Participation 3.0: Thoughts on attending web events

Before we start… Yes, I have published this post as Partizipation 2.0 in German some weeks ago. Now, after having been to different other web events like i.e. TEDx yesterday, people told me to translate the post, upgrade it to 3.0 and make it part of the series The Social Society (Part 1: Social Networking and Part 2: Social Engagement & Jobs). So, here we go with part 3… Participation 3.0.

In the last weeks, I have followed different reviews on web events. And I have to admit, reading the latest posts caused wrinkles on my forehead. Doubtful on the real long lasting output. Questioning what impact those events have. And also, asking myself, what is the best way to attend these events and participate in the content and context these events have to offer?

What is the additional value in participating in all these events that are taking place in London, Paris and Amsterdam (although the last one was definitely the best of those!).

With all these future of web events, I am always asking myself: “To go, or not to go? Attending, or leave it?”. Attending is more work than ever before. Would you agree…?

Only if you really participate, as we call it today. So what is participation in the future? How do we define the luxury to attend an event offline in the future? Writing Tweets, editing and creating live blog posts, following and commenting on the latest conversation around the event – apart from participating in other realtime online conversations that are interesting? It is a challenge… and exhausting. Or do we see participation 3.0 more as listening offline, starting communications around the speeches and panels? Lively discussing with attendees “face-to-face” instead of “digital-to-digital”. Or both? Won’t we loose the visionary and revolutionary of thesis, the essence and matter then? It would be more than hard work to listen to everyone, right… Resulting in a “social media hangover” as Michael Brenner describes nicely in his post…

So what is participation 3.0 at web events in some years? My view of participation 3.0 looks as follows…

Participation 3.0 is interactive, i.e. a modern offline discussion panel that shares latest real-time knowledge among participants. No monologue of a great speaker, evangelist or business leader. It is moderation rather than presentation, stimulation not penetration, that these people on stage offer. Stimulation instead of penetration. Giving attendees the opportunity to be completely focussed on the discussion. No distraction. No wandering around between offline and digital conversation strings. An open for communication build lecture or workshop that asks, that enables knowledge sharing. People who understands sharing, disturbing and double-checking conversations as the imperative of speeches and presentations.

When have you seen somebody being inspired or animated by the speaker or presenter to giving their input? When did you see someone getting involved in the speech? And when is a participant criticising the speaker on stage (thought about the Aristotelean theatre are allowed)? Or would this be too spontaneous, unpleasant and disagreeable for the “homo connectus” in our nice offline world 1.0? Is participation 2.0 just one step too far away for us human beings…?

For years I am asking if the invested time in these “future of web events” will pay out? For years these events come along as usual events, very well-behaved, not hoody-styled, not freaky, not… whatever. Style 1.0! For years, I am waiting for the symbiosis of offline and online discourse which not even Twitter walls achieved to get going (if at all available and from the moderators used as an input tool for the conversations).

How sensible is it to listen to the web avantgarde without any interruption, or exchange ideas or visions with them when offline engagement does not exist, or is not even close to being alive? Remember how the “inner circle” was sticking to their smartphones, their talets or notebooks at the last event you participated? At the last events I joined, I followed tweets and comments where attendees wanted to drag the speaker or moderator off stage. Don’t even think someone shouted out loud… Did the critics really participate in these futuristic events?

Quite often I got the impression on national as well as international web events that a community in a community is self-inventing, self-justifying and “self-centrifying” their social world. And yes, it seemed they have celebrated their existance – without even participating in the event anymore. “Heard this speech and statement from the speaker already twice, let’s grab a coffee…!” Quotes I have heard often… Is it not essential to cut through the presentation and motivate people to think ahead in order to aggregate, catalyse and animate “shared knowledge”? Are we not standing offside and neglect our leadership position without realizing it – resulting in not added value for all?

Some years ago, it was seen as a premise to be part of the web avantgarde and to be invited to attend these events and to sip from the fountain of futuristic web intellect and insights.

Today, as of the old-fashioned event set-ups, traditional speeches and marketing intentions of the speakers 1.0, these events tend to become sum-ups, networking parties and reunions. Nohting special anymore it seems as everybody thinks the trend of shared knowledge does not offer any new input on stage?

Where is the realtime offline mapping of online conversations of participants following the event? Moderators often forget it and don’t get input from the technical staff. Somehow the boring monologue of the presenters seems to become the sleeping pill for the dialogue-fatugue audience – definitely during the speeches you can see it.

As soon as the event is over, the thirst for conversation starts immediately in blogs, forums or communities again. We find critic and virtual tapping on the shoulder. The blogosphere is alive again. During the event silence rules. No engaging offline conversation. No Wifi. Lack in bandwith. Lack in motivation for real participation initiative or motivation? Although, attendees feel the pressure to engage and participate in the offline monologue on stage, often nothing happens…

Maybe all this is the reason why the bloggosphere seems to be untouchable, outstanding, extraordinary? Or did these web geeks just find a way to differentiate from the community of the “web normalicus” by not really engaging anymore in the offline discussions? That would be a superficial approach as a specialist, wouldn’t it…?

So where is the barrier between participation 3.0 and thought-leadership 3.0? Or is this new type of web thought-leaders learning, growing and adapting and thus will always use this to build a gap between them and the mainstream user? Or will the event input get more sustainability and long lasting intensity out of “after-event participation” in online conversations? Then participation 3.0 would be even more interesting. Although some might see chaotic scenarios at events…

Maybe these are some thoughts are going too far away from reality, might be too revolutionary… What do you think about participation 3.0?

Study: Understanding the value of brand advocates…

Recommendation marketing is one of the most compelling ways to approach buyers. If these recommendations are coming from the social graph, people tend to trust them even more. If those recommendations are coming from brand advocates who love to talk about brands and their activities connect to them persuade the opinions and purchase decisions of many others, the value for sales and marketing from a word-of mouth point of view cannot be underestimated any longer, concludes a study by BzzAgent (recently acquired by dunnhumby Ltd.).

Study definition of brand advocates: “Brand advocates are people who habitually review products and share their opinions with others around them.”

The study on brand advocates by social media marketing agency BzzAgent concludes that these “heavy users” of social media were 83% more likely to review products and share their opinions than the control group of Internet users. The BzzAgent research makes clear that brand advocates share their experience on the brands they like offline and online: at the water cooler, in (online) shopping areas, or on social networks. Brand advocates are, according to the study, two and a half times more likely than other Web users to use social media to expand their social ecosystem.

A lot has been said about the motivation of brand advocates. This report suggests that while the people are altruistic as well as selfish in their responses, they are also brand advocates just to be social from a conversational perspective. Maybe you find some more helpful information in the BzzAgent infographic on brands advocates…

“They use these conversations as icebreakers to connect with people (…) which runs word-of-mouth marketing campaigns through its 800,000-member advocate network for clients such as Procter & Gamble, L’Oréal, and Welch’s. They meet new people there. This is recreation for them. They like to brag about positive experiences.” Malcolm Faulds, SVP of Marketing, BzzAgent

Spot On!
The emerging field of brand advocacy and its challenge remains first of all in the identification of brand advocates, and to understand the difference in male and female brand advocates, and counting in how volatile brand loyalty could be. Although products like Klout, Radian6 and SM2 are useful tools in this process, for me those tools often don’t really reflect the intensity of “brand love” and the trustworthy reliance on the real engagement and output for a brand. The real marketing impact and sales value of brand advocates can only be measured and forecasted in a real lively exchange with brand advocates. However this engagement needs to be online and offline. And companies need to create programms showing that brands understand the distinction between reach and relevance.

Partizipation 2.0: Gedanken zur Teilnahme an Web-Events

Liest man sich so die letzten Nachlesen zur re:publica durch -hier, hier, hier und hier- so bilden sich mehr und mehr Falten auf meiner Stirn. Nachdenkliche. Fragende. Suchende. Wo ist der Mehrwert der Partizipation an solchen Veranstaltungen über die Zukunft des Web, die da in London, Paris, New York oder eben auch Berlin stattfinden?

Bei jeder Web-Veranstaltung überlege ich: “Teilnehmen oder nicht?” Teilnehmen ist heute mehr Arbeit denn je. Aber nur, wenn ich denn partizipiere, wie das heute heisst. Aber ist Partizipation nun gleich Partizipation? Und wenn ja, wie definiere ich zukünftig das Luxusgut offline einem Event beizuwohnen? Tweets schreiben, Blogpost Resumee anfertigen und im Web kommentieren? Oder meint es eher… Mitmachen. Kommunizieren. Diskutieren. Oder beides? Dann geht es an die Substanz. Dann ist es harte Arbeit.

Aber was wäre modernes Partizipieren 2.0 bei solchen Events? Partizipieren stelle ich mir mal so vor…

Partizipieren wäre interaktiv, z.B. eine Diskussionsrunde, in der Wissen geteilt wird. Es wird moderiert, nicht referiert. Auf die Diskussion bin ich voll konzentriert, und nicht zerstreut umherwandernd zwischen realen und virtuellen Kommunikationssträngen. Ein offener gestalteter Vortrag, der animiert, der frägt, der Wissensteilung ermöglichen will. Jemand, der Imperative wie Teilen, Unterbrechen, Nachfragen als Grundlage des Vortrages sieht. Wann wird ein Zuhörer vom Vortragenden mal persönlich animiert zum Mitdenken? Wann wird man involviert in den Vortrag? Und wann kritisiert ein Zuhörer den Sprecher auf der Bühne (Gedanken an das aristotelische Theater sind hier erlaubt)? Oder wäre das zu spontan, dem “Homo Connectus” unangenehm in der Offlinewelt 1.0? Ist Partizipation 2.0, ein Schritt dem Menschen zu fern…

Seit Jahren erscheint mir fraglich, ob sich die Zeit auf den einschlägigen “Web-Zukunfts-Veranstaltungen” auszahlt. Seit Jahren kommen diese Events sehr brav und angepasst daher im 1.0 Stil daher. Seit Jahren fehlt mir die Symbiose aus Offline- und Onlinediskurs, die selbst Twitterwalls nicht einmal schaffen (wenn vorhanden oder vom Vortragenden/Moderator darauf eingegangen wird…). Wie sinnvoll ist es, der “Web-Avantgarde” unumwunden zuzuhören oder mit ihr den Diskurs online zu pflegen, wenn er offline bei Events nicht existent ist, geschweige denn gelebt wird? Man schaue sich nur an, wie dieser “Inner Circle” an ihren Smartphones, Tablets oder Notebooks klebt. Zuletzt habe ich Tweets von Leute gelesen, die Sprecher oder Moderatoren bei solchen Web-Events am liebsten von der Bühne gezogen hätten. Erkennenswert aufbegehrt hat niemand. Aber haben die Kritiker denn dann wirklich partizipiert im zukunftsträchtigen Sinne?

Oft hatte ich auf nationalen wie internationalen Veranstaltungen der letzten Jahre den Eindruck, eine Community in der Community inszeniere und feiere sich selbst – ohne weiterhin selbst mitzuwirken. “Den Vortrag habe ich schon zigmal gehört, lass uns einen Kaffee trinken gehen…” konnte man mehrfach hören. Muss ich nicht gerade dann den Vortragenden unterbrechen, zum Weiterdenken motivieren, um so “Geteiltes Wissen” zu aggregieren, zu katalysieren, zum Leben zu erwecken? Stehe ich sonst nicht als einstieger Vordenker schnell im Abseits, ohne es zu merken und verhindere den erwünschten Mehrwert für alle?

Noch vor wenigen Jahren galt es als Wissensvorsprung ein Teil der Web-Avantgarde zu sein und bei solchen Events mitmachen “zu dürfen”. Doch dank des Webtrends des “Geteilten Wissen” wird schnell eine Mainstreambewegung des Networking aus diesen Events aufgrund der alten Event-Tradition, Vortrags-Mentalität und Marketingabsichten der Referierenden 1.0. Wo entspringt dem online “geteilten Wissen” mal ein zündender Funke auf modernen Veranstaltungen, der den Offline-Diskurs auf den Plan ruft? Irgendwie beherrscht der lähmende Monolog auch weiterhin die dialogmüden Massen der Eventteilnehmer – zumindest während der Vorträge.

Sobald der Event endet, kehrt der Diskussionsdurst in Blogs schlagartig zurück. Es entsteht Kritik, Lob und Anregungen. Die Blogosphäre lebt auf. Während des Events aber verstummt die viel gepriesene Konversation. Mal aufgrund fehlender Brandbreite, mal aufgrund fehlender Motivation an Partizipationsinitiative oder -motivation. Obwohl doch der Wunsch und Drang da ist, etwas zu sagen.

Kann sich die Web-Avantgarde dank ihrer Blogs gerade deshalb von der Gemeinde des “Web Normalicus” distanzieren? Und macht das den Unterschied zwischen Vordenker 2.0 und Partizipant 2.0 aus? Oder wächst, adaptiert und lernt dieser traditionelle Kommunikationstyp unaufhaltsam. Und lebt inzwischen die Event-Partizipation intensiver und nachhaltiger in persönlichen Gesprächen nach den Vorträgen, ohne aber darüber in Blogs zu philosophieren….?

Vielleicht gehen diese Gedanken aber auch zu weit, zu abwegig, zu revolutionär… Was meint ihr zur Partizipation 2.0?

Content Marketing – Insights in an emerging digital topic for CMO’s

This week, the Custom Content Council and ContentWise released their American survey “Characteristics Study: A Look at the Volume and Type of Content Marketing in America for 2011” that indicates the future for a young type of branding: content marketing. The study states that CMO’s are spending an all-time high of $12.5 billion of their budgets in emerging platforms for custom content marketing with virtual events, mobile, video, and educational content.

The platforms for content marketing are still ruled by a $24 billion spent on print production and distribution. It shows the relevance of print for their marketing activities. CMO’S dedicate 29% of their average overall marketing, advertising and communications budget to content marketing activities. Those custom content products and platforms are becoming increasingly important to chief marketing officers. The study reveals that 87% see content marketing is valuable, and more than one-third of CMOs (35%) believe custom content marketing is the future of marketing, an increase by 19% in 2006.

“While print remains the choice du jour for most custom media programs, new media channels are providing more growth opportunities for the custom content industry” (…) “This year’s study underscores multiple expansion areas for content. As the economy continues to rebound, the future of content looks very promising.” Lori Rosen, Executive Director, Custom Content Council

Some further key findings of the study are that for example video content is growing: 57% of marketers will produce video, (increase of 3% to last year). Website and blogs are still on of the main topics CMO’s are focussing on next to print custom content marketing formats: Website updates of articles, blog posts and other content is for 79% the main activity.

Spot On!
Consumers seem to value the custom content from brands and companies. 69% like when custom content marketing targets their interests and 67% see it is valuable. An even more important finding for me is that 61% admit they feel better about brands when these deliver custom content. AND: These consumers report to be more likely to make purchases with these brands and companies. Marketers should pay attention to this development of the power of digital content marketing, especially as content curation will affect their SEO strategies of their social web activities acording to a study by Curata. Although probably most CMO’s agree with these motivations, more than 73% also admit that creating original content is the main challenge for marketers. There’s obviously a lot that content marketing could do for brands and companies in the future. As money seems to be made available by companies, it’s just depending on the usual bottle-necks: people and time.

Book Review – Marketing in the Age of Google

When somebody used to work for Google there is a lot of knowedge to be shared. And I thought, I could learn more about SEO techniques and tactics. Vanessa Fox did work for Google (apart from inventing Webmaster Central), and so I thought, I need to read the book Marketing in the Age of Google. As a web-strategist I should know the secrets of ranking high on Google for my clients.

Getting Vanessa’s inside view on how Google and their search technology operates, gives an aggregated insight on the evolution of search topics. It is saving time and presumingly more efficient than following or reading many SEO experts thoughts. And then let’s help clients to optimize their site fropm a SEO point of view.

To write a review is a challenge. As I follow some of the most interesting SEO cracks, I knew some content topics already. But there is much more quality thoughts and knowledge in it that makes the book worth reading. If companies want to optimize their top rankings, the book offers good tactical approaches and a clear structure how to start and evolve your content strategy as well as how to conquer the top positions in Google. 

Having said this, the book is based on the theory of having a web-strategy in place that is aligned to the company’s business strategy. If your company has the consumer approach understanding the needs, desires and motivation why consumers go online to evaluate products and services, then the book is a must read.

The way people used search engines has changed in the last years as the web has become mature from an information platform to a consumer generated content base. It is not about what the company spreads but what the users are looking for and the content they share and create. People hear something about a person, a brand or a campaign and instandly start going to search for more information. Not seldomly they are finding consumer input. And often the initial search entry point starts with offline marketing, PR or customer service conversation – in print ads, TV commercials or an wallpapers.

Business that know how to connect offline and online efforts will succeed in the future. Happy that this was my main claim when I started this blog and thus gets now backed up by a Google specialist… Thanks Vanessa!
 
Spot On!
The amount of input the book Marketing in the Age of Google offers is probably only handable for a SEO specialist. And this person has to have the buy in from the C-level to manage the online strategy accordingly. A lot of the strategy is based on content creation and content framework which is a PR, marketing, HR, R&D and Customer Service topic in the future in my eyes. These departments need to learn how to place content effectively in the search world. It will affect the way peope perceive the business strategy of a company and the way the companies and brands interact with their clients, partners and employees. What I missed was the effect taxonomies and social tagging might have on search in the future but maybe this comes with the next update. 

Social Networks – Universal McCann launched their Wave 5 study

For the fifth time, Universal McCann (UM) has published their research its Wave 5 study which focusses on the global use of social networks. The study is the largest and most consecutive social media research worldwide. This year it reached out to 54 countries and 37,600 survey respondents.

The study was introduced by UM research director Glen Parker who pointed to mobile becoming a huge driver of social network use. He mentioned that the study helped answer questions as to what brands should be doing in the space and what the impact is for their business.

“Most (brands) inherently, aren’t social, but users are expecting to see them in the same places as they are in. People are moving away from traditional brand spaces. For all customers – the one thing they all want is good service, but in all other aspects they are completely different. The real challenge is understanding the social network needs of each consumer”.

Some key findings of the study…
- Social Networks get 1.5 billion visits – daily.
- 61,4% of Wave repondents have managed a profile in the past six months – 10-point increase since Wave.4 in 2009
- Nearly half of respondents have accessed brand communities on social networks.
- Main motivations for joining were ‘to learn’ (78.6%) and ‘to gain advance news on products’ (76.1%)
- Of those who joined brand communities, 71% were more likely to purchase and 63% recommended others to join

For me it was interesting to see in the study results how the use of blogs is changing. The use of personal blogs dropped by 15% and also family blogs decreased which does not surprise me as it is a time-consuming effort. Today, people tend to write personal blogs on social networks, an increase by approximately 20%.

Spot On!
In a panel discussion that followed the introduction of the Wave.5 results, Facebook EMEA VP Joanna Shields explained how marketing communication is changing. “People are starting to trust institutions less and less but they do trust their friends. If you use Facebook correctly you’re in a dialogue,” she stated. Social Networks is not about selling in my eyes but those brands who understand their clients will know how often, intense and persuasive they can be in their conversation with their brand fans. It is the mixture, the tone and the creativity of the content that makes the stream a must-follow for “brandvagelists”.

Social Media study on digital natives released by Volkswagen and MTV

The new international study “MePublic – A Global Study on Social Media Youth” by Volkswagen and MTV Networks presents some interesting insight into media use and value ethics in the group of 14-to 29-year-olds (digital natives). No surprise that they will respond to one of the findings: Young people want to see networking apps extend to the car… and Volkswagen already works on that app.

“With just under 500,000 fans on Facebook and over ten million visitors on YouTube since the company profile was set up at the end of 2008, Volkswagen already has one of the largest fan communities in the automotive industry. And together with our fans we are breaking new ground in the social web – as confirmed by the recent “App my Ride” competition where we gave prizes to the best developments for applications in car infotainment systems.” Luca de Meo, Group Marketing Head, Volkswagen AG.

The findings show the intensive use of new media and their commitment to brands by digital natives…
- 58% spend time on social networks on a daily basis
- 50% follow product recommendations in social networks
- 43% post their favorite brands on the social web

And the digital natives are well equipped to have best possible access to the new media.
- 94% have a mobile phone
- 92% have a TV set
- 75% an MP3 player

Obviously, there a country-specific differences as the “MePublic” the study lays open. In Japan 40% of the young people primarily use mobile access to their social network which already can be compared with some outlook on the mobile future. 57% of US digital natives use online sources prior to buying a car. In Japan it is only 38% as the young people tend to seek advice direct from the dealer.

The study “MePublic” states six user types based on criteria such as frequency of use, motivation and goal. Amongst those the characters for a “pro-social” world are i.e…
- Mediacs: most active and demanding, technically literate, strongly committed, always looking for something new
- Crewsers: social networks = place to meet up with friends
- Funatics: spectators = like to observe, but are not very active themselves

Spot On!
Generally speaking, the study shows that social networks have been added to digital natives perception of mobility. They want to be available when the are driving. When 60% of the 14-to 29-year-olds are convinced that the significance of mobile social networks will increase over the coming years, it speaks a clear language. If you fear the digital natives are “tweeting and driving”, Volkswagen takes the fear of you: “The driver’s safety remains the top priority.” This nice PR message comes along with the ambitious word about their next iPhone app called “Dieter App”. “The planned application assumes the role of the co-pilot and loyal companion and is in line with the wish for a personalized vehicle expressed by the young people”.

Is this a new approach to humanize a brand perception? Installation of apps that appear like human charaters? What do you think about the study findings?

Money, Money, Money – Facebook users follow brands for discounts, and Twitter for social badging

Some days ago, we could read that Facebook is becoming kind of an outlet for brands to engage with their fans and which brands scored the best. A recent survey from ExactTarget and Co-Tweet now shows product discounts and “social badging” are the main motivations for “liking” brands on Facebook.

43% of Facebook users interviewed said they “like,” or are fans of, at least one brand on Facebook. Among those, 40% admit that the reason for staying friends with the brands is to receive discounts and promotions. Interestingly enough for me is that already 39% state they do so to make their brand affiliations public versus 23% of interviewed people said they follow brands on Twitter for social-badging purposes.

Some more findings of the study is basically saying that marketers are “welcome as participants on social networks” as long as it supports free enterprise, not because they seek out interactions with marketers on Facebook.

Further key findings on ExactTarget’s study Facebook X-Factors why people like brands on Facebook…
- 34% like brands in order to stay informed about company activities
- 33% want to get updates on future products
- 17% are more likely to buy after liking that brand on Facebook

Again we can see in this study that Facebook is definitely more a platform for women than for men to keep up relationships (63% vs. 54%), connecting with old friends (68% vs. 56%), and managing their social lives (41% vs. 34%).

As the top performing brands on Facebook are named…
Oreo (Nabisco): Top among deal seekers across all age groups (Facebook drivers: coupons and freebies).
Wal-Mart: Top among cost-savings opportunitiy seekers across all age and gender.
Victoria’s Secret: Top among especially Millennials as of new product offerings featured.
iTunes: Top among Millennials as of highlighting new movie and music releases.
Dove: Top among women based on their iinitial “Campaign for Real Beauty”.

The findings are based on a survey of 1,506 consumers age 15+ in April 2010 and consumer interviews among 44 people in March 2010.

The 3 types of social networkers that influence the buying process

It’s been a rumour in the industry for quite a long time now: Facebook and Twitter are becoming indirect shopping platforms and their buttons can boost sales. A recent survey by the research firm Gartner Inc. discovered that most of the users appreciate and take suggestions from their friends through social networking sites before purchasing products. And furthermore, they rely on three types of social networking friends for their purchasing decision process.

The Gartner study asked nearly 4,000 consumers across 10 key markets. The interesting part is that people in the social networks are taking different positions inside the purchasing process when recommending products to people they are connected with. Gartner identifies three types of people and roups them into three categories: ‘Connectors’, ‘Mavens’ and ‘Salesmen’.

So, how do they differentiate from each other?
The ‘Connectors’ are defined as those who “perform a bridging function between disparate groups of people and enjoy introducing people to each other”. The ‘Mavens’ are “knowledge exchangers or information brokers”, who are experts in particular area and people go to them for advice. But they are not people who wish to convince people to buy certain items; they are more interested in acquiring new knowledge, it said. The ‘Salesmen’ are those, who have “extensive social connections” and the personality trait that persuade people around them to “act on information in highly directed ways”.

“Our survey results showed that one-fifth of the consumer population is composed of Salesmen, Connectors and Mavens. These are three roles that are key influencers in the purchasing activities of 74 per cent of the population.” (…) “Salesmen and Connectors are the most effective social network influencers and the most important groups for targeted marketing based on social network analysis.” Nick Ingelbrecht, Research Director, Gartner

Gartner advises companies based on the findings of its survey to pro-actively engage with these different types of people on social networking sites. Not surprisingly, they define these categories of social media influencers as the “critical, but underutilised, aspect of the marketing process” for the future.

“Companies attempting to use social networks should develop relationships with key customers over a period of time and progressively refine the social network profiles of those individuals.” (…) “Retailers who run small shops have instinctively done this with their best customers for years with the intention that these ‘VIP’ customers will not only buy the new products but recommend them to their friends.” Nick Ingelbrecht, Research Director, Gartner

Spot On!
For me, there is a strange thing about this study. It causes a Deja-vu, I have never had before in my life. Two years ago, I published and explained -in German- in a long post the importance of these three types of people in business networks for business decision makers, and how businesses should focus on them when talking about their social media approaches. And guess what: Two years ago, I came to the same conclusion and refered to the same types of people. In these days, I have read the book “Tipping Point” by Malcolm Gladwell for the second time. And in this book you will find the same categories of people, and you are told to rely on them and work with ‘Connectors’, ‘Mavens’ and ‘Salesmen’.

The main question is now, how to address these social networking influencers? Can you call them up and talk to them directly? Send an email? Invite them for dinner or lunch? What is the best way to start the conversation with them?

CeBIT 2.010 – Always mobile, always social, always on

Als mobile Devices (altdeutsch = Handys) erfunden wurden, dienten sie dem Sinn, im Notfall in Echtzeit Informationen auszutauschen. Das mag zwar heute immernoch so sein. Dennoch hat die CeBIT 2.010 die soziale Erweiterung des Nutzungsbeweggrundes sowie die damit einhergehende Bedeutung für Sales und Marketing den Massen eindringlich verdeutlicht.

Tippte man früher umständlich die notwendige Nummer ein, um schnellstmöglich die Polizei, den Krankenwagen oder Abschleppdienst zu einem Unfallort zur Hilfe zu holen und den Verkehrsfluß wieder zu gewährleisten. So wird heute mit dem Handy ein Film (Bild ist schon fast uncool) vom Unfall gemacht. Dieses Video wird dann in einem sozialen Netzwerk hochgeladen und die Freunde auf die verkehrstechnische Umfahrung des Unfallortes per Twitter in Echtzeit aufmerksam gemacht.

Die Tastatur des Handys spielt dabei zukünftig immer unerheblicher. Gilt es doch, wertvolle Zeit zu sparen. Schließlich wissen Usability Experten um die Wichtigkeit eines der Moderne entsprechenden kundenfreundlichen Bedienungskonzeptes. Ja ok, und auch der Notwendigkeit keine Zeit bei einem Unfall zu verlieren. Richtig.

Ergo, die App revolutioniert nicht nur das (mobile) Internet, sondern auch den Markt der mobilen Endgeräte und deren Grundausstattung. Und wer denkt, daß gelte nur für das Handy irrt sich. Auch das Auto der Zukunft greift vermutlich per Touchscreen nur noch auf Apps zu, wie die T-Systems wunderbar offline auf der CeBIT illustrierte.

Man mag sich gar nicht ausmalen, wenn man auf das Auto Screenplay noch die Apps von Facebook und Twitter hochladen kann, wie es Ford erst kürzlich in Aussicht gestellt hat. Dank Google Streetview können sich die Netzwerk Freunde dann den Ort des Geschehens zukünftig aus der sicheren Ferne ins Gedächtnis rufen. Und das Ganze sogar im Vorzeit-Webzustand – in Echtzeit schafft wohl selbst Google den aktuellen Straßenüberblick nicht. Auf der Cebit konnte man die Autos bewundern, die diese Strassen-Bilder zukünftig für uns machen – von Künstlern in liebevoller Kleinstarbeit verziert.

Ob die Künstler sich wohl danach erstmal bei studiVZ auf der Couch ausgeruht haben? So ganz unmobil, aber natürlich sozial und im “always on” Modus? Vermutlich nicht. Man musste schon ein Auto vor die Couch fahren, um irgendwie darauf zu kommen. Vielleicht haben sie aber auch nur ein Bild mit der erhöhten Kamera-Perspektive gemacht, um es dann vom Auto aus in ein soziales Netzwerk hochzuladen.

Offline gibt es den Menschen 2.010 anscheinend nicht mehr. Aber vielleicht braucht er gerade deswegen bald wieder die Ursprungsfunktion des Handys, wenn es nämlich vor lauter Onlinezeit dann in der Offlinewelt ständig kracht, weil gerade mal wieder umstrittene Location-Based Services gecheckt wurden nach den neusten Promotions und Angeboten in der Umgebung ums Auto.

Spot on!
Ach ja. Zur Deutschen Telekom gibt es auch noch ein paar Worte zu sagen. Man frägt sich, ob der Konzern Re-Branding -Weltmeister werden will. Mit jeder neuen Business-Strategie würfelt man anscheinend auch gleich ein neues Branding in den Markt. Egal ob die dann Webstrategie 2.0 heißt oder nicht und man mit Kundengeschenken wirbt, die vom Obama 2.0 Leitspruch abgeleitet sind. So wird aus “Yes, we can” einfach mal schnell “U Can” (mit dem Claim ‘The power to transform’). Und ebenso schnell wandelt man T-Online, T-Com, T-Mobile oder T-Home um. Jetzt geht der Konzern mit T auf Kundenfang. Mit weiterhin einem Punkt davor, 3 dahinter und gleichem Audio-Logo? Der PR Twitter Account darf nicht fehlen und auch Facebook wird offensichtlich bald kommen, wenn man mal genau sucht.

Ob und wie diese zahlreichen Brandingwechsel die Markenführungs-Experten auslegen, bleibt spannend und abzuwarten. Sachdienliche Hinweise bitte an die Branding-Unfall-Notaufnahme MMG bei The Strategy Web. Danke im voraus!

PS: Geschrieben auf dem Flug von Hannover nach München, auf dem iPhone – aber offline im Flugmodus…

Nächste Seite »