-
Website
http://www.socialmediaexplorer.com/ -
Original page
http://www.socialmediaexplorer.com/2009/03/02/are-responsive-brands-playing-favorites/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Ari Herzog
20 comments · 23 points
-
JasonFalls
1708 comments · 20 points
-
Danny Brown
13 comments · 28 points
-
tomob
12 comments · 9 points
-
Scott Hepburn
12 comments · 1 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
Twitter Insights From A Facebook Crowd
1 week ago · 61 comments
-
Clearing Up Misperceptions
2 weeks ago · 74 comments
-
How To Increase Your Business By Relinquishing Control
1 week ago · 44 comments
-
More On The Science of Sharing From ShareThis
4 days ago · 14 comments
-
http://www.socialmediaexplorer.com/2009/12/20/2166/
4 days ago · 11 comments
-
Twitter Insights From A Facebook Crowd
I actually think your post raises another problem/issue -- when PR firms (Dix & Eaton included I think) are trying to help their clients determine their social media footprint we place a very heavy emphasis on the "influencers." Who can we actively target for a social media outreach that helps us deliver our message faster than we could ever do it? I think you'd probably agree that this approach really misses the point of what social media is supposed to be - a 1:1 conversation between brands and their stakeholders.
Anyway, thanks for the great post!
I never thought of Real Time Status Updates being used for training purposes, (i.e. the Sprint anecdote), but that could be another serious potential use for micro-blogging in big business... as opposed to the old comment card in a box method.
The problem large companies face is, how do you build a process around Twitter updates. Customer Care hotlines have been established to handle customer complaints, but they're traditionally used after the fact. I go to the store, I receive poor service or my product breaks, I call and complain.
With real time updates, poor service could theoretically be adjusted on the spot. The question is, do you centralize or decentralize this new process? How should it work, exactly? And to your point, does everybody matter equally?
A fundamental shift in the way most large organizations think about customer service needs to occur.:
OLD: Customer Complaints - Isolated / Private
NEW: Customer Complaints - Isolated / Public
If customer care is to be handled in the public, then I would argue that everybody does matter. As real time trending information becomes easier and mainstream, people will check out the real time customer service stream of a company before making a purchase... much like the way that I check reviews on Amazon today. In this case, it wouldn't necessarily matter that the company "took care of" the influencers, if the majority of their customers are given the cold shoulder.
Great post and fun to think about. :)
Thanks for the comment.
Ironically, the better experiences come from foreign service providers (iStyles & Scribd) than my immediate environment when I wasn't really a customer to begin with. (And they actually shared information).
To be totally flat out about sales acquisition of new customers, it's not about the brands trusting the bloggers. The brands should be more worried about if bloggers trust them. If they're continuing with the kind of favoritism that they have, I don't see how they can guarantee that my problems with their products will be attended to in future. Simply - bad customer service. If not for certain better functions, I would have drop that brand totally. But then again, I can't find a better replacement. That isn't a good reason for brands to get all high and mighty.
But seriously, it's seems true to me that these social media outreach efforts aren't aimed at addressing *every* customer with a problem out there -- otherwise, you wouldn't need 10 or 20 people (the largest outreach efforts I know of), you'd need something equivalent to a call center.
But I don't think that makes the efforts of these big brands "disingenuous." I just think it means, to Chris's point, that companies are still building out a process for doing this stuff sustainably. In my book, the Dells and Comcasts and Sprints of the world get a lot of credit for starting on this path. (Mind you that I think it's fair to apply a more rigorous standard to traditional channels like call centers.)
Thanks, as always, for the comment.
Thanks for the perspective.
To me, the more relevant discussion should be not the source of the issue per se, but the nature of the issue itself. It's a triage system, and each company has to outline it's own priorities for response based on the nature of the issue, how quickly it can be resolved, and the resources they have to dedicate to it.
Yes, I think it's a bit idealistic to think that influence won't ever matter. Same reason you'd take a call from the NYT without hesitation, but you might let your local paper sit for a few days if you're busy (whether or not you say you would aloud). Even when it comes to engagement and conversation, things like reach and power of networks still matter, and I think they should. Why? Because it empowers the GOOD things to spread faster, too, even if they often take a back seat to the negative ones. The goal, of course, is finding a way to get to every conversation, even if they have to be prioritized somewhat.
As for scale, I say it's possible. But it's going to take more than heaping the responsibility for listening and outreach on a handful of PR people or customer service rookies with an interest in the web. It's going to require retooling of systems and processes, the same way we did when all of a sudden we had email inquiries to deal with on top of the call center. For companies deeply engaged in SM, these channels will start shifting the ratio of communication volume from analog to digital media. But scale wont' happen by just piling on social media as an "and". It has to become integrated into the fabric of a company, giving people in both frontline and backstage roles the ability to use these tools in ways that make sense for their piece of the business.
Whew. Okay, was that long enough? Sorry. :)
Obviously your cries for help were heard because someone from the brand was either following your stream or someone that follows you. Or, they were simply using the Twitter search option. Either way, they came to your aid while missing others. Coincidence or more to it, only the brand can really tell.
Yet if they want to engage social media better, they should look at what still works in the *traditional* field. Look at call centres. You have boards on the wall that show waiting time, on-hold, dropped calls, success rates, etc.
Should big brands have a similar option for the likes of Twitter? I'm not sure how it would be implemented, but it could lead to some monetization for the company. Think about it:
* Brand A pays a certain amount to Twitter for unique bandwidth. This allows them to have their own search engine by geographic location.
* Customer service operator for that location are plugged into Twitter and monitoring stream. Any complaints that come in (or praise) can be answered with a "We're on it" response.
* Customer service operator raises a ticket for tech team, who get in touch with customer. Problem starts to be resolved.
This is a really basic idea and probably one that isn't feasible. But wouldn't it be nice to think it could be?
Cheers Jason, appreciate the compliment. :)
http://www.edbott.com/weblog/archives/000825.html