How you benefit from customer comments you were pretty sure you didn’t want

Due to a misunderstanding, at the last minute before takeoff an airline refused to allow a pair of special-needs passengers to fly. This upset the passengers deeply and stranded them at an unfamiliar airport.

No one should have been surprised that intense criticism of the airline spread rapidly via social media, portraying them as bad-guys even though the incident was (arguably) a one-time mistake by an isolated group of employees.

This wound up being a good thing, because:

The airline discovered this issue, apologized to the would-be passengers and their families, refunded their money, offered them additional free flights, and came up with a new process to keep the problem from recurring. All-in-all, the airline—our hometown favorite here in Seattle, Alaska Airlines—took a regrettable mistake, and did everything possible (considering it was after the fact) to make it right with those affected. In this way Alaska Airlines also earned positive PR by showing they’re the kind of company that owns up to their mistakes and jumps on an opportunity to do the right thing when they can.

> Read more about the “special needs passengers stranded by Alaska Airlines” incident

> Another great PR turnaround story:  FedEx responds after delivery guy caught on video throwing computer equipment over a fence

This post isn’t about Alaska Airlines—it’s about the other guys

I’m pleased to see more and more stories about companies turning customer complaints into positive publicity. But this post is for the other guys, anyone who isn’t sure they have the right attitude, either individually or organizationally, to handle all customer criticism in a positive way.

Poster child for the other guys: the poor fellow in charge of PR for General Motor’s Chevy Volt product.

George Anders, a journalist and blogger for Forbes, took home a Chevy Volt to give it a try. When he asked online for help with a recharging problem he was having (the Volt is a plug-in hybrid) other Volt owners enthusiastically offered assistance. That was great news for George, and even better news for Chevy—vibrant customer communities, when they exist, are one of the best things about the social media era. Such communities can become huge, low-overhead “company assets”.

But Chevy’s official spokesperson apparently didn’t like George’s feedback and responded to George’s request for help in a way which George felt belittled both the Volt charging issue and the blogger himself.

My guess is that George had hit upon a known problem that the PR guy was frustrated by and he was peeved that George hadn’t let him dodge it.

Understandable. But it’s also understandable that George rewarded the PR guy in kind, with multiple posts on Forbes.com that featured both the charging problem and the PR guy’s unprofessional bed-side manner.

Oops. Not good for the brand. And pointless, to boot. The customer community had already taken care of the problem. All the PR guy had to do was lose the ‘tude.

> Read George Anders’ original post about his Chevy Volt PR experience

> Read about the trend toward “Unsourcing”—turning over customer support to other customers—in The Economist

In social media, indignation sells.

The Chevy Volt scenario isn’t unusual. Every day there seems to be a new story making the rounds on LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter about companies generating unnecessary—and astonishingly bad—publicity about the way they mishandled a customer complaint.

Typically this happens when the customer service reps, PR people and/or executives who get a complaint thrust upon them take it personally instead of professionally. They may feel

  • frustrated because their time and talent is being wasted;
  • defensive, and afraid the blame will stick; or
  • outraged, because the issues seem to be trivial or the customer’s own fault.

By letting their personal emotional reactions get the better of them these company representatives fail to “get” that any disrespect, frustration, or defensiveness (fear) they respond with can boomerang back on the company via a social media feeding frenzy.

These reactions are understandable—we’ve all been there (well, perhaps not the Dalai Lama, but the rest of us have been there). For most of the people I consult with the hardest part about responding to unwanted criticism  is developing a mindset where unsolicited feedback, and frankly, unhelpful and negative feedback, is welcome.

Solution: Wrap your brain around a constructive mindset

Here are three reasons why getting plenty of comments you don’t want is a best case outcome, not a worst case outcome:

1. People who comment or complain are already engaged with your brand and want to be more engaged. Reward them with your respect. Commenters want a response, and hope for a solution—they’re invested. Your critics are often people who want to like you more than they do, people who want you to improve and succeed, and are willing to give you a chance. In their minds their comments or complaints are a valuable gift of their time and knowledge.

Consider this: The worst thing that could happen to you would be if people stopped giving you the benefit of their opinions.

Imagine what would happen if everyone ignored your brand completely. Only your enemies let you walk around with a piece of toilet paper stuck to your shoe without mentioning it. Your friends, and people who are open to becoming your friends, are the ones who point problems out to you so you have the choice of doing something about it or not. (I’m seldom so peeved as to not provide merchants with feedback about their failings…but it has happened once or twice. Call me spiteful.)

You want to encourage customer feedback, not discourage it. So be a grateful gift recipient if only because receiving customers’ gifts of feedback is a powerful—and inexpensive—way to reward them for their loyalty. Just by listening to customers you are giving them something of value! A person who gives a gift—here, the customer giving feedback—often benefits from the act of giving a gift as much as or even more than the recipient benefits from receiving it. But ingratitude on the part of the recipient robs the giver of the benefit of giving.

2. Listening is often all you need to do to satisfy many commenters. Frequently listening is enough to calm down complainers and, ironically, it can turn them into fans. People are less likely to discover they are mistaken, or that a thing they are upset about is trivial, while they’re angry. When they get their story out and feel heard, they can calm down. And when someone listens to them, and helps them calm down—closure and all—they are often more than calm, they’re grateful.

If find yourself getting stuck on the idea of “listening” to strangers who are annoying you, remember:

  • Listening to someone isn’t the same thing as agreeing with them.
  • Customers don’t have to be factually correct to deserve the respect your listening shows them.
  • Customers will expect you to treat them the way you treat others, even non-customers.

> Learn more about improving business listening skills

3. There will be wheat among the chaff. You can’t have it both ways. When the customers complaints are legitimate, hearing them (and sometimes, as with the Alaska Airlines incident above, discovering them) is essential for your business. There is no cheap, sure-fire way to screen out the good comments from the bad. Turn the filter up too high and you will screen out, and discourage, feedback you want.

Don’t be too quick to judge the value of comments and complaints. Sometimes just about everyone is terrible at articulating important ideas, and the meaning they try to convey is lost. Other times we are terrible listeners and we fail to grasp the importance of what is said. When you are tempted to get irritated by what seems to be an inappropriate comment, cut both yourself and the complainer some slack, instead. Count to 10. Or 100. Or pull in someone who isn’t taking it so personally to take over for you.

Keep the door open to feedback of all forms, if only to reap the benefits of reasons 1 and 2 above, then allow the cream rise to the top. Even if a majority of customer commentary is not particularly helpful to you, genuine customer service and/or policy issues will sometimes emerge which will give you opportunities to enrich your customer relationships and reputation.

Get listening. Or get trained.

For these three reasons your best across-the-board reaction when receiving feedback is to be grateful. You should be flattered by commenters’ interest and the fact that they made the effort to offer you a gift, so to speak. And you can treat their offering like a beauty contest or possibly a lottery ticket—sometimes good ideas come in, and both you and the commenter win! And those who don’t “win” may still give you credit for giving them their time on stage.

If you or someone on your team (including C-level executives) can’t do this, then get these people training or keep them away from customers. On second thought, we’ve arrived in the social business era; there’s nowhere to hide from customers any more. Get listening, or get trained. Or your business will suffer the consequences.

Are marketers becoming more like drivers and less like spectators?

This morning I had coffee with Tejas Dixit of Market Dialogues who showed me Junction, his new SaaS social media management solution.

Junction is designed to help small and medium sized businesses plan, execute, and manage their social media initiatives effectively. Unlike many social media management solutions which offer publishing to social media accounts, monitoring conversations, and analytics as independent solutions, or as siloed components, Junction tightly integrates and dashboards all three.

I’ve noticed that a major stumbling block of many social media management solutions is that the feedback they offer about the success (or lack thereof) of social media efforts can be difficult to act on. Even when publishing, monitoring, and analytics are available under the same login, the gap between action and feedback can be wide enough to leave a major hurdle in the path of social media marketers. Meanwhile, the level of complexity conveyed by analytics tools can leave marketers, and the people they are accountable to, bewildered.

Junction seeks to solve this problem by providing, right alongside their publishing tools, analytics dashboards  that are optimized specifically for marketers. The idea is that marketers can be more effective when they get immediate feedback about their marketing efforts and have a connected context in which to make decisions. The experience is intended to be more like a racecar driver with a hands-on feel of the car and track and less like a spectator who can only imagine what it’s like on the track.

The linchpin of Junction is a scoring algorithm which allows marketers to get immediate feedback about whether marketing initiatives are “moving the needle” from their brand’s perspective, and how. Marketers can gauge the effectiveness of their efforts on three composite scales—awareness, community, and engagement—which they choose from depending upon what they hope to accomplish via a particular initiative. Dashboards show daily changes in these scores, generated by applying analytics to the monitoring data for each initiative.

Junction is also equipped with valuable tools like the ability to compare between time ranges, industry benchmarking, a way to view and prioritize conversations and respond directly from the dashboard, and my personal favorite, an ROI component which shows the running ratio of desired results to marketing spend on any initiative. The complete package should also help social media marketers justify the value of their efforts within the total marketing program.

Junction is currently available as a beta release—those who are interested can ask for a trial. A white-label solution for agencies is also available, Tejas tells me, with additional features and a good level of customization.

To compare Juction with other approaches in this space (there is no clear leader at this point), I encourage you read a recent overview of 5 leading solutions for small-medium businesses by Angela West on PCWorld.com, including HootSuite, VerticalResponse Social, Sprout Social, Sendible, and Postling.

What tools are you using?

What features are you looking for, but haven’t found?

What are the biggest challenges you’d like to see solved?

Please add your comments, below.

Disclosure: I was introduced to Tejas through a friend, and have no financial connections to Tejas or Junction—or to our mutual friend.

Photo credit: By Glen Duncombe [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)%5D, via Wikimedia Commons

Machiavellian boyscouts get more influence in social business

It’s not just courteous and kind to help little old ladies cross the street: it pays.

Last month I attended an excellent presentation concerning social media analytics and ROI by the esteemed Chuck Hemann, Director of Analytics for WCG, sponsored by the Social Media Club of Seattle. Chuck made an important point about social media influence that I want to share with you.

Both quantity and quality are important for social influence

On one particular slide Chuck showed us an image of Edelman Digital VP Michael Brito accompanied by a few bullet points scoping out his social media influence. At the sight of this slide the standing-room-only crowd murmured approvingly. More than 30,000 folks, myself included, follow @britopian on Twitter. He’s a well known thought leader and published author in the social business realm.

Chuck’s next slide showed a sweet looking woman wearing a straw hat with a flower on it—Chuck’s mom. She has around 1300 Twitter followers: very respectable…but she’s no @britopian, at least at first glance.

Flower power: social influence means talk gardening to gardeners Question: Given the choice, would you rather have @britopian or @susanhemann tweeting about your brand? Answer: It depends what your message is.

In Chuck’s hypothetical, your message is about gardening. You’re trying to influence people who are into gardening and have personal networks of like-minded people. Low and behold, Chuck’s mom is a well-established gardening Twitter personality and blogger. Many of her 1300+ Twitter followers are, presumably, rabid, over-the-top gardeners and gardening influencers. So naturally the person you want tweeting about you is Chuck’s mom.

Not that there’s anything shabby about Michael Brito or his followers, thank you very much. But they’re not focused on gardening. Yours is not a high Continue reading

Confusion over the meaning of ROI in social media

You say tomato, I say tomahto….

Here’s a quick vocabulary lesson I’ve learned about social media ROI (“return on investment”), a topic I’ve been writing a lot about lately. In a nutshell: ROI means different things to different people, so it pays to be specific when you are talking about it.

3 ways we fool ourselves with social media metrics

This is part three of a series of posts about using social media metrics.

This is not the porn industry here, kids, and this is not about buying a house… SIZE DOESN’T MATTER!

- Steve Olenski, Too Many Social Media Marketers Still Believe Size Matters

An optical illusion: our brains add information that isn't there.

Would you believe the squares labeled “A” and “B” are identical shades of gray? Click the image for proof. (Developed by Edward H. Adelson of MIT.)

Don’t worry, it’s normal (statistically speaking) for people to fool themselves with statistics. So normal, in fact, that the fields of psychology and statistics can tell you exactly where things go wrong. Read on to find out how you and your organization can avoid being fooled by the Fundamental Attribution Error, Sampling Biases, and Information Cascade when you are evaluating social media metrics.

But first, what are we being fooled to believe? People would like to believe that more social media followers are better, more comments are better, more shares are better, etc. This might be, but isn’t necessarily, true. In fact the opposite may be true. Sometimes less is more. Consider the following hypotheticals, based loosely on real world examples:

Ignore social media metrics: what to focus on instead

This is the second in a series of posts about why I advise certain clients to adopt a “dynamic brochure” social media strategy, focusing on publishing, active listening, and measuring “pulse” without attempting to meet numerical goals for metrics such as “likes”, comments, shares, page views, Klout score, etc.

You can read part one here. In this part I discuss the benefits of a dynamic brochure strategy. In part three I’ll discuss false assumptions about the relationship between social media activity volume and ROI. And in a future post I’ll circle back to how social media ROI can be measured effectively, and some of the frameworks that can be used to measure it.

If you can’t connect social media investment to revenue generation, aka calculate ROI for social media, how does a social media  program help you? Let me count the ways. But first, a new metaphor. In part one of this series you were a rock star. This time you are a rock star’s stalker. You want to get to know a rock star online — really, really get to know a rock star online — what are you going to do? You’ll take a spin through all of that rock star’s (brand’s) web properties, gathering information, and saving or sharing the tasty bits with like-minded friends.

In real life (which for most of us means not being rock stars or having stalkers), who’s going to take this information gathering approach?

  • Prospective customers evaluating your offerings, either before or after hearing about you from other sources.
  • Current customers, and other brand fans, who want to share information about you (referrals).
  • Customers and brand fans just checking in to keep up with the brand.
  • Journalists and bloggers considering the brand for a story.
  • Conference organizers considering your people for speaking positions.
  • Potential employees, either before or after contact with your recruiters.
  • Current employees staying connected to the company, or sharing information with potential customers or Continue reading

Want popularity in social media? Start with the primal urges.

A recent conversation with the founder of a newly-launched company seeking to catch a wave of social media buzz inspired me to create a video post for the Audienz Blog entitled The Masolovian Solution for Social Media Audience Building. The idea is that Maslow’s list of basic human needs can be used to help you spot the images and stories that are going to attract and engage your social media followers. Check it out, and please give me your feedback!

Social media highlights from the Seattle Interactive Conference 2011

As a followup to my post from a couple of weeks ago, 9 timely social media and brand communication insights from SIC 2011, I put together a quick video blog post featuring just the social media highlights from last month’s Seattle Interactive Conference. I apologize in advance for the primitive tech quality, but try to think of it like pie crust, it’s better when it’s home made and looks it, right?

Here’s the video with my explanatory post on the Audienz blog, 5 social media insights from the 2011 Seattle Interactive Conference, and here’s just the video itself on YouTube:

[Updated on February 2, 2012]

Social media tactics are transforming corporate knowledge management

New tools are putting the collaboration into “collaboration software” by creating a social media-inspired user experience for Enterprise knowledge management. But it’s taken a long time to get here.

Old school collaboration: floppy-net and shared drives

Bruce WilsonUntil around ten years ago, when people talked about using software for “collaboration” in an Enterprise setting they usually meant transferring files point-to-point by email or handing off a diskette, aka “floppy-net” (or worse, by passing paper that would require re-typing). Advanced collaboration involved establishing shared “network drives” where documents could be stored in folders accessible to everyone on the local network. But under this “system” for collaboration, even when people devoted a significant amount of time to maintaining document repositories it could be difficult for others to find useful documents, or even know whether useful documents existed in the first place. Labeling was limited, document sets might be incomplete or out of date, authors, owners, or other contextual information might be unclear. Much like the internet before Google-quality search, folks could spend a lot of time browsing without getting any payoff.

The New York Public Library

Such collaboration systems are still quite common even though they aren’t very efficient because of the way that they rely on limited personal connections, memories and attention spans. In such a system the best strategy when hunting for a document is to ask around to try to figure out who might know where to find useful documents. People asked for help – if they have time – try to remember what documents are available, then either hunt through the repository themselves or point towards likely places to look. This system obviously doesn’t scale very well because there is a linear relationship between the number of documents being managed and the time and expertise required to manage them. Emails sent by people seeking help finding information can become a significant burden, particularly in the inboxes of the most knowledgeable or best connected. And because managing documents in this system is relatively time consuming and unrewarding, most people have little incentive to use or contribute to document management. Countless document repositories under this model suffered from neglect or abandonment simply because they were so impractical. And unless a critical mass of use and contribution is achieved, the appearance that a repository is abandoned or neglected in turn reduces the incentive of new or returning community member to participate. Instead people would rationally choose to “reinvent the wheel”, recreating documents or processes from scratch simply because the barriers to finding out whether what they need already exists are too high.

SharePoint and other web-like Information Management solutions

The rise of the internet has helped propel Enterprise collaboration forward, thanks in part to a new generation of internet-inspired collaboration software exemplified by Microsoft’s SharePoint. Sharepoint offers features such as alerts, discussion boards, document libraries, categorization, shared workspaces, forms and surveys, personal pages and profiles, and the ability to pull in and display information from data sources outside of SharePoint itself, including the internet (“web parts”).  Access controls have also evolved, enabling people to have access to the files and directories that pertain to them, while limiting access to others. Meanwhile data storage capacity has exploded, costs have plummeted, and access speed has rocketed. Naturally, for most organizations the volume of documents being managed has ballooned exponentially. But we still need to ask: have knowledge management and collaboration scaled in proportion to the volume of information that is available and could be useful if more people could get their hands on it?

Notwithstanding features like Enterprise search, notifications, and improved metadata, many information management hubs are, in effect, still data silos where information is safe and organized but inconvenient to explore and share. In truth, despite powerful automated solutions now available, effective collaboration is still largely dependent on the quality of user participation.

Adoption and Engagement

Two key elements of effective collaboration are adoption, which corresponds to the percentage of team members who are able to use the system, and engagement, which corresponds to how many of them use the system regularly.

For a collaboration system to be effective it must maintain a critical mass of active users or risk becoming ignored and thus irrelevant. There’s a chicken and egg relationship here. A collaboration system must achieve and maintain a critical mass of adoption and engagement to be self-sustaining. Few people are going to adopt and engage if nothing of value is happening on the system because not enough other people have adopted and engaged. To attract this level of participation the experience should be easy (low frustration), useful (practical results are usually obtained), and emotionally rewarding (users experience satisfaction or even enjoy using it). Otherwise a collaboration system risks turning into a quiet information cul de sac no matter how impressive its technology.

Enter social media

Lessons learned from the social media phenomenon – examining the virtual footprints of the hundreds of millions of people using Facebook – are radically enhancing Enterprise knowledge management by promoting ease of use, practical results, and emotional gratification within collaboration systems. To get more information about this development I recently met with J. B. Holston, CEO of NewsGator, whose Social Sites solution adds Facebook-like features to SharePoint. Available for only 3-1/2 years, Social Sites’ committed customers already include Accenture, Novartis, Biogen, Edelman, and Deloitte, among others.

The basic idea behind Social Sites (my take, not necessarily J. B.’s) is that SharePoint users experience less frustration, find better quality material, and receive more emotional gratification when their SharePoint experience is more like Facebook. And because a social media approach to collaboration is both useful and gratifying, more people use the collaboration system – adoption increases – and they use it more often for more purposes – engagement increases. Teams get more done while having more fun. Additional benefits of a social media overlay on top of a standard SharePoint install is that it to draws attention to and promotes increased use of available resources and encourages users to find out about and experiment with collaboration options they weren’t using before, which may convert them into more valuable collaborators themselves.

Social Sites extends the functionality of SharePoint in a number of respects. The first generation of Social Sites added features including:

  • marking and tagging items;
  • providing custom streams of their “friends” activity updates (imagine keeping up with important developments with key people down the hall, in other regions or departments as they happen);
  • making it easier to move content in and out of SharePoint; and
  • making it easy for people to connect with the people who posted specific items with a single click.

The latest generation of Social Sites offers even more features (70 webparts in all are available), such as:

  • “liking”;
  • comment;
  • ratings;
  • idea development (“ideation”);
  • wikis;
  • threaded conversations;
  • bookmarks;
  • feeds;
  • the ability to follow people and events;
  • automatic updates when specific things of interest happen;
  • the ability to ask questions;
  • the ability to make requests; and
  • the ability to pass word along about things that are happening.

An open API makes it possible to customize activity streams open to groups of users that is also accessible from mobile devices. Social Sites also lends itself to community management and governance.

As icing on the cake, Newsgator also offers iPhone and iPad applications for Social Sites to enable everywhere, all of the time mobile interaction with SharePoint (including Social Sites social media features), completing the Facebook-like user experience.

For companies already using SharePoint, Social Sites allows them to upgrade their team’s collaborative performance without fundamentally reengineering their current knowledge management systems. For example the way information is stored and structured and integrations like workflows can be preserved. They can also avoid the costs of migration, retraining employees on new systems, or hiring specialists to manage the new systems. On the flip side, to the extent that Social Sites upgrades SharePoint to make it competitive with, or superior to, other collaboration options, the combination improves SharePoint’s attractiveness to companies considering swicthing over from competing knowledge management solutions. Finally, customers who seek to make this level of interaction widely available within their organizations may buy even more SharePoint licenses and invest in more customization.

Special thanks to J.B. Holston @jholston and Jim Benson @ourfounder for many of the ideas and information that found their way into this post.