Throwing out Concepts - Spring Training Version

I'm working on a couple of things that have been triggered by an onset of consulting I'm doing for clients on the development of social networks/user communities and at the same time, the use of social media. Fear not, though, friends, I'm not leaving CRM to do this (actually, fear not, me - since why should you give a.... about what I'm saying in this paragraph? Hardly a fear now, is it?) - this is in fact a natural extension of CRM 2.0. One might ask, "How is this kind of consulting an extension of CRM, Paulie?" I'm glad you asked, master or mistress of your unique domain. Simple. This is a step for in developing the strategies and programs for customer engagement, and given the expectations of customers these days - and their command of the business ecosystem - it takes new and extended forms of communication, collaboration, transparency, authenticity and coolness - in addition to operational functionality to do it. This is CRM 2.0 consulting. Which leads me to my actual point for this entry. I'm wrestling with a couple of concepts that I want to throw out there to you for discussion. I'm raw with these and not all that limber yet when it comes to thinking about them (hence, the title of this entry, baseball fans). Here goes. Concept #1

The Company Must Be A Company But Also A Peer

This is the rawer of the two but I'm going to fully flesh it out very soon. I'm on to something with this one. Here's the logic: The business ecosystem has a customer controlled ecology. Part of the reason for that is that the customer is engaged with conversation and collaboration outside the business - with their peers - and this is not just a business thing, but the way that they live. This is shaped in part by the Gen Xers and Gen Yers that are now in the workforce, but also by an increasing understanding by the baby boomers that this is the contemporary version of the changes that they were so actively engaged in creating in the 60s - and that means this is a social change. And its inspiring them, too. This social change is coupled with the fact that each of us has a personal value chain that actually encompasses our interactions with all institutions - among them social, economic, business - and that the totality of the interactions and how we respond to them actually is what comprises the way that we deal with any given individual business. Businesses, in this scenario, have two problems:

1. They can't control the personal value chain of any individual. They can only intersect parts of it and then try to influence that
2. Businesses are operating in an ancient mode when it comes to how they are thinking about this. They're thinking that they are competing for the customer with other companies of like product when in fact, they are competing with the thousands of messages that the customer is getting everyday from all institutions to just get their attention AND they are competing with the expectations of the customer as shaped by the personal value chains of that individual customer - not shaped by competitive products and services.

What this leads to then is that the customer is trying to see the business in a more complex way (at least unconsciously so) than the business is actually anticipating. The customer is expecting a personal interaction that is of a quality that has been determined by all the other experiences he/she is having with all his/her institutions. That means that the company, while it still has to meet its business objectives and follow through on its plan and pay attention to its bottom and top lines, has to at the same time, provide some level of personal interaction with the customer - whether real or virtual. The customer needs to feel that the company can be trusted, is being honest a.k.a. authentic, etc. - meaning traits that are assigned to human interactions most of the time - but have to permeate all facets of the company - especially those that intersect with the personal value chain of the individual customer. Enough of this one. There is more but you can see that this is still awkward and I haven't fully formulated it yet but am working it through. Is it stupid? Smart? Wrong? Right? Very Cool? Insane? Let me know what you think. This can be important in the establishment of the new business models and the CRM 2.0 model for customer engagement. This is based on recognition of the mind of the social customer - an undeniably different mindset than five years ago. Okay. Concept #2

Members of Social Networks Should Have a Reasonable Expectation of Trust, Primarily - Not Privacy

Before you go all Chuck Norris on me, hear this one out. The relationship between members of social networks and the social networks that they are members of falls under the umbrella of Concept #1 - meaning that the member is not only interrelating with peers on the social network, but expects the social network to act like one too. The deal between the two partners - the member and the network - is a social contract - and a compact. On the one hand, the member is licensing the use of their profile to the network in return for the use of the network. The permission is to use it commercially. This is just the reality of what the purpose of the social network is to its owners. Its either to make money or extend a brand or something akin to that. It isn't a charitable thing, its a business and the social network can reasonably expect that a member who registers understands that. Only an idiot would be so dumb as to think that the social network is there for their pleasure ONLY. It is a business or related to a business typically. That said, the member has the right to expect that the social network will do the judicious thing in the use of their profile - which is publicly revealed private information. The profile - which is an asset to the social network - has to be handled in a way that the member sees as trustworthy. Privacy is somewhat limited by the very fact that this social network is a business and it is social. That word would be social - meaning actions between individuals - which since they are virtual for the most part - means that the profile is at the core of what actions are being taken - which means that the profile, at least in part, is publicly revealed. But the member has the right to control and own the profile. Again, they are licensing its use in a limited way to the social network in return for privileges in the community. That means that while privacy can't be their primary expectation - though some can be expected - trust should be their primary expectation. They trust that the social network will use their profiles according to the social contract/compact that they've both "signed" and that is implied. Some privacy is just a feature of that. Maintenance of ownership and control over the profile by the member is the core to that trust. You all saw what I wrote in last week when Facebook violated that trust. They didn't violate privacy. But they broke that social compact and destroyed trust. So this one is raw also, but if you've got some ideas on it, throw 'em at me. Curveballs are fine, two-seam fastballs, change-ups, all good. Just let me hear from you. These are new and likely to be in the 4th edition when I get to the social network chapters. Help.

Comments

[Filiberto Selvas]

Comment on the comment to my comment :)

I actually did not meant that distinction as a matter of difference in standing (though I can completely see how my comment can be read like that). I understand “Peer” in the sense that Paul wrote above as someone that shares common circumstances; stealing from Webster: “Peer = one belonging to the same societal group especially based on age, grade, or status”

Agree that from the perspective of “competing for the attention” the company is among equals along any other participant in the exchange.
Filiberto Selvas

[Darayush Mistry]

On the previous comment, companies engaging as a peer has nothing to do with size. Thats the beauty. A "peer" company trying to get a principals attention through a message on the principals network is at the same level as another participant node on the network like a friend, acquaintance or stranger.
No ones saying its easy and maybe companies have a long way to go before they garner the same level of peer trust on a network as a friend. But thats where we are heading and companies have to adapt and better start thinking about it.

[Filiberto Selvas]

Hi Paul; sorry I have been absent from conversations/Wiki/Etc. but I actually been busy in a related area and may allow me to express an educated opinion on point #1; here my take:

The company must engage, the company must be a humble participant, the company must facilitate the peer interaction (and with that, and hoping they have the right product, gain the peers help to win the battle for attention among those thousand messages you mentioned above). However I wouldn’t go as far as stating that all companies can engage as a peer; take my case: my group’s product aims to satisfy the needs of really small business (10 computers or less), and we find it really difficult to walk on their shoes (we as in Microsoft); so I don’t think we should even think we can and instead we should focus on participating, facilitate the interaction, observe, learn, identify advocates, engage and empower them to influence others.
My $0.02

Filiberto Selvas
www.officelivecommunity.com

[Marshall Lager]

I felt more kinship with the second point, myself. To be social in any meaningful sense, one has to share information. I don't mind somebody knowing about me — I'm putting the information into my profile, after all — as long as I can expect them not to use it against me, or in ways I don't approve. It's that problem of trust that kept me away from social media for so long. You don't play Truth or Dare with a group of strangers. You don't go to swing clubs you haven't vetted. (I don't do either at all, since I'm neither in junior high nor in a midlife crisis.) You do those things with people you can trust some, and who are putting as much on the line as you are.

[Darayush Mistry]

Agree with the first concept and partially agree with the second. What's the difference between the second concept you've put out here and what FB has in its T&C. While your emphasis is on Trust rather than Privacy, imho in the real world neither really works if not wrapped around by a strong T&C doc. Concept#2 says "Members of Social Networks Should Have a Reasonable Expectation of Trust" ... is that the same "reasonable" that's defined in FB's removed info T&C?

"Individuals who wish to deactivate their Facebook account may do so on the My Account page. Removed information may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time but will not be generally available to members of Facebook."

How about "Members of Social Networks Should Expect Trust based on the terms and conditions of their social contract" .. you actually mention that in your subtext for Concept#2.