CHAPTER 1
THE LAY OF THE LAND
The world of social media and Internet communities has been called “the Wild West” so often by so many observers (usually those who aren’t directly involved in social media, by the way) that it’s become an accepted truth. While I don’t think the analogy is 100 percent on target, it’s used widely enough that I’ll stick with it, drawing a few parallels to make a point.
The most important asset for survival in an Old West town was knowing the lay of the land. A sheriff in the Wild West—at least the one of popular imagination—had to know every foot of his county, know the country like the back of his hand, and understand the unwritten rules of a society that allegedly had no rules. If he did, he was able to keep some order. Maybe he didn’t control everything, but at least there was a sense that the law was upheld and that the good people of the town didn’t have to live in fear of outlaw gangs.
The analogy pretty much holds true in the modern “Wild West” of social media: if you have a lay of the land and understand its nooks, crannies, and unwritten rules, you can master some elements of this “Wild West” and maintain some semblance of order.
So before we do anything else, let’s go through the lay of the social media land, as it were. In this chapter, we’ll get an understanding of this new environment and the basic rules of survival within it. Once you’ve got that down, we’ll move on to what you need to build a successful social media program.
Social Media Is About People, Not Technology
It can often seem as if the world of social media exists because of the development of inexpensive (or free) and simple publishing tools, like WordPress, or the emergence of Facebook or Twitter. The social media “gurusphere” and big businesses and brands often develop a fascination with the latest bright and shiny object—be it location-based services like Foursquare or Gowalla, influence measurement tools like Klout, or emerging community networks like Quora or Google+—and rush to identify their “strategy” for utilizing each tool. The problem with over-focusing on the technologies and platforms is that it misses the point. The phenomenon most people think of as “social media” is merely enabled by technology, not created by it.
“Social media” is an environment in which the barriers to publication have crumbled, making anyone with an Internet connection a potential publisher and trusted source of information. Whether about events or products, it’s an environment where traditional sources of information, such as the “traditional media,” the government, or a company or organization, are less trusted or viewed with skepticism or cynicism. It sometimes baffles some of my longtime PR colleagues that anyone in an audience might consider “Joe Blogger” to be as credible a source of news as a major publication or as credible a source of company information as the company itself. But in many cases, that’s where we are. Decrying it or arguing that it shouldn’t be does not make the environment any less open.
In the social media environment, real connections with real people are not only possible but also in many cases more greatly valued than the official voice of a company. Organizational voices (e.g., “Acme Company announced today that …”) are less trusted and less important, and the voices of real people—even those representing a brand—carry much more weight. In this environment, audiences are looking to connect with a person, not a logo. What you say is still important, but who says it is at least equally important, that is, a brand’s message is only as credible in these environments as the people from the brand who communicate it. The “social” is always more important than the “media” and always will be. Facebook and Twitter and blogs and podcasts and YouTube may empower these dynamics, but they don’t cause them. If you build a social media program thinking that you simply need to shift your attention to these new media without shifting your tactics or approaches, you’re going to fail. Few people want to be marketed to in these channels, at least in the traditional sense. They’re looking to interact—with real people who just happen to work for that brand—and they want to be listened to. When someone goes onto Twitter or a brand’s Facebook page or blog, she doesn’t just want whatever information the brand wants to push today; she can get that from traditional sources. She wants her questions answered, she wants her complaints or comments addressed, and she wants to know that her voice has been heard by the brand. That two-way dynamic is the most important aspect of social media, and if you’ve not grasped that, then it won’t matter which platforms you’re on or how quickly you got there. Audiences reward brands and organizations that join social networks or platforms to talk with people and increasingly ignore those that are there only to talk at them.
For Businesses Using Social Media, Social Media Is Still a Business Tool
Businesses and organizations can’t use the tools in the same way that individual users do—and the social media community must understand this. Organizational social media is done with purpose, for a purpose.
The individual connections and relationships made within social networks on behalf of organizations and brands don’t happen because the brands want to appear more approachable or more human. Those are nice side effects. But make no mistake: as unromantic as it sounds, businesses and organizations get into social media because they want customers (or potential customers) to eventually buy their products, feel better about having purchased their products, and have problems with their products resolved more efficiently, and they want to get insight on what might make a customer more likely to buy those products in the future. “The conversation” and “engagement” are just means to that end. Nonprofits should have similar goals: involvement in social media is a means to spread information and raise awareness about their cause, increase membership, drive a certain action from members, or raise money.
Before you start your social media program, you must know what your organization is looking to achieve or accomplish. Like any other business initiative, your social media program should have identifiable goals and objectives. Build those goals and objectives rather than just engaging in undirected “social media activity.”
It’s easy to get caught up in the “Kumbaya” talk about “the conversation” and the idea of relationships. But in a business context, those conversations and relationships are meant to lead somewhere. Richard Binhammer, who’s one of the main architects of Dell’s success in social media, puts it this way: “No company can afford not to be very close to its customers; social media is a viable, valuable tool within your arsenal for this whether you’re talking B2B or B2C.”1
While the conversational and sometimes uncontrolled nature of these media may seem unfamiliar or even frivolous, there is often real business value to even the most casual of interactions. Even a seemingly trivial conversation on Twitter or an occasional blog post that seems to have nothing to do with brand positioning or messaging can be a step in the direction that eventually yields the bottom-line results that the organization is looking for.
Social Media Does Not Change Your Business, Nor Is It a Panacea for All That Ails You
Social media is a fantastic tool for building relationships with audiences and customers, improving customer service, raising awareness of a product or service, and sometimes even helping to sell that product or service. But it is not a set of magic beans that turn chicken poop into chicken salad. If your product is not satisfactory to customers, the best social media program in the world is not going to disguise that reality.
In fact, social media can serve to amplify flaws in your product. If your customer service processes limit what your agents are able to do for customers, then putting a handful or even all of your customer service team on Facebook and Twitter isn’t going to improve your customer service ratings. In fact, it will just give your customers one more access point to lousy customer service that frustrates them and makes them feel uncared for.
Social media also is not an elixir that magically changes your company’s culture overnight. The existence of hammers and nails doesn’t mean that the non-mechanically inclined (like me!) go out and start building things; if it’s not something that’s in you, the existence of a tool doesn’t suddenly infuse you with it. If your culture isn’t disposed toward open conversation and genuinely hearing your customers or the audiences you’re targeting, Facebook and Twitter don’t suddenly turn you into Zappos; social media tools are as useless to you as a hammer is to a horse. As Richard Binhammer from Dell puts it, “If you don’t have a culture that wants to listen with big ears, social media won’t change that.”2
My first experience with social media in a big organization was at IBM in the mid-2000s. We got a lot of credit—I think deservedly so—for the enthusiasm with which IBM embraced the emergence of blogs and empowered its employees to get involved in blogging. But it didn’t happen in a vacuum. Mike Wing, IBM’s vice president of strategic and executive communications, is quick to point out that IBM’s enthusiasm for the openness of blogging was consistent with a longer-term evolution of its culture. From the emergence of an employee-driven and employee-written intranet to the “jams” (targeted, focused brainstorming sessions that welcomed all ideas and criticism) IBM conducted in the years before blogging took off, Mike recalls, IBM was on a gradual progression toward a culture of open dialogue and employee empowerment. “The extent to which social media is embraced depends on what the organization is ready for,” he says.3 It wasn’t that social media changed IBM’s culture and was a revolutionary step; IBM’s culture made the adoption of social media—and the initiatives that resulted that won us so much acclaim—that much easier and likely to succeed.
Mike also points out that technologies and platforms are rarely so complicated that they can’t be adopted by a big organization. Instead, it is not complexity but management’s attitude that is the key, he says; according to Mike, the most important social media platform is the level of management’s comfort with and trust in its employees.4 In other words, if your organization’s leadership is uncomfortable with the idea of giving up some control to audiences external and internal, social media is going to have a rough time gaining traction there. If, on the other hand, your management and culture are open to change and the input of employees and customers, social media is merely an extension of that approach and won’t be entirely disruptive.
Because of some of the hype that surrounds social media, a set of perhaps unrealistic expectations for what it can do for an organization has developed. It can amplify your marketing and communications programs and deepen customer relationships. But it cannot make you something you’re not, and it won’t make you what your culture doesn’t allow it to be. A great social media program should—and will—feel like a natural extension of a great company. If your company’s culture is stiff and controlled and your products aren’t all that great, then your social media program will likely feel stiff, controlling, and false, and your program just won’t be all that successful. You’re best advised to go about fixing your culture before worrying about launching a social media program.
You Don’t Have Control Anymore—Get Used to It
The idea of letting an audience dictate the direction or topic of a conversation is scary enough to make some companies wonder whether they really want to get fully involved in social media. Twitter, with its rapid-fire, real-time pace, open nature, and seeming randomness of trending topics, can seem like an uncontrolled free-for-all to a nervous executive unused to public criticism. The idea of allowing user-generated content on a company’s Facebook page or website often draws warnings from multiple corners in an organization. As a PR rep for a major national brand has told me, “Our execs know that the critics are out there on the Web; they just don’t think we should provide them a platform to bash us.” My friend’s company is not alone. From legal concerns about an organization’s liability for what a customer might leave on the company website to concerns about impact on the brand if disparaging comments appear on a page designed to get customers to want to buy, this desire to assert control over conversations about the brand is pervasive enough to be familiar to most social media evangelists within corporate settings.
In social media, the audience directs the conversation, and everyday customers are often thought of as equally reliable as or even more reliable than a brand when it comes to information about that brand. When a company tries to reassert control over a conversation happening online, its efforts are often met with scorn, anger, or charges that it “just doesn’t get it.”
So why would any executive in her right mind want her brand to engage in social media? Why get involved if you can’t control the content or conversations that are taking place about your product? Because you already lost control a long time ago—of conversations about your brand, the way your messages are received, and the way your brand is perceived. The ability of anyone and everyone to air an opinion—not to mention the larger breakdown of authority and trust in Western society, especially in America—means that audiences long ago stopped taking your word for how good your product is, what your brand stands for, or whether your news is truly relevant.
They also stopped putting as much stock as you do in what the traditional media has to say about you or your products. Have you checked a trust survey recently? About the only entities that finish below “corporate America” are politicians and the media. We in marketing and communications invest so much effort into influencing traditional media that we sometimes forget that the audience doesn’t put as much stock in these media as we do.
The fact of the matter is, people have been talking about us like this and mistrusting us and counteracting our messaging for a long time now; the social Web just amplified this and made it easier for them to share their perceptions. But marketers are kidding themselves if they think they can go back to the days when they were the most trusted source of information about their own brands or organizations or the days when having relationships with a few reporters at a handful of key outlets meant that they could control how a brand was represented and perceived by the public. Those days are long gone; get over it.
The good news is that while you can’t control online conversations, you can influence them. The more you’re involved, the more relationships you build, the more questions you’ve answered candidly, and the more times you’ve stood there and taken criticism, the more audiences are going to see you as an equal and valued partner in their community, and the more they’ll give you the benefit of the doubt or be willing to hear your position or side on things. Plus, your responses end up showing up in searches on the topic; if you’re not out there to counter unfair or inaccurate statements about your brand, the only thing Google or Bing will turn up is your critics. There’s a saying that you shouldn’t let perfect be the enemy of good; in social media, you shouldn’t let control be the enemy of influence. Avoiding a social media presence unless or until you can control it is self-delusional and also misses a tremendous opportunity to actually influence people in the directions you want them to go.
Your Organization Is Now a Media Outlet
With all the fuss and fascination about the emergence of bloggers as influencers or the launch of some new tool, channel, or platform that’s attracting lots of users, it’s sometimes easy to focus so much on who’s influential in which platform or whose blog we want to be mentioned in that we can overlook one of the most fundamental benefits of the social Web to big business: the ability to develop and publish content just like everyone else.
The fact is that these tools really do provide big brands the same opportunities as individuals to publish content and opinion inexpensively. It used to be that in order to get a big publicity hit, an organization’s media relations team would have to pitch the idea to big publications and hope something would click. After the Net emerged, media relations started aiming to land placements on popular websites for their content. But whether the clip appeared in print, on television, or on the Web, an organization had to rely on the outlet’s or reporter’s interpretation of its news, announcement, or messages.
Today, a company no longer has to rely on anyone else’s interpretation; if you develop creative and interesting content that draws an audience, you’re communicating directly to that audience—no reporter’s biases or time and space limitations involved. Instead of trying to get clicks on someone else’s website, a company is competing with those sites for clicks. You want audiences to click on your content rather than content generated by “the media,” a blogger, or anyone else. Instead of clicking on a video developed by USA Today and placed on its site, audiences can watch videos produced by you. Instead of reading the Wall Street Journal’s take on your latest announcement, your audience can read your blog posts. The trick here, of course, is creating content that is compelling enough to steal clicks from traditional media. Far too often, brands forget that their “messages” in and of themselves aren’t always compelling to someone who doesn’t work there.
Think of a company that’s not in your industry and doesn’t compete with you—one in which you have no professional interest, that you only relate to as a consumer. Would you watch a three-minute video about its new environmentally friendly packaging or its “version 3.1.1” slight upgrade of its flagship product? Would you care if you got an e-mail asking you to like its Facebook page so you could get “exclusive” access to its newest commercial? Would you forward it to your friends or post it on your Facebook page? Now think about the kind of content you do share. Which videos do you post on friends’ Facebook pages? What makes a story, post, or podcast worthy enough for you to send the link to your friends? When you’re developing content you hope will spread through social networks and across the Web, put yourself in the audience’s shoes. Give them reasons to choose your content over other sources—whether by entertaining them or giving them access to information they really can’t get anywhere else—and don’t assume that the audience will be interested just because you want them to be.
Even though you’re trying to win clicks to your content, these clicks don’t always have to happen on your site. When an organization invests significant resources in creating “microsites,” “online content hubs,” or something along those lines, it’s overlooking one of the most powerful aspects of social media: if you create great content, the social Web will do the work for you. Rather than spend a lot of money trying to draw people to your site, why not focus those resources on building content others will want to share and building up a network to syndicate that content to? It’s incredibly easy to make your video content shareable—often, with a simple click of a button or by copying a single line of code, other bloggers and online media can copy or share your content and post it on their sites or pages.
But whether audiences are visiting your website, blog, You-Tube channel, or Facebook page or seeing your content for the first time on a site unrelated to you, the point is that the tools of the social Web make your organization a content publisher—a media outlet—as much as anyone else. That’s an opportunity you cannot afford to miss out on.
Social Media Are Two-Way Tools
It’s easy to start thinking about competing with the media for how your story gets told and to start salivating while thinking of those 800 million consumers on Facebook or the nearly 200 million on Twitter just waiting to hear your messages and forget a very important point: all those people aren’t just there to have your message thrust at them. They’re there to interact with each other—and they expect that you know the etiquette, too. If you expect them to pay attention to you, they expect you to interact with them as well. This is a point frequently missed by people new to social media or who see social networks as mass collections of “eyeballs” to be marketed at. But if you only use the promotion/production side of social media, you’ve not fully grasped the point of its appeal. When you were a little kid, did you ever have walkie-talkies? How much fun was it if you were the only one playing? Sure, you could press the button, and in theory, someone might be able to hear what you had to say, but the game only got fun when someone else talked back to you.
Whether on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, blog communities, or some other aspect of the social Web, people are there for the interactive nature of what they find. They want to converse back and forth on Twitter, make comments on Facebook pages and blogs, be acknowledged and responded to, get into healthy (or pointless) debates with one another, and create video responses to one another on YouTube. Audience interaction and response is at the core of the social Web. If your organization is going to be involved, your audience expects that you won’t just be pushing messages—you’ll be listening, too.
I’m not the only one to offer you this counsel; many of the successful corporate social media leaders interviewed for this book mention “listening” as the most important element in their success. Richard Binhammer, offering counsel to anyone starting from scratch in building a social media program, says, “Start by listening first; figure out what your audience is doing and what they want. You have to understand your opportunity first.”5 David Puner, who built the Dunkin’ Donuts social presence, adds that “social media isn’t about having Facebook; it’s about knowing your audience, your brand, and what fits. Listening is paramount to everything.”6 Zena Weist at H&R Block says that the most important element to a social media program is “to make sure as you build your program the customer/prospect knows you listened, are listening, and are incorporating their input.”7 Richard also points out that “fundamentally, marketers are about understanding the customer—so it’s up to us to understand, not fight, customer expectations and needs within social networks. It’s not just about messaging!”8 I’m quite sure that if I had talked to another dozen prominent or recognized corporate social media practitioners, at least 11 of them would have mentioned the importance of listening to success.
Listening takes many forms. Sometimes it’s responding to customer complaints about your product online; sometimes it’s answering questions someone poses about your brand—or even just general questions about products that your brand happens to make. (While I was at GM, for example, if a blogger happened to ask about buying a new car, I might try to respond not by pushing Chevrolet but by asking what he was looking for most, how much he wanted to spend, etc.) Sometimes, it’s simply letting a blogger know that you read and liked her post, even if it had nothing to do with your product or brand. Whatever form listening takes, it’s the most critical aspect of your social activity—because listening and interacting earn you credibility. We just talked about the importance of building up a network of people who are willing to share or spread your content. People are much more willing to do so once they’ve engaged in a few conversations with your brand representatives online and gotten to know you and feel a greater affinity for your brand. That doesn’t happen because of your “message”; rather, it happens because you interact and listen. Just like in real life, listening to someone else makes him far more willing to listen to you; failing to do so makes him far more likely to tune you out.
Listening to and interacting with social media audiences is not a waste of time, a “necessary evil,” or a distraction from your true message; it’s a vital and indispensable part of your strategy. And that’s something that, culturally, your organization must accept and embrace before embarking on a social media program—not just in letter but also in spirit. If the organization is simply going through the motions or pretending to be open to feedback when in reality it is not, the audience is going to sniff that out pretty quickly. You can’t hide your true nature for very long online.
If your social media program or the people behind it focus too much on your message and emphasize content development or “editorial calendars” for social networks at the expense of genuine, honest, and unstructured interaction and listening, you’re still looking at social channels as one-way tools instead of taking advantage of the inherent and unique characteristics of the medium. There’s a difference between digital and social: digital is only one way—and if you’re not interacting with and actually listening to your audience, then you’re not doing social media, only digital.
It’s About Transparency, Not “Authenticity”
Some “social media rock stars” will tell you that success in social media requires authenticity and transparency. I’d argue no one can prescribe “authenticity”—what might be authentically within my personality might seem forced from you, or vice versa. But transparency isn’t nearly as subjective. You can’t start a fake blog pretending to be a customer who just loves your product, and your employees can’t participate in conversations on others’ blogs to talk about your brand or your products without disclosing their connection to the company. “Nondisclosure is slimy,” says H&R Block’s Zena Weist. “It still is happening a lot. I call it out whenever I can. All brands need to call out nondisclosure when they see it.”9
Transparency is not only a smart strategy. It’s mandatory. If you’re not 100 percent committed to transparency in your social media efforts, you’ll experience consequences not only with your online audience but also with the FTC. In October 2009, the Federal Trade Commission issued its first guidelines around how brands interact with social media influencers and bloggers—or more accurately, the kinds of disclosures that must take place whenever a blogger writes an endorsement or voices support for your product or brand.10
While these guidelines continue to evolve and there are still questions as to how they’ll be enforced, the bottom line is clear: the FTC is watching. Brands and bloggers alike need to be aware not only of the guidelines but also of the sentiment supporting them. The appetite is there to ensure full disclosure of relationships between bloggers and brands, as well as of any exchange of perceived value (free product, access to an event, etc.), and to enforce transparency by brands in the social Web.
It’s a simple thing, really: be who you say you are, make sure that anyone who’s received anything from you discloses the relationship, and don’t try to “pull one over” on anyone in the social Web.
Big Brands Can Innovate and Be Creative in Social Media
There’s a stereotype of big companies or organizations as colossi, stodgy in nature and too weighted by their bureaucracies and procedures to move quickly or innovate. This stereotype isn’t unique to social media—it’s generally shared across multiple industries and is embraced and even promoted by some entrepreneurs who argue that “start-up culture” is superior to that of big organizations and more conducive to innovation—but it certainly has adherents in the social media world. I’ve heard some social media consultants claim that they would never want to work with a big client, suggesting that organizational hubris and inertia would prevent the client from adopting anything truly groundbreaking or game-changing. Any example of a big organization’s failure or struggles in social media is often treated as emblematic.
It’s a silly argument. For starters, it ignores the fact that many of the most notable success stories in social media—Dell, Southwest Airlines, ComcastCares, Dunkin’ Donuts, H&R Block, IBM, Graco, Best Buy, Disney, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Starbucks, Chevrolet’s SXSW program, and the Ford Fiesta Movement, among others—were generated by large organizations. But it’s also neglectful of the fact that big organizations carry a lot of inherent advantages—name recognition, usually some financial resources, a marketing and PR team to help raise awareness, and larger groups of advocates or fans within an online community—that contribute to social media success.
Yes, bigger organizations have bigger bureaucracies. Yes, there can be organizational inertia or fear of risk. But entrepreneurs, start-ups, and small organizations have their own sets of challenges to overcome, from finding the money to carry off a good social media campaign to making sure enough people are paying attention. The truth is, when it comes to social media savvy or success, size doesn’t matter. Big brands come up with great campaigns; small brands and individuals come up with great uses for social tools. Success comes from creativity, and creativity isn’t inherently present in small organizations and missing from big ones. So don’t worry about whether “the audience” thinks you should be out there as a bigger brand or organization. If you develop great content, invest time interacting in the communities you hope to influence, indulge your more creative instincts, and remain transparent (there’s that word again!), your audience will come to respect and appreciate what you’re doing. They might even forgive you an occasional misstep.
Now that we’ve established some of the basic ground rules and gotten the lay of the social media landscape, here’s hoping that you not only are still convinced that you should be getting involved in social media but also feel that you have a little better sense of the environment you’re about to experience. We’ll move on now to the elements you’ll need in place internally before you actually launch your public program.