the open social strategy

What if you want to implement an open, social brand strategy ? (They go great together, open and social). Here’s a place to start.

The word, social, usually gets mashed up with another word that tends to steal the show. Like social+network or social+media. So I guess it strikes me that before we even start talking about strategy we should explore the concept of social. What comes to mind? It’s stuff humans do with each other - each other. We’re not social with machines or animals or with plants or rocks. Social happens between humans. This is called a ‘relationship.’ Communities. Clubs. Congregations. Friends. Companions. Buddies. Shared interests. Shared problems. And the glue? Mostly, trust.

So there’s the first pillar of the strategy - Trust.
Here’s a few more pillars of open. I’ve bolded them throughout for easy findability.
Participation
Iteration
Meritocracy

There are a few other principles that are important but tend to fold up under the four main pillars. A few key ones include transparency, clarity, accountability, institutional history and shared ownership - or at least open ownership which may fall under some version of the creative commons. I’ll explore these more in a different tirade.

Participation. This is about “Who” as in who are we talking about here. You and your would-be friends. This is always the toughest part.  These things are difficult to quantify. People. Friendships. Emotions. Messy open-ended stuff. So this is usually where we reach for our very insightful customer segmentation studies. They give us wonderful quasi-quantifying insight into every one of our customer segments. They even come with adorable human names. Helen. Charlie. Barry. Jill. These segmentations can be very useful, giving us a bearing as we try to understand who’s who and what’s what - a map. They describe general shapes, and behaviors but they are useful only at a distance. At distance or altitude you could call the mass a kind of mediasphere. And tonnage dropped from this altitude only has to get close. But messages dropped from the mediasphere, despite their promises, they don’t really let you get to know anyone. They just help you craft and deliver a message that either resonates (literally), “plop plop fizz fizz,” or is vaguely relevant, “just do it.” As an aside, each of those messages could be tied back to a “Great” brand - Alka-Seltzer and Nike. They both have a relevant message that finds a target that wants to believe. The key is that the target wants to believe. But I have found relevant messages in fortune cookies - messages I want to believe. The point is, while messages crafted to be delivered from high altitude will find some targets, they won’t create relationships. Ad agencies have known it for years. In fact anyone who tells stories knows that you need to know your audience. In the case of social, however, you - the brand - are audience too. So the first step to knowing your audience is knowing yourself.

What are you into?
What are you passionate about? (Zappos is service, Target is design, etc.)
What do you stand for? (As in, We stand for ...)
What do you believe in? (As in, We believe in ...)
Who do you want to be friends with and what kind of relationship do you want to have with them? Think hard about this one - it’ll bite you later.

K, now make a t-shirt out of your answers. You know how to do this. This is advertising. Basic problem solving. Target + Problem + Objective = Strategy. Strategy + Storytelling = Advertising. Remember? Have your friends and enemies critique it then tweak it - this is the Iteration part. (Have Karl Long critique it too if you get a chance http://tcritic.com/ ).

Now, put on your new t-shirt. Wear it in public. No? Not going to wear it in public? Maybe we have to back up few steps. This isn’t going to work unless you wear it in public.

Ready? Now we get to things to do. We’ll put them under the heading of “How”
enable individuals to go forth wearing the t-shirt.

Remember who you wanted to be friends with? Now find some shared social objects*? (*What are social objects? Social objects are independent (meaning no one ‘owns’ them) ideas, interests, problems and beliefs around which social networks form. These networks introduce, validate, invalidate, debate, agree on and disagree on ideas. They share experiences around interests. They discuss and solve problems. They bolster or question beliefs. Within this behavior rules are followed that allow individuals to continue to participate in and attain (or lose) status within the group. The rules vary slightly depending on the objects being discussed but generally apply regardless of the nature of the network. If you’ve ever discussed movies, especially your favorite movies, with a stranger at a dinner party you are familiar with how to explore shared social objects). Now go hang out regularly in spaces that contain these shared objects. What’s that? You don’t feel comfortable hanging out in “that kind of place?” Well, are you sure these are the people you want as friends? If the answer is no, don’t fake it. Nobody likes a poseur. You might get your ass kicked.  Go back up top and rethink the kind of friends you want. You may have to do a new t-shirt. More Iteration. If, on the other hand, these are the people you want to be friends with, you may have to work your way up the social order. This is the Meritocracy part. Think back to high school when you first joined the chess club. That was hard too, but you paid your dues and it was worth it. You can also bring something to the party - build or bring tools that facilitate sharing, examination and modification of shared objects and maybe even the creation of new objects.  More Meritocracy.

You, as a brand, can participate if you follow the rules and be yourself. Wear the t-shirt. Specifically you, a brand, can be very good at sharing interest objects and helping solve problem objects within a social group. Make sure you’re having fun. If you’re not maybe you have to ask the passion question again. Try, try, try to answer it truthfully. Make sure you’re learning something too. If you’re not, you’re not really participating and the rest of the group is probably referring to you as “a know-it-all” or simply as “a dick.” That’s bad. Time for a new t-shirt.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Social, Open, Control, Democracy

Very cool stuff.

A question I am struggling with is how you put your brand out there with authenticity, but still retain control over the vision and direction.  And what does control mean with an open social brand?

Another question I am struggling with is, assuming you foster a trusting open social relationship in an online community, how you weight the input and engagement of that community relative to the rest of your customers who are not yet plugged in to an open online social life?

It seems that the biggest challenge for a company adopting this strategy is taking on the responsibility to be consistently authentically responsive, and to demonstrate through its future products/services that it has listened, learned and acted in a way that honors the trust that has been earned in the online space.

Trust and Intent

Awesome post. 

 Regarding trust:  Trust is definitely the first condition required. We did a three year study of trust in a complex social/business environment, and we came to these conclusions:

 

1) Trust is well explained as one party's expectation that another will act in a way that honors the party's intentions.   (This allows for the experience we see in Silicon Valley often, where people who trust each other to be good people, good parents, and good friends can not "trust" each other with their business intentions, because they expect each other to take advantage of the information in a way that may not be consistent with what the sharer wants to happen.)

 

2) Trust requires direct connection with humans.  Or, it requires that the sharer is comfortable with everyone knowing the information shared.  Trust problems occur when there is information that the sharer needs to share with some people while keeping it secret from others. 

Powerful distinction. Focusing on the "social" part of SM....

Focusing on the "social" part of social media or social tech places the emphasis where it belongs, on the human voice (the opinion, idea, feeling, belief), rather than the technical delivery method, which is almost arbitrary. Putting this into practice, in business we should equally value and apply the key customer insights we gain via less glamorous "established" channels like Phone / Call Ctr, if we are genuine about inviting and enabling the individual voice, building a socially informed and powered brand. The technologies are the only things which will continue to change throughout time. The power of individuals (and the power of communities of individuals) to create, destroy and/or change any reality to better suit or meet their needs, has always and will always exist. The tools are just making it more efficient.

the open social strategy

Interesting post. I'm still digesting it, but I think the most compelling idea around an open social strategy is the notion of transparency. When you are this open with your brand, you are literally naked. It requires not only trust, but courage. You may fail and get your heart broken, but you will also be rewarded many times over.

When we talk about social strategies, we too often get caught up in the technology when what we're really talking about is the people. People are unpredictable and emotional, but technology does not account for that. I think it's important to remember the human element when pursuing an open social strategy. Your brand will be better off for it.  

Finally, there is the idea the marketplace, that you are subjecting your brand to the ultimate court of public opinion, where ideas are openly traded, held dearly or thrown away. I think it has a fascinating affect on how ideas are actually shaped online, what people say, etc.

Thanks for the thought-provoking post.