The problem with assumptions is that they always come with blind spots.
The friendlier and human a company is, the more potential for success it will have. This goes back to the theory that the company with the least amount of assholes wins. I think it goes without saying that unfriendly, emotionally disconnected, self-interested employees (and managers) always act as hurdles to internal collaboration, process improvement and the adoption of new ideas. They build walls. They create silos. They are agents of “no.”
Friendly companies are created by friendly employees and friendly management. Great customer experiences (whether they come in the form of great customer service or simply pleasant shopping adventures) begin with a culture of “we give a shit.” These customer-centric companies understand the need for fluid internal collaboration and the continuous improvement of process that affect, somewhere down the line, consumers’ perception of the brand.
But is that enough?
Consider the following two lists, and ask yourself which company you would rather buy your products from:
Company A:
- It’s a great place to work.
- I read an article about how cross-functional teams brainstorm to develop new products.
- They offer trainees $5,000 to quit their first week. No one ever takes the money.
- They have awesome customer service.
- Returns are never a problem. They treat you so nicely.
- I love shopping there.
- Their CMO seems like a really cool guy on Twitter.
Company B:
- I’ve heard it’s kind of a revolving door there.
- Made in China, I think.
- They have horrible customer service.
- Have fun getting them to send you a replacement.
- The lines at their stores are a pain.
- I have no idea who their CMO is. He sure isn’t on Twitter.
Obviously, Company A probably has a market advantage, right?
Maybe. What if Company B makes much cooler products?
What if Company B’s products are equal in every way to Company A’s but at a much lower price?
That changes the equation a bit, doesn’t it? Now, Company B might become far more competitive (and successful) in spite of all of the negatives listed above.
Now let me throw in a twist: What if, against all logic, Company B’s process actually requires an antisocial environment in order to produce cooler products? What if it requires a quasi-tyrannical leadership and hermetically-sealed silos in order to be successful? What if becoming a “social business” actually ended up hurting it?
Under Steve and Walt, Apple and Disney weren’t exactly examples of what a “social business” should be, and yet they became, in spite of many of the things that the social business model preaches, enormous successes. They changed technology. They changed entertainment. They changed culture. They changed the world for the better.
How can this be?
Would Apple and Disney have been better off with a stable of bloggers and community managers on their payroll? Twitter accounts? Facebook pages? Youtube channels? Foursquare promotions? Would they have been better off if Steve and Walt had been avid proponents of “social business” ideals, flat organizations and cowdsource-driven product design? Really?
I want you to think about that for a minute, before you go back to reading blog post after blog post about the coming “social business” revolution and all the good it will bring to the world. It just isn’t that simple. Becoming a social business doesn’t necessarily help a businesses create more value for anyone or become better at what it does.
Becoming a more social company is not the same as becoming a better company.
I am not at all suggesting that companies are better off ignoring the social space. I wouldn’t dream of ever advising a company to stay off Twitter and Facebook. It would be irresponsible of me to drive a wedge between an organization and the amazing potential that social media has in store for them. BUT, it would be equally irresponsible of me to suggest that trying to become a “social business” is always going to be in their best interest.
If you are a CEO, ask yourself why you really want your business to become “more social.” Is it because you really love your customers? Is it because you are looking for better, faster, cheaper ways to gather consumer insights? Is it because becoming “more social” allows you to increase your reach into social channels? Is it because industry experts told you it’s the thing to do this year? Why are you really focusing on this?
Here’s a better idea for you: Focus on building a better company, not just a more social one. Identify key areas of potential improvement and make those your focus. If social media can help you in this endeavor, then by all means find out how and do it:
Use social technologies to improve your customer service and reduce purchasing barriers.
Use social networks to help more people discover your great products or recommend wonderful employees.
Use social platforms to give your customers a reason to be loyal and act as good will ambassadors for you everywhere they go.
Improve internal collaboration and organizational efficiency.
Infuse your product management groups with insights and ideas from followers and fans.
Use social monitoring tools to identify new opportunities and spot potential threats.
The sky is the limit when it comes to how social media can help you become a better company.
But “being more social” doesn’t, in and of itself, amount to a whole lot. What does that even mean in a business context? Paying someone to hang out on Twitter all day and push out links to marketing content? Write formulaic blog posts to hopefully attract visitors to your website? Hire an agency to manage a Facebook page for you so you appear to be “more social?” Hire a ghost blogger to pretend that your CEO is committed to the social web? What’s the point of any of that? Why waste so much time and energy on pointless bullshit that isn’t benefiting anyone?
Now consider these two questions:
1. Will adopting a “social business” model really help patent-driven, data security conscious companies like Michelin, 3M and Pfizer become more competitive, more successful, and better at what they do?
2. Would adopting a “social business” model have helped Apple and Disney accomplish what they did? Or might it have gotten in the way by creating too much of a distraction or altering internal focus? Might an effort to become more “social” instead of generating brilliant products have worked against Apple and Disney?
Before you answer, consider this: The value of social media adoption and social process integration comes in degrees. Because every company is unique, every company will become more or less “social” based on its needs, capabilities and the dynamics of their internal cultures. Each of them will decide to what extent, and in the service of the improvement of what function, “social” will become part of its process. And guess what: There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
So again…
Question: Should Michelin, 3M and Pfizer, Disney and Apple become more “social?”
Answer: Only to the extent to which they and their customers will benefit from it. That could be a little, a lot, or not at all.
There’s a why question hidden in that Q&A, and a how question as well. You need to help companies answer both if you really want to help them.
Recap.
1. The “social business” ideal doesn’t apply to every business. That’s the problem with ideals: Ideally, they’re great. In reality, the world is messy. Things don’t always work the way we wish they would. “The road to hell,” as they say, “is paved with good intentions.” The road to epic screw-ups is as well. Proceed with clear purpose, and caution will mostly take care of itself.
2. Beware the salesmen of utopia. Selling ideals is one thing. Adapting them to your company’s needs is another entirely. Good consultants should be able to successfully put their advice into practice, not just suggest unrealistic goals and then watch you fumble at an impossible play.
3. If you focus less on “being social” and more on becoming a better company, you will be much better off by the end of the coming fiscal year. If social platforms can help you become that better company, great! Get working on it. If not, don’t sweat it. Focus on what matters, not on the flavor of the moment, no matter how many consultants and tech bloggers come to you carrying buckets of freshly brewed Koolaid.
Now stop reading blogs and go kick ass. Cheers.
Brand Building and Online Marketing Blog 
I so agree with this. All the Apple is a shitty company because of its social BS is annoying. It has nothing to do with reality, or actual $. I am sure they monitor.
I am sure they see it as a loss of competitive advantage to engage any deeper. And you know what, they’re right. They’ve got every company on earth shitting down their throats right now. Only an idiot would allow those secrets, the secret sauce of Apple’s success out.
Security concerns are always paramount for companies with a secret sauce. Michelin’s rubber formulation is a well-guarded secret. Coca Cola’s formula is too. Whether the thing is a chemical formula or a product development process, the secret weapon can be “outed” by too much direct access to social technologies. It’s an issue that needs to be addressed properly by companies like these, yeah.
I love the idea of being a better company. A better company with a better culture offering better products to better (educated/cared-for) customers should be more successful than a mediocre company being more social.
For me, it all boils down to the vision. There needs to be a reason why things are done the way they are. And profit or shareholder returns can’t be at the top of such a list. Customers can smell that corporate insincerity a mile away. Not to say profitability or maximizing returns aren’t important – far from it – but if the organization is built around truly delighting the customer with better products and services that make a meaningful difference in their lives, profits will soon follow.
Press on regardless, Olivier.
“It all boils down to the vision. There needs to be a reason why things are done the way they are. And profit or shareholder returns can’t be at the top of such a list. Customers can smell that corporate insincerity a mile away. Not to say profitability or maximizing returns aren’t important – far from it – but if the organization is built around truly delighting the customer with better products and services that make a meaningful difference in their lives, profits will soon follow.” – Brian Driggs
Looks pretty good like that, doesn’t it?
While reading this I couldn’t help but think of the examples given in the book Good to Great. True many of those companies are now in the hole (or don’t exist), but when the book was written they all rose because they rallied around the one thing they can do better than anyone else, and in some cases that was customer service.
I read Good to Great right before I read Social Media ROI and ever since I’ve been wondering how a social business culture would have worked for the case studies in G2G.
Would they have reached the heights they did? More importantly, if social did help them hit those heights would a social business culture have sustained them at the top of their game longer than they were?
In some cases I think it would have prolonged their success and staved off their demise, but regardless of how social could have helped or hindered them the fact remains that great companies are ones who drive to make themselves a better option for their customer. Which, lately, it seems like the ones who are making those moves are heavy social media users.
In a way this seems like the way successful businesses previously operated was a necessary evil to bring us to where we are today. Business was done that way to spur innovation, but that innovation also spawned contempt. That contempt lead to desire for things to be different and that desire spurred more innovation which will inevitably spawn more contempt because groups of people won’t be satisfied with the changes and that will spur more innovation.
Or maybe it’s a question of available technology too? Would Apple and Disney have done things differently if the technology was available? I have a friend who’s a marketing manager at Disney Interactive (one of hundreds) and their department lives and breathes social and would not have seen a fraction of the success they have without it.
Who’s to say. Great post as usual.
Finally something a little bit different! I’ll definitely be reading your blog from now on.
I think established brands do benefit less because they have so many people speaking for them already (blogs are hyping Apple every hour). But small and medium sized business could definitely benefit from a social presence. The problem is, social channels are only valuable if they don’t go stale. So I guess it becomes a matter of if the effort is worth the reward. I’d say 90%+ of the time it is (for small and medium sized businesses that is).
Thanks, Mark.
Emily suggests an even better argument: That service-focused companies will benefit more from adopting a social business model than design-focused companies.
Compare an architectural firm vs. a retailer, or a research lab vs. a hotel chain.
What do Disney, Apple, BASF and Michelin have in common? Conversely, what do Best Buy, Starbucks and Zappos have in common? It isn’t a perfect theory, but it still holds water. Worth thinking about.
Cheers.
Many times with great companies – take your Apple and Disney examples – success comes because they have the ability to imagine what their customers don’t even know they want, and more importantly, can execute the vision to create incredible demand and be market leaders. Even if they had access to the technology – social media monitoring, customer engagement and bend-over-backwards customer service ala Zappos wouldn’t help them imagine better things or likely increase demand for their product.
Many times, the companies who are great at social engagement are selling products that are available in alternative places, but their differentiation is in the service. Zappos isn’t changing the demand for shoes, they’re creating a shopping and service environment that drives the demand towards them instead of towards available alternatives.
Great insight as always, Olivier.
“Many times, the companies who are great at social engagement are selling products that are available in alternative places, but their differentiation is in the service. Zappos isn’t changing the demand for shoes, they’re creating a shopping and service environment that drives the demand towards them instead of towards available alternatives.” Bingo #1.
“Many times with great companies – take your Apple and Disney examples – success comes because they have the ability to imagine what their customers don’t even know they want, and more importantly, can execute the vision to create incredible demand and be market leaders.” Bingo #2.
Perhaps for Disney and Apple, crowdsourcing gets in the way of inventing the next need. Too much listening can be a liability for companies like this. It shifts attention from designing for tomorrow to respond to “now.” Disney, Michelin, Apple and BASF design for tomorrow. Their mindset, their process, is different from service organizations like Zappos, Starbucks, Best Buy and even the CDC.
When I was helping design products at T&S Brass, none of our ground-breaking ideas ever came from our customers. They came from our own observations in the field, not from asking questions or listening. All our customers wanted was “tougher” and “cheaper.” What ended up giving us an advantage was “faster”, “energy efficient”, “cooler looking”, “ergonomic” and “easier to install.”
You bring up an excellent point, Emily: There may be a fundamental difference in the need to adopt a social business model between design-focused companies and service-focused companies.
Two points:
1) I agree with the point I *think* you’re trying to make here. (all companies have unique needs, attributes, and differentiators so beware painting with a broad brush)
2) I disagree a bit with your apparent definition of ‘social business’. From where I sit Social Business *is* about trying to be a better company, your initial descriptions of that fit Social Business to a T, and may or may not involve ‘social media’…at all. I would say that companies like Apple may fully represent a ‘Social Business’ (I have no idea mind you), just because they don’t actually engage in social media can’t tell me the answer to that. It has nothing to do with ‘being social’ in the context of external social activity, so I’m confused. Your post seems to be describing to me exactly what I think Social Business is, but then goes on to talk about it like someone has said it requires this aspect of ‘social media’ and ‘being social’ as an activity. So I’m left wondering if you’re trying to correct some misconception about what people might mistakenly believe Social Business to be, or whether you believe Social Business requires this type of external social activity and are saying not everyone needs to be a Social Business because of that.
The outcome is the same, the message is different.
Sometimes Matt, I think you just like to argue for the sake of arguing.
Let’s focus on internal communications and external communications as the two principal mechanisms promised by the social business model:
1. Internally, social businesses facilitate collaboration between employees. You end up with flatter, more dynamic organizations. You can expect less command & control, less rules restricting the use of social technologies, more work/life flexibility, etc.
2. Externally, social businesses facilitate communications between employees/agents and the public by either bypassing traditional modes of communications or replacing them altogether. Signs that an organization has adopted this model are a focus on crowdsourcing, company-wide interactions between employees and consumers, very few restrictions on employee use of social technologies, transparency, legal not approving every communication or statement, etc.
Disney under Walt and Apple under Steve didn’t fit into that model at all. You can try to argue that they did, but I think you’ll find that argument refuted by people who were there. While we may not like to admit it, some organizations do just fine without being all that social, and would probably do worse if they attempted to become “more social.” Command & Control, hermetic organizations might not seem cool to us, but in some instances, that model just works. Changing the definition of “social” to make the argument that antisocial companies are in fact “social” may be convenient, but it doesn’t make it true.
We’re talking about company-wide operational models here, entire cultures, not a few anecdotal exceptions that involve the CEO and a small cadre of designers or project teams.
Cheers, man.
I’m actually not debating anything, I’m trying to understand your POV on social business. As I said, I have no idea what Apple looks like internally, I’ve never worked with them so I’m certainly making an argument to that effect. I’m trying to get a handle on whether YOU see #1 AND #2 as prerequisites to being defined a social business, or whether #1 OR #2 alone can qualify depending upon the circumstances. I fall into the latter camp, and we seem to agree on the fact that not everyone needs to do everything, I just can’t get my arms around which camp you fall into where the term Social Business is concerned thus the questions. Not sure what is so inflammatory.
Increasingly, the battle-cry of social media consultants is this: “You must become a social business. If you don’t, you will die.” I myself have fallen into that trap once or twice, and I was wrong.
The notion that ‘Social Business’ as an absolute model (which combines #1 and #2) is the natural evolution of business (its apotheosis in a sense) is what we are talking about: The notion that a business that adopts 100% of the social business model will somehow be better off than the business that adopts 99% of it, or 50% of it, or 1% of it. I say it isn’t.
It may be popular for some agencies, marketing firms, consultants and “thought leaders” to sell the golden egg virtues of the “social business” in 2012, but it’s essentially bullshit. “More social” is not necessarily synonymous with “better business.” To suggest otherwise, even in a general sense, is irresponsible and myopic. The model doesn’t apply equally to every business. Compare design-focused businesses with service-focused businesses, for instance: Would a hotel chain (a service-focused business) benefit from becoming a social business? Absolutely! No question. We could write a whole book on the potential there. Now ask yourself what advantage an architectural firm hope to gain from becoming a “social business?” (And here, I don’t mean using Twitter. I mean becoming a social business.) None. The change would drain the organization’s resources, force employees to spend more time and energy on social platforms and technologies than they need to, and would ultimately become a pointless distraction.
Disney, Apple, BASF and Michelin are examples of companies that can benefit from incorporating some social capabilities to their worlds, but may not want to become “social businesses.”
“It would be irresponsible of me to drive a wedge between an organization and the amazing potential that social media has in store for them” … nicely said. But I also love the fact that you talk about becoming a *better* company rather than just more social. Better is harder. Until you are better, social is lipstick on a pig 😉
And as such, a lot easier to sell.
Awesome post, thanks.
Classic marketing says to find out what your customer needs, and then deliver it. Steve Jobs took this a step further, and he discovered things that customers needed and wanted, but didn’t even know it, and then delivered it. (I never knew I needed an iPad, but I did.)
Many companies sell products that people don’t need or want, but use advertising to convince customers that they really actually do need it. If advertising doesn’t work, then they advertise more, until it does work. Let’s call these companies the “channel stuffers.”
For the classic marketing folks, the web is the greatest gift ever. It gives them new powerful means to listen to customers and engage them. Informal market studies can collect information almost instantaneously. Customers can get hooked on websites and other online sites, and they might discover all sorts of things they never knew they needed.
For the channel stuffers, on the other hand, the web remains another advertising tool. Their websites are informational, or, worse yet, they collect your personal information so that they can spam you to death. But no amount or spam or pop-up windows or “free offers” can get us to need or want their products.
Moral of the story? Know your customer, and sell things that they need and want.
Right, understanding your market is key to business success. What your market needs dictates the model and concept of your product.
And to Mr. Olivier Blanchard, thanks for sharing great posts!
Authorhouse
Authorhouse
This one has been on my mind all night. I think that’s why I had a difficult time sleeping. Or, could be the jet lag.
I think, for a while there, I was seduced by the full-on, 100% everyone needs to be a social business siren song and your post has made me re-evaluate my position.
I was preparing some deliverables earlier today where we used NPS to measure the impact and I kind of took a step back and said, “wait a second, I think I lost focus here for a bit. The actions we take (whether more or less ‘social’) have got to be about driving TRUST in the brand.
I hate to use Apple as an example b/c I do feel like they are an outlier, but since you brought it up 😉
At the core of Apple sits trust that consumers have in the company…that they are going to deliver solid, dependable, reliable products. We don’t get the feeling that they are just there to gouge us for the money, so we cut them slack on their “social” side…b/c the products are just great.
Alternatively, if you are a company that people suspect is just about “lock-in” and “platforms” and not about “doing awesome stuff,” you might look for more “social” since the trust isn’t there naturally.
All this being said, the opportunity to “be social” to drive valuable marketing objectives that drive Trust (mass collaboration, listening, community support to reduce tech costs) are obviously of huge value that, in general, outweigh the previous model, but I think you’ve (once again) done us all a favor of saying “don’t confuse the buzzword with the business objective.”
I’m sure this comment will come back to haunt me one day, but hey, I’m trying to be a “social business.”
You’re spot on. If it comes back to haunt you, it will be in a good way. Cheers, man.
Keep on keeping us honest Olivier! 🙂
Certainly social is no panacea and as you say, anyone promoting it as that should be looked at with a jaundiced eye.
We need to keep things in perspective while promoting social media. Accessibility externally and internally (listening and responding), bringing down barriers and silos is good, but simplifying the message down to just “be social” isn’t. We’ve all got to be careful not to turn that message into some kind of radio commercial jingle ;).
Regards,
jim
Community Manager
GetResponse Email Marketing
Thanks.
What about IBM?
IBM has been moving towards a model that fits its needs, but as social as it may be, I don’t see it really using SM to become more innovative, successful or relevant. So I don’t know. It may be that IBM is one of those companies that, with or without extensive social media adoption, find itself in a bit of a rut right now. That’s a leadership issue though. Different problem. (Microsoft is kind of in the same boat.)
I like the angle of this post. I work with a number of financial institutions looking to make ‘social business’ a key priority 2012. Leaving aside the less then glowing reputation of banks in recent years, there is a genuine sense that they need to build trust with the consumer, by becoming increasingly transparent.
Now on the one hand the product and services they sell, will always be the same. But on the other hand how they communicate to their consumers in an effective and transparent way is a potential route to building that trust.
But any new initiative to embed social business into an organisation must be build on the foundations of improved product/services or great customer service. Paying lip-service to social media just isn’t going to cut it in the eyes of the consumer or the client.
I have an interesting dilemma here.
On the one hand, I could babble endlessly about all of the things that came to mind (amongst the amens and hallelujahs) as I read your post (and I’m not even religious).
On the other hand, I could comment with brevity and just say, “Olivier, this post illustrates why I come here on a regular basis.”
Hmm.
I guess I’ll just say this. I was 100% shocked when I first started using social media as I began to notice the advice floating around. “You don’t need a plan, just start doing this stuff.” “Yes, you should use Foursquare for your business and if you don’t you’re an idiot.”
I’m from the B2B world. While folks, I suppose, *could* check in to a manufacturer’s warehouse where medical device parts are made, why would they? And how would it help that business?
In the business world we all assume that everything we talk about matters a ton to our customers. We forget that we are customers. Do you care whether Angel Soft out-tweets Cottonelle, or do you just wanna be able to wipe your tush? Sometimes life can be pretty durned simple. In the words of Paul McCartney, let it be.
Ok, after scooping out some nutella to get through all these comments here goes.
When did it become the mantra, to be a social business meant you could not or should not or do not need to or dang better will not ( your pick) be a better company.
Yes, there will always be people and businesses that jump on board because it is new and they were the shallow kids or friends anyway.
Then there are the hold-outs who will never come a board, they will stand there demanding evidence after evidence ’till they die.
Ok, now we have the extremes out of the way…then there are the rest of us who even if we are not retail, or hotel, or service professionals, want to look at “How can social media SERVE my business and clients/customers?”
Not everyone needs a full monty of a social plan 😉
Some just need to use it for how it will serve their business and their customers, maybe for them it is listen- then create ( like Apple-seriously you think they do not listen hhppmmfff).
Now, if we want to find ways to show “how” social can be used in unusual situations and what value they will deliver, let’s pick on the comment about saying…in the B2B world folks could check into a manufacturer’s warehouse but why?
How about if you were wanting to build vendor loyalty in the HVAC industry ( where they pick up parts all the time for jobs) Having come from that world, if we have three suppliers we get parts from , one- depending on who has them available, two- who has best pricing or terms and three- who is NICE to us when we visit…guess what? If I was rewarded for checking in when picking up parts as part of a loyalty program, you are damn skippy I would check in. Great way to use gamification to keep me engaged and continue to show me you value my business.
When I hear folks argue for their limitations, ( why social won’t work for my business) instead of asking how will this serve my customers and drive my goals for my business growth, then you are missing a few questions.
Does it make them a better company? Maybe, maybe not. Would they be a better company if they thought more about me the customer and less about how much trouble it is to figure out because they have never done it?
Rant over ;))
Interestng. It’s true that many companies are focusing on being social alone at the expense of their products. Thanks for this piece.
Nice post, but isn’t coming up with a marketing and customer service plan, using a variety of tools and strategies, sort of what smart businesses do?
This whole concept that social media stands alone and is either the magic pixie dust or the bane of any company’s existence is a sad testament to those who lead businesses and corporations.
Taking the “just be social” advice at face value would be like betting the farm on “Just do telephone and email.”
The tools and platforms are irrelevant if you aren’t using them with a plan based on the company vision, plan and execution of brand strategy.
I couldn’t agree more with you! Companies should try to interact positively with their consumers. It provides a face behind the name and people feel more comfortable building relationships with the brand. I really enjoyed reading this post and your comparisons of companies A and B. It made me laugh! It just means that people have to be more creative and personal in their interactions when trying to obtain a recognizable brand. Fantastic post!