his account, but also has branding. Where my question comes in is for organizations that have multiple people tweeting from the same account. You are not able to get everyones face into the small avatar box, but at the same time do people feel like they are being pushed commercial advertising by following a brand logo?

To me, twitter is about being human. My 2 rules for twitter engagement are here please help with defining number three:

1. Create two way dialog with real people to real people. Don’t sound like a press release.

2. Be selfless and of massive value to the community. No one gives a crap about you, what they care about is what you can do for them.

3. (Question) Avatars? Chris Brogan wants to see a human face on the twitter account, but I don’t think that is always possible or even strategically appropriate. Lets explore!

The Avatar question: Logo, face, or a combination of both?

All right. Let’s take a practical approach to this problem:

1. We’ve established that every corporate entity needs an overarching branded account. @Ford, @McDonalds, @HomeDepot, @Starbucks, @CocaCola, @Pepsi, etc. Typically, accounts like these don’t need to be humanized visually. They are simply the brand’s footprint and general presence on Twitter.

2. We’ve also established that someone within an organization who plays a role for that organization on Twitter needs a dedicated Twitter account. Though in many cases, such individuals still use face or logo avatars, the ideal avatar format for them is a combination of face and logo, like @scottmonty, myself, @chadmcmillan and @angbowen to reference a few. (Disclaimer: I lobbied Scott for weeks to add the Ford logo to his avatar, so I may be a little biased when it comes to his design.)

It stands to reason that if an organization has a team of folks whose job includes a certain level of engagement on Twitter, creating avatars that convey both the human (face) and corporate (logo) elements create context, and brand continuity in that channel. (Click here for an earlier post on the art of the corporate avatar.)

General structure of an organization’s Twitter engagement team

So first, let’s look at what that looks like, and then we’ll look at how it actually works in terms of the engagement process.

Here’s how the ideal Twitter org chart looks like (assuming a flat organization vis-a-vis Twitter – Typical a first year model for most companies):

In this made-up example, ABC Corp manages 7 Twitter accounts. Its first twitter account was @ABCcorp, and initially, all of its Twitter activity was handled through this account. But after a few months, the company realized it needed to do two things:

1. Humanize its presence on Twitter.

2. Establish a broader footprint on Twitter to address specific needs.

During the corporate account’s initial test run, ABC Corp realized that it was getting very specific types of questions, comments and complaints: Most were customer service-oriented. Some involved IT, HR and Marketing. And to top it all off, the company’s COO was very interested in playing a part in the company’s Twitter experiment. After some deliberation, 6 key people were added to the @ABCcorp Twitter team (shown in the image above).

An avatar design was approved for official use, and the standard added to the company’s Social Media policy.

The next step involved figuring out whether or not ABC Corp. would own its Twitter accounts or rely on its Twitter team members (twitternauts) to take care of it themselves.

Why role definitions instead of names?

ABC Corp. had two choices when it came to creating its “human” accounts: Let people use their names and even existing accounts, or create company/role-specific accounts. It opted for the latter. Here’s why:

1. ABC Corp.’s CEO wanted to clearly let the public know who was speaking for the company. Using people’s names as their Twitter “handle” didn’t indicate what their role was with the company. He didn’t like that. Although there would have been nothing wrong with it, he prefered that the accounts reflect the individual’s roles within the organization. He reasoned that their names were to be listed in their account profiles, so it wouldn’t be a problem to go this route.

2. ABC Corp.’s CEO also wanted to ensure that the accounts were used strictly within the context of brand engagement. He didn’t trust that every conversation in a social setting would reflect positively on ABC Corp. The 6 Twitternauts were encouraged to also manage personal accounts for their own use, but separate corporate accounts were created specifically for their “official” duties with ABC Corp.

3. ABC Corp.’s CEO realized that if ABC Corp. didn’t own and control its Twitter accounts, any one of the 6 Twitternauts leaving the company would create continuity of engagement issues. This type of problem would be compounded as more and more employees of the company started using twitter in an official capacity. Given #2 (above) he wanted to find a way to make sure that if/when tweeting employees left the company, the accounts through which they engaged the public on Twitter would not go away with them.

By a) owning the accounts and b) naming each account after a specific role rather than the user’s name, a staffing change can be easily addressed: Change the avatar, change the profile info, and voila. Within minutes, the problem can be solved and continuity can be preserved. The account’s followers aren’t lost and the public doesn’t have to search for a new account. Presto.

Note: This isn’t necessarily what I suggest doing, but it is one of several options available to organizations, and for many corporate cultures, roles rather than names may be ideal.

The response process

Okay. So now we have a structure: At the center (or top) of ABC Corp.’s Twitter program is the faceless corporate account. The Brand’s account. The account with arguably the most visibility but the least amount of… character. @ABCcorp is the account through which most announcements are made. Though it engages with fans and customers, these touches are very brief and very light. Typically, 1 out of 10 tweets from this account tend to be some kind of PR or promotional tweet. Links to new blog posts, to press releases, to newly launched microsites, etc. For examples of this, check out @homedepot, @starbucks, etc.

And of course, the @ABCcorp account also gets a lot of requests for attention. We’ve already addressed that the largest percentage of requests for action involve customer service issues. Complaints, requests for support, etc. In this particular example, the request is:

@twitteruser9000x : @ABCcorp I’ve been wondering about what kinds of benefits you guys offer. Is it true that you offer pet insurance?

Here’s what should happen:

In this instance, the inquiry and acknowledgment exchange should look like this:

@twitteruser9000x : @ABCcorp I’ve been wondering about what kinds of benefits you guys offer. Is it true that you offer pet insurance?

@ABCcorp : @twitteruser9000x Great question. Let me hook you up with someone who can answer your question. Do you follow @ABC_HR yet?

At this point, two things can happen:

1. @ABC_HR should be monitoring Twitter (even passively). If so, the mention of his name by @ABCcorp should pop up in his stream and prompt a response.

2. To make absolutely sure that the message (or ticket) doesn’t get lost through in the shuffle, the person managing the @ABCcorp account can ping/email/call/txt or otherwise notify @ABC_HR of the request.

Procedurally, there are many ways of doing this properly. Whatever works best for the organization. What’s important is that the handoff doesn’t end up in a fumble.

What happens next should be fairly simple:

@ABC_HR : @twitteruser9000x Hi Jill. Yes we do. A lot of us are pet owners here, so we want to make sure our furry friends get the nest care possible.

@twitteruser9000x : @ABC_HR That’s so awesome! Can you tell me more about it?

@ABC_HR : @twitteruser9000x Sure! Check out all the deets here (insert hyperlink) and let me know if you have any questions. BTW, dog, cat, or other?

So let’s recap real quick:

1. Someone addresses a question to the brand’s general account (@ABCcorp).

2. The account manager acknowledges the request in a prompt, friendly matter.

3. The account manager determines who within the team would best be suited to respond to the request.

4. The account manager notifies the best person within the team that they need to respond to a request on twitter.

5. The designated “human” account takes over and engages with the person who triggered the inquiry.

It’s that simple.

Other types of response models

Example A: The indirect complaint

1. Someone tweets about a horrible experience they just had with one of ABCcorp’s products.

2. The account manager for @ABCcorp spots the complaint in his stream. (Via a simple Tweetdeck #search, for instance, his Radian 6 dashboard, or any number of means.)

3. Even though the person with the complaint didn’t address the complaint directly to @ABCcorp, the @ABCcorp account manager acknowledges the complaint. (Or passes it on directly to the appropriate account manager. Perhaps @ABC_cs1 or @ABC_cs2)

4. Response, dialogue, resolution.

Example B: Complaint tweeted to the wrong person

1. Someone complains to @ABC_CMO about a promotion that seems to have vanished once they got inside one of ABC-Corp’s stores.

2. @ABC_CMO acknowledges the complaint but has better things to do than take care of every customer service complaint. He knows he needs to graciously pass off the complaint/inquiry to someone else:

@ABC_CMO : @angry_tweep99 Hi Jack. I’m not sure what happened with that. What store was it?

@angry_tweep99 : @ABC_CMO It was store #123 in Greenville, SC. This is the second time it’s happened this year! What’s going on?!

@ABC_CMO : @angry_tweep99 Sorry about that. Hang on. I’m boarding a plane in two minutes, so let me hook you up with @ABC_cs2. She’ll help you fix the problem right away.

3. @ABC_cs2 takes over the dialogue. Easy as pie.

In this case, the handoff was completely lateral. The @ABCcorp account didn’t need to get involved.

For bonus points, @ABC_CMO can check back with @angry_tweep99 later that day or the next morning to make sure the problem was resolved.

A few things to think about

1. It makes sense to have an overarching corporate account for the brand. The avatar for the account should be the brand logo/mark. Its @name should reflect the brand as well.

2. It makes sense to create unique “human” accounts for various members of the organization’s team who will be called upon to engage on Twitter. These accounts form the company’s human layer of engagement.

3. For the sake of clarity and brand continuity, the avatars for these human accounts should be a blend of the person’s face AND the corporate logo. Without a logo, the face is just another random face on Twitter. Give the avatar context. Give people a visual cue. Brand the conversation from the start. Let them know that they are being taken care of by a representative of your company.

4. The main twitter account for the brand can (and probably should) serve as the receiving hub for all inquiries and comments.

5. While the main twitter account usually does a fine job of lightly engaging the public, it is not necessarily best suited to pursue deeper and more meaningful engagement, which, after all is the point of being on Twitter.

A) People want to talk to a human being, not a logo.

B) It is difficult to develop a relationship with a logo.

C) People want to engage people inside a company. They want access. They want a link to someone behind the veil.

D) Give people what they want. (See A, B and C above)

Note: It doesn’t cost you anything to create Twitter accounts. Why limit yourself to one corporate account? More to the point, why force a team of people to share a faceless corporate account and make them use silly antics like ^signatures?

(If you don’t know what I am talking about, look for tweets from corporate Twitter accounts with footers like ^MS or ^JS. Those are signatures. They indicate that several people are using the same faceless account. Tweets ending with ^MS might be published by Michelle Smith while tweets ending with ^JS may be published by Jack Smith.)

Why? Why would a company do this? It’s just silly. Give these people their own accounts already.

6. Companies in their first year of Social Media adoption need to start thinking about how they plan to manage online accounts a year from now. It isn’t enough to think about today. Ask the question: As more and more of our employees start using Social Media for us the way they use phones and email, how do we ensure that a) this all remains manageable no matter how fast it spreads across our organization, and b) our brand is conveyed properly and remains true to our standards in the Social Media space?

Hint: Structure and methodology help manage things like this.

The model proposed here is not the only valid one, but I propose that every organization considering how to properly structure their Twitter engagement through Year 1 at least look at how it might work for them. Test it, see what works, tweak what doesn’t, and have fun.

There’s a lot more to talk about, but I think I’ve covered the main points for today.

Questions?

X-ray photo credit: Nick Veasey

Special thanks to several of my "Like Minds" conference co-speakers
for lending their profile photos to this post.