This week I chose to read "How to Develop a Social CRM Strategy" and "Case Study of Virsuas" because I figured they would offer some insight into leveraging social media to improve a business. The readings had some great guidelines that lead to the best social media experience possible. The two best guidelines I read were about availability as a company and data and intellectual property rights. Also I think that one guideline that was missing should be about the customer base a company is dealing with, because some customers simply just won't participate.
I believe that most important thing a company should remember when dealing with social media is their availability. A company should never be over engaging. A company needs to serve as a safety valve for customers, only being there when needed. As an outlet the company needs to only reach out when it is deemed critically necessary, in response to slander, lies, or false claims.
The most interesting guideline pertained to data ownership and intellectual property made through social media. I imagine as the popularity of social media continues to rise and more collaborative creation is done there will be a precedent setting legal ruling that firmly establishes who owns what in a social media environment. I also find it odd that the data which really helps so many social media functions to work actually belongs to the customer.
Finally I think that if a customer base is unlikely to respond to social media, then a company should avoid it. Certain companies also simply aren't right for social media. Imagine if the company I buy my tissues from was on social media, what benefit would I really gain from that?
Overall this was an interesting reading, I would give it a 8/10.
I'm interested to hear what companies you all think would be best suited and worst suited for having a social media outlet?
Peace, love, and social media.
I agree with your claim that companies need to find a balance when engaging their customers with social media. It would not be good for them to over engage their customers nor should they just set up the social media and use it as a token to say they have it, then not even use it. I think any company that sells a product or service can moderately use social media. I do feel that companies that sell products like electronics can have a greater benefit than companies that sell tissues.
ReplyDeleteGreat point on company presence. It's important to be there where and when your customers want you, but not to be overwhelming. Not sure if you've seen the ESURANCE commercial, but they have a good approach I think: "People when you want them, technology for when you don't", or something to that effect. This is a great philosophy, give customers the tools and ability to accomplish tasks on their own, but these tools should not replace older forms of customer service 100%.
ReplyDeleteI hate to burst your Kleenex bubble, but there actually is a Facebook page for Kleenex Brand Tissues (http://www.facebook.com/Kleenex). Like you, I would find no value in becoming a fan of paper in a box, but the fact is there are people (at least 3,200 of them) who want to show their support and engage with Kleenex brand representatives. It seems as if more and more companies are adopting a Fields of Dreams social media model: if you build the account, the fans and followers will come. I agree that there are some companies that social media is naturally better suited for, such as consumer packaged goods, retail, and sports & entertainment. However, if you're a major player in any industry, it would almost be expected that you have a presence on at least one social media channel.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Courtney on this one - I think with the passage of time, there is a minimum bid to play in the market. That is, at some point, everyone will be expected to have SOME social media presence. Much like back in the day (sad for me if you don't remember this!!), many companies only had a website if they seemed tech oriented or innovative. Otherwise it was like "why would you have a website!?" and now, a website is a definite minimum bid.
ReplyDeleteYou'll find in branding / marketing, people are passionate. So whether it be Kleenex, Clorox or Charmin, there are bound to be people that want to engage in conversations about how awesome the brand is - and marketers would be silly not to give them an outlet for these conversations.
I think that most companies should engage in social media. I understand what you are saying, but the thing about social media is that you don't have to respond/interact with it. Even if companies engage in it, as a consumer I can decided (for the most part) to avoid/ignore it. So I don't think there is that much harm in trying. I think it is important to note that it might be not as useful for some, so companies need to weigh the risk and rewards, but any company should consider it. I don't think it would hurt a company. As many other people said even Kleenex has a Facebook page. Yes it only engages the 3200 people, so it is not the most effective, but its benefit with those people probably outweighs the cost of it.
ReplyDeleteSocial media is a great tool b/c it allows people to communicate and interact with each other a lot easier; however, when it is used effectively
ReplyDeleteAnd companies should consider what kind of community they want to create with customers. Are you going to interact with consumers who create contents a lot or with someone that just read/ view contents that mostly created by the company. But, the important thing for both communities, you gotta have a faith/ trustworthy of the community.