Persistent Conversations And Relationships

A few thoughts, continuing the discussion started here.

  • A conversation is a set of exchanges of information.
  • A relationship is an implicit or explicit agreement to have continued conversations in the future.
  • Persistent conversations can form the basis of the relationships between members of a social network.

In the article Managing Long Term Communications: Conversation and Contact Management, the authors note a wide variety of techniques that their interview subjects used in order to remember what they had committed to doing next to hold up their end of the conversation. All of the typical modes you would expect were exhibited: everything from handwritten notes to online diaries to sticky notes to writing crib notes onto body parts (hands, usually, but I s’pose other parts would work as well).

This is where the tools come in. Contact Management or CRM systems, etc., should be used to manage these conversations. But that’s not how these systems are thought of or, frankly, used. Contact management systems are typically used as a Rolodex; stagnant, frozen, and one-dimensional — what are the person’s digits? A subtle shift in thinking, however, leads to show that instead of merely acting as repositories for the mechanical contact aspects (phone number, email address, etc.), these systems could be used to understand where one is in an ongoing conversation, what has been said, who’s turn it is to speak next, and when it should be said. Subtle, but critically important. Most of these systems have the capabilities to track notes…but the big “a-ha!” comes in when those notes are no longer thought of solely as relics to be filed away, but instead are thought of as the “placeholder” in an ongoing dialogue.

Now, that being said, equally important as the ongoing conversation is that same past record of conversations. Why? Because that conversational record may be important to other members of the network. An example, from the Long Term Communications paper:

“We had a housewarming party where we sent out an invitation and gave everybody three by five cards, and they had to come back with a recommendation. Because we moved into the new neighborhood and we didn’t know plumbers or dentists or doctors or anything…All the recommendations are in here. And people know we have this list now, and so they call us up to recommend an X. And so we’re becoming sort of a local knowledge group because we did this at our housewarming.”

So, in this case, the fact that these participants held onto the conversational record transformed the newbies in the neighborhood into the neighborhood experts for all things domestic.

What does this all mean? Once the conversation’s started, keep it going (and know if you have the responsbility to do so). And as it unfolds, know where it has been, as that knowledge can easily be the basis of the next conversation.

Al Gore, Joel Hyatt Launch “Current,” A Collaborative Television Network

Al Gore (yes, that Al Gore) and Joel Hyatt (yes, that Joel Hyatt) just announced “Current TV,” their new collaborative television network, formerly called “INdTV.” From the wires…

The lede:

“The first national network created by, for and with an 18-34 year-old audience, Current will offer 24hours of programming in a unique, short-form content format when it premieres August 1. Current will invite audiences to move beyond their roles as viewers to become active collaborators, encouraging them to help shape the network’s content and fulfill its mission — to serve as a TV platform where the voices of young adults can be heard.”

The good bit:

“The participatory model of Current marks a giant leap in seven decades of television. ‘Until now, the notion of viewer participation has been limited to sending a tape to ‘America’s Funniest Home Videos,’ calling an interview show, taking part in an instant poll, or voting someone off an island,’ added Gore. ‘We’re creating a powerful new brand of television that doesn’t treat audiences as merely viewers, but as collaborators.'”

The techno-analogy:

“Taking its cues from their media consumption habits, Current will offer short-form programming in the TV equivalent of an iPod shuffle. Its “pods” will be 15-second to five-minute segments that range from the hottest trends in technology, fashion, television, music and videogames, to pressing issues such as the environment, relationships, spirituality, finance, politics and parenting, subjects that young adults can rarely find on television. Pod segments include “Current Playlist” (music for the digital generation), “Current Parent” (advice to first-timers), “Current Gigs” (career guidance) and “Current Soul” (trends in spiritual awakening). Drawing from audience submissions are such pods as “Current Courage” (profiles of heroism and altruism), “Current Video” (video clips from the next Spielbergs or Spike Jonzes) and “Current Rant” (inviting viewers to let off steam).”

The Google tie-in:

“‘Google Current,’ built using samplings of popular Google search data, including from Google Zeitgeist, complements the free-flowing pod format with news updates each half-hour. Thirty seconds to three minutes in length, these segments buck conventional news practices by reporting not on what media editors decide is “news,” but on the topics people are actually searching for right now. So news isn’t what the network thinks you should know, but what the world is searching to learn.

“We’re pleased to collaborate with the entire Current team to help this network make the world’s information more accessible,” said Sergey Brin, Google’s co-founder and president of Technology.
“Current is an exciting new direction for TV programming that enables any viewer to have the opportunity to broadcast their video to the world,” said Larry Page, Google’s co-founder and president of Products.”

Digging through the Current website, they’re definitely off on the right foot on the participation front…an assignment desk, and a listing of the local meetups where folks can get involved, and a bunch of other ways to turn the audience-as-customer from a group of slack-jawed, couch sitting troglodytes into active participants.

Let’s see where this one goes.

Note and disclosure: My daughter is interning at Current this week. And was so good at the No Damn Announcements thing that she wouldn’t even tell me the new name of the network before launch. Good on ‘er.

I See Nothingk!

Forbes does a profile on ten customer-initiated corporate hate sites. Every corporation mentioned was contacted for the article. The responses from a few of the corporations, from the article:

Walmart: “We have seen some corporate complaint sites. We don’t spend a lot of time on them.”

Microsoft: “No comment.”

Verizon: “What’s really pathetic is not Verizon but this sort of lame Web site. In this day and age, anyone with a gripe can put up a Web site and make outrageous claims as the authors of this one did.”

American Express: Did not return repeated phone calls.

I can just hear the spinmeisters now: “Shhh…no…no…just ignore them. They’ll go away…”

Riiiiiigghht.

(hat tip: jake)

Customer Conversation Management?

Doc just served up a softball with this headline:

Because ‘Customer Relationship Management” is about management more than customers

I’m originally from Chicago, where softball is a religion. Where “softball” is anything but. Where the ball is the size of a grapefruit, hard as granite, and gloves are not allowed (do a search on “mallet finger” some time, if you want the full effect).

I know from softball.

And to that headline I say…absofrigginlutely.

Now, “Customer Relationship Management” is typically thought of along the following three dimensions:

  • Sales Force Automation
  • Marketing Automation
  • Customer Support

And Doc is spot-on. It is the rare occasion that any of those three dimensions is considered from the customer’s point of view.

Focus on just the first point, where “Sales Force Automation” is oftentimes equated with “Customer Relationship Management.” And again, the point is spot-on…SFA is about tracking numbers of leads, it’s about “managing the pipeline,” it’s about pushing a customer through the defined selling process of the vendor. It’s not about the customer at all. It’s about management, and quarter-end roll-ups, and “30% probability of closing.”

We’re at a time where we have the opportunity for a fundamental shift in this thinking, even using the same underlying technologies. And here it is:

Vendors: Stop thinking about moving customers through a “pipeline.” Start thinking about holding up your end of the conversation. Literally.

Yes, the “conversation” term is being overused, and runs the risk of becoming a cliche. (And if anyone has a thought of a better way to distill this concept down, please share it.) But there is the opportunity here for a shift in thinking that doesn’t require any change in the underlying technologies that are in place in order to do this.

How do we do this? Start using these types of systems more, but in a totally different way. Start keeping actual track of the actual conversations that you, as an individual, are involved in. Not from an “I checked off these three steps in the selling process” sort of way, but rather in a “here’s what we were talking about” sort of way.

Danah Boyd has pointed out that there is an increasing amount of research being done in the area of how we, as individuals, can use technology to involve ourselves with persistent conversations. And that’s exactly right.

Christopher Allen (and if he’s not on your blogroll right now, you’re missing a lot) states:

“For instance, my experience with most politicians and many salespeople is that I will be forgotten as soon as I leave the room.”

Bingo. And why does that feeling exist? Because those salespeople and politicians are not really embracing the concept of a relationship. A relationship is a series of linked, persistent conversations.

To be involved, one needs to make a commitment to hold up one’s end.

“We” v. “They,” Customer Communities, And Reinterpreting Metcalfe’s Law

Fred Wilson draws out the distinctions between two types of companies, “we” companies and “they” companies, and the respective philosophies of how each interacts with customers:

“We” companies are built by and for a community of users. Everything (including profits) flows from this core value of serving the users. We companies and their profitability are incredibly sustainable.

“They” companies are traditional companies that seek to optimize profitability at the expense of everything else. These businsses are not sustainable and they tend to overreach and ultimately end up in a long and steady decline.

In particular, Fred notes that Apple is moving from the realm of “we-ness” the same-ol’ “they-ness” that has unforunately been the norm. Suing community members (bloggers). Charging usurous fees for third parties trying to strengthen the iPod platform.

I’m going to harp on this meme again.

Transactions => Conversations => Relationships => Community

Move right, young men and women. Move right.

Focusing on transactions alone is myopic. Transactions are fungible.

Conversations and relationships are good. Very good, in fact. But they can be made even stronger by bringing more individuals to the party. Think of what Metcalfe’s Law states:

The usefulness, or utility, of a network equals the square of the number of users.

Now think about the broad definition of the word “network“:

An intricately connected system of things or people…

Grow the community, and it’s possible for all community members to benefit. And yes, “benefit” in this case can include profits for the companies truly engaged in the communities. Exhibit A.

Sunny, With An 80% Chance Of Kicking Some Serious Ass

Based on a recommendation, was checking out the WeatherBug site. Was scrolling around, and found an interesting, but mostly innocuous post:

Why do you use your WeatherBug?

Hey WeatherBug users, we want to know! Why do you use your WeatherBug? Is it deciding what to wear in the morning, scheduling your weekend plans, checking on vacation locations… Open up to us and tell us why! While you are at it, let us know what else you would like to see in WeatherBug and ask us anything. Seriously, anything.

Click on the comment link below and scroll to the bottom of the page to let us know!”

Now, check out the footer on that post:

(234) Comments

Holy cow. Customer stories. And more customer stories. How about this, from “Pete”:

“I’m on disabilty so I’m kind of the Weather Guy for My Wife. I go to the Weather Bug all the time and then I go to my wife with the updates. I have had the weather bug for a long time now and I just enjoy everything about it. I like to call my friends all over the States and I look their weather up before I call them.”

Or this one, from “Jim”:

“I am a Wildland Firefighter. I use WeatherBug to keep me posted on the current and predicted weather. This allows me to prepare myself and the crew for extreme fire behavior due to high temps and low humidity, thunderstorms, etc.”

Or another use case, from “Jeff”:

“I am a Paramedic and working in the weather is what I do. I rely on Weatherbug for the accurate forcast and realtime weather stations so I know what to expect where I am working. I also access WeatherBug from my Nextel phone.”

And “J.D.”:

“The reason I use my WeatherBug is because I not only like to get my local weather, but I also use the feature for other towns across the United States, because I am a huge NASCAR, and IRL racing fan.”

These are not members of some homogeneous “market segment.” These are real people, conversing and telling their real stories, voluntarily. Good on ya, WeatherBug folks, for reaching out to them.

Connecting like this can’t help but serve them…and you…very well.

Communities, Customers, Relationships

Over the past couple of weeks, there has been a fascinating amount of connection between a number of folks writing and thinking about communities and relationships, and their impact on how customers and companies interact. A few pointers:

Jake McKee, CommunityGuy

“A community is a group of people who form relationships over time by interacting regularly around shared experiences, which are of interest to all of them for varying individual reasons.”

Jennifer Rice, BrandShift

“I see community as a group of people who come together and interact based on a shared interest. But that community may not result in relationships, and it may dissolve in a day. Or an hour.” (I disagree with this.)

Jake, Followup #1

“I think you have to make a distinction between “community activities” and “community”. Community happens when all parts of the community definition are fulfilled. When only parts of the definition are fulfilled, community activities happen. Epinions, Amazon, and ThinkGeek all do these very well, but since they’re missing the “form relationships” piece of the community definition, I wouldn’t call them communities.”;

and a clear, wonderful distillation of the whole concept (emphasis added):

Too often these days, businesses are seen by their consumers as entities rather than the groups of people that they really are. Small companies are often the bastions of interesting, non-traditional business. Small business either doesn’t care or doesn’t know enough to be risk adverse. They also have more fun, and as such, come across as a group of humans, and not some big floating head in the sky out to steal your money.”

Lee LeFever, CommonCraft

“Community building is not about tools like message boards and blogs. Community building is about people- about developing trust, relationships and emotional connections. Community is more tool-agnostic than you might think- if the people want to create a community, it will happen.”

Jake, Followup #2 and Followup #3:

“At it’s core, asking the question “What is community?” is inherently flawed. What we’re really been talking about Social Connection – an umbrella that covers a range of activities and interactions…We can even think about this as a spectrum. On the left end of the spectrum, we have lightweight, short-term, or loose connections. On right end of the spectrum you have deep, long-term, relationships.”

Tomi T Ahonen and Alan Moore are coming out with a book that seems related, as well. (I love the concept, and therefore I hope that the content is able to overcome the buzzword generator. “Generation-C?” Puh-lease.)

Wonderful, heady stuff. Maybe this needs a fourth level:

Transactions => Conversations => Relationships => Community

A Brand Is A Place, Not A Thing

Hugh writes:

“A brand is a place, not a thing. (i.e. A place where people gather and do wonderful things.)”

Agreed. Strongly.

Let’s roll with this, especially in the context of the relationship hub discussion. First off, let’s get this out in the open: it’s the customer’s choice whether he or she wants to visit any of these “places,” and it’s the customer’s choice what happens once he or she gets there.

Now, that being said, it seems to me that there are three ways for this “place” to spring into existence.

  • The vendor/brand can provide a venue that the customer may visit. Vendor-driven users groups are a great example. Online communities are another. A corporate blog is yet another. Example: RUG. (disclosure: we’ve done some work with these folks in the past)
  • A social customer may create a venue like this or this or this. Smart companies will show up at the customer’s door and jump right in to the conversation. As noted a number of times previously, David S. does this really well (check the comments here when Jason C. teed off on Technorati).

  • A neutral venue may exist, like Epinions, where both the customers and the vendors can gather.

In no case is the “brand” in charge of the conversation at any of these venues.

Homework: Which of these three types of venues exist for your company/brand? And who from your company (anyone? anyone? Bueller?) is bellying up to the bar at each of them?

Customer-Centric Cuban

A couple of nuggets from Mark Cuban’s recent post, “Need A Job?” After spending a couple of ‘graphs slagging on sports marketing majors, Cuban states “it’s more important to know how our customers’ businesses operate than how the sports business operates.” ::ears perk up::

He then proceeds to advise the following for anyone wanting to get into his business: “If you can sell, you can get a job – anywhere, anytime.

At this point, I’m of course expecting a Alec Billy Stephen Fluffy (no, it was Alec, I get get ’em all confused) Baldwinesque rant like the one from Glengarry Glen Ross. Instead, Cuban offers a litany of good sense and spot-on recommendations. Three pull quotes of note:

“Let me be clear that it’s not the person who can talk someone into anything. It’s not the hustler who is a smooth talker. The best salespeople are the ones who put themselves in their customer’s shoes and provide a solution that makes the customer happy.”

“The best salesperson is the one who takes immense satisfaction from the satisfaction their customer gets.”

“The best salesperson is the one the customer trusts and never has to question.”

In other words, invest the time to understand, converse, and connect – truthfully – with the customer through empathy, integrity, and understanding. Practice actual relationship-building.

Right on.

(hat tip: Trevor Cook)