So I was fortunate to have been invited to speak at mesh last week as a part of the word-of-mouth panel. Under the moderation of Sean Moffitt, we (the “we” being me, Saul Colt, and Angie Kramer) had a bit of a chat around the state of the nation. It was all quite entertaining and I was really pleased to hear some interesting questions and meet some very nice people afterwards.
In any case, in the throes of our discussion, I got to thinking about an issue I often wonder about: who owns a conversation? When part of a person’s job is to inspire and encourage WOM by getting involved in conversational media, what happens to the conversation if the generator jumps ship?
When I asked during our panel, it was suggested that the relationship could be sustained by a new employee. This, of course, requires two pretty sharp conditions: (1) the company retains the contacts, and (2) the new employee emulates whatever je-ne-sais-quoi made a user base feel a connection with the brand.
Contact Retention
Let’s think about #1 with a case in point. If/when RichardAtDell leaves Dell, does he leave his Twitter identity with them? Is that a corporate asset? Or are those his personal contacts, and he simply changes his username to plain old Richard? If part of his job function is relationship-building, is he equivalent to sales staff? Or is he more equivalent to an agency, where the “agent” owns the relationship and the company is “renting” it?
Employment agreements typically require staff to stay out of touch with business contacts for a certain period of time after termination. Does this mean that Richard will have to abandon his loyal Tweethearts, or will he continue to converse? Is this only relevant if competitive considerations come into play, i.e. what if RichardatDell becomes RichardatIBM or RichardatHP?
(A quick edit – RichardAtDell has discussed this issue briefly as well, and while his reasoning is clear and concise, I am asking around generalities in best practices rather than specific instances – but obviously this is on Dell’s radar!)
The Human Conundrum
If the intent with using an individual’s name is to humanize the brand – and I’ve seen endless conversation for and against this approach – then the result is brand humanization around a unique individual. While any respectable business person would approach such an initiative with brand voice solidly in mind, at the end of the day, people connect to people. Good, right?
Well, kind of. This humanizing tactic both helps and hampers – you get a closer tie between engager and engagee, but you also increase the risk if/when that person moves on. What if RichardAtDell has to give his contact list to his replacement, SuzanneAtDell? The transition in username results in a hyperawareness on the side of the user: This isn’t the person I got to know. I’m starting over.
Using a company banner as the engager rather than the unique individual certainly reduces the immediate ability for a consumer to feel the conversational impulse. (How, indeed, do we talk to Starbucks?) However, it also mitigates the cult of personality risk factor. The individual managing the outreach can still connect with people one-to-one by openly addressing their identity whenever they’re asked, but the ultimate conversation isn’t with Jim at Starbucks. It’s with Starbucks. From a user perspective, the user remains consistently aware of one fact: Jims and Jills may come and go, but Starbucks lives on – and that’s where my relationship lies.
While using social media as a vehicle for WOM is still in its relative infancy, WOM has existed throughout the existence of business. So let’s talk. How do we map historical goodness onto an emerging channel? What are the rules of engagement? Where are the best practices? What do you think?
Entries
April 14th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
This is classic CRM. It’s in the company’s best interest to track relationships, but sales reps hold them with a death grip — rightly knowing that these contacts are the reason they got their job and what make them valuable to their next employer. Siebel made a great business off this in the heady 1990s, selling truckloads of licenses that never made it through deployment. Employees simply would not share their contacts.
The incentive is there for the employee to represent themselves firstly as an individual and secondly as an agent of their employer. Ultimately, I will suggest that it doesn’t matter which way the company goes — so long as there is some forethought behind the decision. It doesn’t matter because personal and professional information are both public and readily visible. Recruiting tools already build in Google/Facebook/MySpace/Twitter/etc searches, and your clients/prospects/coworkers/etc can easily do the same. The reality is that we are now all managing personal brands, that have a long life span thanks to the near-infinite storage capacity of the web. If that brand image becomes disjointed from your employer’s (or those of your customers), then it will be easily detected and acted upon. Some are already starting to learn the hard way that social media is not a back channel, and companies and employees alike have to think before they put themselves out there.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Great, thoughtful response…
April 14th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Jacquelyn, as you clearly stated, “WOM has existed throughout the existence of business”. And, I believe the rules of engagement have not changed at all during that time. When working on behalf of a company, you are representing that company. The contact and information expected by the members of the conversation is on behalf of the company through you as a conduit. Therefore, that corporate relationship must remain intact, no matter who is leading the conversation at any point in time. That being said, as with any conversation between people, there is also a personal element that goes along with and supports the business relationship. If effective, that personal relationship stays with the individual.
I’ve been in sales for my entire career and never understood the concept of “jealously guarding” ones contacts (although many do). It is a disservice to my employer, me and most importantly the “contact” since, should I leave, they will still need a relationship with the company for effective service of ongoing needs. That has a lot to do with the ability to maintain a “personal” relationship for subsequent business dealings. Trust is the single most important thing I can maintain for my clients. If they know I’m operating in their best interest, my personal relationship is protected and therefore there is no need to “jealously guard” anything. Should I have an opportunity to work with them again or represent another company who may be of value to them, my credability is intact and the relationship continues.
I hope this makes sense and thanks for bringing out this very important discussion.
April 27th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Hi Jacquelyn
Was catching up on reading on the weekend and ran across your post. For some additional information you might find my comments on this post provide more context on the issues you raise:
http://thebitboss.com/craigsutton/5-questions-withmediaphyter-jennifer-leggio
Another factor is that we very much work as a team and many of the people I am connected with on the Web are also connected to colleagues or are well- aware of how we all work together.
In addition, in a broader context, is it not always, or at least often, the case that if someone leaves a company there are challenges in how to “manage” that departure, especially if the person had some sort of business relationships with customers, suppliers, traditional media, etc etc etc? A good company and good people always manage to work through these in an orderly transition. I do not think that social media changes any of that.
Enjoyed reading your post and thank you for the thoughts
April 28th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Jacquelyn
the relationship is owned by the customer and who THEY deign to have it with
it will have business impact to the extent that personal trust is a core brand promise
(ie hairdressers, mechanics, other professionals)
most other relationships work to influence the emotional dimension –
to engage with people because they have an affinity toward you
but that affinity is ON TOP OF the core brand.
If it is replaced/eliminated, the core brand prevails – although there might be some nominal temporary impact.
thxs for the question.
cheers
Miro
April 28th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Hey Richard – didn’t mean to single you out specifically so much as use you as an example in wondering how this kind of thing get transitioned – you were the first person who came to mind, so good on you! (Hah.) I agree completely that the transitioning of relationships isn’t new – just thinking about the development of best practices around such a thing in new channels and seeking input!