There Is NO Social Customer

Whether we like it or not, everything seems to have gone ‘social’. Social media (which has for me only little to do with media), social business (on which I merely agree with Stowe Boyd’s definition), social platforms, social commerce

One of the latest additions to this list ‘à la Prévert’ is social customer. Our customers are now chatting online, extensively using (or not) social media, and we, benevolent companies (we are not yet social businesses, but will be very soon), are listening to them, engaging with, and, ultimately, selling them our products and services, which they will afterword comment together in social networks… This looks great, except that the social customer doesn’t exist.

Customers are still customers, regardless of how you look at them, and the fact of using new tools doesn’t mean they will buy more of your social-mediated products. Calling your customers ‘social’ is a lame attempt to say: “hey, we are a social business, notice how cool we are: we are both tagged as ‘social’. So let’s be friend, and for sure you’ll love what we are showing you”.

It is time for companies to grow up, and that rather than calling their customers ‘social’ and focusing on tools that are mostly meant for private conversations, they begin to build trusted relationships through their own channels and tools, and follow a business -not bozo- logic. Your customers deserve to be considered seriously, so does your business.

More on that in the presentation below:

Posted in As seen, heard or read, English | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

Le “social customer” n’existe pas

Que nous le voulions ou pas, tout semble être devenu “social”. Les médias sociaux (qui n’ont pour moi pas grand chose à voir avec les médias), le social business (à propos duquel j’acquiesce à la définition qu’en a donné Stowe Boyd), les plate-formes sociales, le commerce social

Une des dernières additions à cette liste à la Prévert est le “social customer” (client social). Nos clients discutent à présent en ligne, en utilisant (ou pas) extensivement les médias sociaux, et nous, bienveillantes entreprises (nous ne sommes pas encore des social businesses, mais cela ne saurait tarder), les écoutons, engageons la conversation, et, au bout du compte, leur vendons nos produits et services, au sujet desquels ils feront leurs commentaires sur les réseaux sociaux… Tout cela semble parfait, sauf que le “social customer” n’existe pas.

Les clients restent des clients, quelle que soit la manière dont vous les considérez, et le fait d’utiliser de nouveaux outils ne signifie pas qu’ils achèteront davantage vos produits social-médiatisés. Qualifier vos clients de “sociaux” est une pitoyable tentative de dire: “hé, nous sommes un ‘social business’, regardez comme nous sommes cool: on nous qualifie tous les deux de ‘social’. Soyons donc amis, et vous allez adorer ce que nous vous montrons, j’en mets ma main à couper”.

Il est temps que les entreprises deviennent adultes, et que, au lieu d’appeler leurs clients des “clients sociaux” et de se focaliser sur des outils essentiellement utilisés pour des conversations privées, elles commencent à construire avec eux des relations de confiance, à travers leurs propres outils et canaux, et suivent une logique de business -et non de cirque-. Vos clients méritent d’être considérés sérieusement, tout comme votre business.

Plus à ce sujet dans la présentation ci-dessous:

Posted in Francais, Vu, lu ou entendu | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Social Media: Thinking Over Words Meaning

Terminology, as language itself, always had a huge impact on our thinking. Considering the pervasive place social media has taken into our online lives, from mundane Facebook conversations to companies-wide collaborative platforms, including strategies as diverse as Youtube-based marketing campaigns, Social CRM initiatives or open innovation frameworks, it appeared to me interesting to look a bit closely at the words themselves: ‘social media’.

Conversely to Web 2.0, or Enterprise 2.0 (or anything 2.0, as far as it seems), the term ‘social media’ doesn’t have a clear origin to trace back.  Despite that, it appears that everyone knows about it and has a more or less clear (even if not expressible) idea of what it is.  Isn’t ‘social’ about conversation, and ‘media’ about the channels (technologies) that support it? Yes, of course, but meanings are obstinate, so let us listen to what the words themselves have to say.

Social by nature

When writing “Du contrat social” in 1762, Jean-Jacques Rousseau was, after John Locke, theorizing and popularizing the meaning of ‘social’ being the fact of pertaining to a human society as an organized (and beneficial) structure. In this sense, all of our interactions are social. Work, by nature, is social, since implying active interactions inside an organized system.

Symptomatically enough, ‘social’, as in ‘social media’ and most related concepts and tools, seems to relate more legitimately to the ‘outside’ world, where individuals discuss and interact ad libitum, than to enterprise’s world, where its use is even perceived as controversial. It looks like, in executive’s language, the word’s side connotations (of friendliness or of welfare handling) had taken over the deep political and economical implications of the word and of its use. Social CRM, for example, relates to interactions with customers, not to an internal collaborative evolution of CRMs.

Does that really make sense? ‘Social’ is at the heart of our organizations. It isn’t about Facebook. It is about how people interact with each other, how they exchange knowledge, and about the patterns emerging from these knowledge flows. It is the way we manage capabilities, hierarchies, practices, and collaboration. It is the way we drive business and profit. The necessity to deal with the shift needed to cope with a hyper-connected economy, with customers and workers new needs and expectations, cannot be avoided forever, and ‘social’ kept out of the work realm for long.

From media to mediation

Similarly as we underestimate the ‘social’ dimension of ‘social media’, we routinely overestimate its ‘media’ dimension. ‘Media’, as a singular noun, first appeared in 1923, the very same year the first commercial appeared on radio.  Since then, its definition shifted from “a means of conveying something” (the original definition of medium) to “a channel broadcasting information”. Media is not about conversation (a two-way exchange of information), but about one-way diffusion of information. Or even, as McLuhan explained in “Understanding media”, about one-way influence this channel holds on our cognition.

Bill Ives, in his last post, pointed me to Douglas Coupland’s book about McLuhan, and to David Carr’s review. Carr quotes McLuhan: “The global village is a place of very arduous interfaces and very abrasive situations … When people get close together, they get more and more savage.” But is this vision, while striking if we look at individuals as a myriad of broadcasters, still relevant if we stop thinking in terms of pushing information through multi-fragmented channels and instead immerse ourselves in a global conversation?

It is no wonder brands began to think of ‘social media’ as new conveyors for push marketing information the same way they broadcast advertising in most other channels –and many still do-; the ‘media’ word is a testimony to that immature interpretation. But this is a reductionist view of what is really happening online: ‘social media’ have become true multiway channels to mediate exchange of knowledge.

It might be time to consider ‘social media’ (or should we say ‘social channels’) from a true ‘social’ point of view: a disruptive environment where knowledge flows freely, and sets the base for a new economical and political ‘social contract’.

I would love to hear your view about that and, oh yes I am late, I wish you a very very very happy New Year.

Posted in As experimented, As seen, heard or read, English | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Médias sociaux: réflexion sur le sens des mots

La terminologie, tout comme le langage lui-même, a toujours eu un impact important sur notre pensée. En considérant la place omniprésente que les medias sociaux ont pris dans notre vie en ligne, des conversations entre amis sur Facebook aux plateformes collaboratives déployées à travers les entreprises, en incluant des stratégies aussi diverses que les campagnes de marketing sur Youtube, les initiatives de Social CRM ou les démarches d’open innovation, il m’a semblé intéressant de me pencher un peu plus sur les mots eux-mêmes: «médias sociaux».

Contrairement au Web 2.0 ou à l’Entreprise 2.0 (ou à n’importe quoi 2.0 il me semble), le terme «médias sociaux» n’a aucune origine précise vers laquelle remonter. Malgré cela, il se trouve que tout le monde en a entendu parler et s’en fait une idée plus ou moins claire (même s’il ne sait pas l’exprimer). «Sociaux» ne se rapporte-t-il pas à la conversation, et «médias» aux canaux (technologies) qui la supportent ? Oui, bien entendu, mais le sens est têtu, écoutons donc ce que les mots eux-mêmes ont à nous dire.

Social par nature

En écrivant «Du contrat social» en 1762, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, après John Locke, a théorisé et popularisé le sens de «social» comme se rapportant à une société humaine en tant que structure organisé (et bénéficiant à l’individu). En ce sens, toutes nos interactions sont sociales. Le travail est social par nature, en ce qu’il implique des interactions actives à l’intérieur d’un système organisé.

De façon symptomatique, «social», comme dans «médias sociaux», et comme dans la plupart des outils y concepts qui y sont associés, semblent se rapporter plus légitimement au monde «extérieur», dans lequel les individus discutent et interagissent à l’infini, qu’au monde de l’entreprise, où le mot est même sujet à controverse.  Il semble que, dans le langage des dirigeants, les autres connotations de ce mot (connotations amicales ou de souci du bien-être) ont relégué dans l’ombre les profondes implications politiques et économiques du mot et de son emploi. Le Social CRM, par exemple, se rapporte aux interactions avec les clients, et non à une évolution collaborative des CRMs en interne.

Est-ce vraiment pertinent ? Le «social» est au cœur de nos organisations. Il ne s’agit pas de Facebook. Il s’agit de la manière dont les personnes interagissent les unes avec les autres, dont elles échangent du savoir, de la manière dont des motifs émergent de ces flux de savoir. Il s’agit de la manière dont nous gérons les compétences, la hiérarchie, les pratiques et la collaboration. Il s’agit de la manière dont nous conduisons les affaires et générons du profit. La nécessité d’affronter le changement rendu nécessaire par une économie hyper-connectée, par les nouveaux besoins et attentes, tant des clients que des employés, ne peut être occultée indéfiniment, et le «social» tenu pendant longtemps à l’écart du monde du travail.

Des médias à la médiation

De la même façon que nous sous-estimons la dimension «sociale» des «médias sociaux», nous sous-estimons habituellement la dimension «médias». Le mot «médias», utilisé de façon générique, est apparu pour la première fois en 1923, l’année où fut pour la première fois diffusée une publicité à la radio. Depuis lors, sa définition, de «support de transport de quelque chose» (la définition originale de médium) est devenue «canal de diffusion d’information».  Les médias ne concernent pas la conversation (un échange d’information dans plusieurs sens), mais la diffusion de l’information à sens unique. Ou même, comme l’expliquait McLuhan dans «Comprendre les médias», l’influence à sens unique que ce canal exerce sur notre cognition.

Bill Ives, dans son dernier billet,  m’a dirigé sur le livre de Douglas Coupland sur McLuhan, et sur la critique qu’en a faite David Carr. Carr cite McLuhan (je traduis) : «le village global est le lieu d’interfaces très rugueuses et de situations très abrasives… Là où les gens sont proches les uns des autres, ils deviennent de plus en plus sauvages». Mais cette vision, frappante si nous considérons les individus comme d’innombrables diffuseurs d’information, est-elle toujours pertinente si nous cessons de penser en termes d’information «poussée» à travers des canaux ultra-fragmentés, et nous immergeons au contraire dans une conversation globale ?

Il n’est pas étonnant que les marques ont commencé à investir les médias sociaux en les considérant comme de nouveaux canaux de marketing push, de la même façon qu’elles diffusent de la publicité à travers la plupart des autres canaux – et beaucoup d’entre elles en sont toujours à ce niveau- ; le mot «médias» témoigne de cette interprétation immature. Mais il s’agit d’une vue réductionniste de ce qui se passe réellement sur internet : les «médias sociaux» sont devenus de vrais canaux à multiples sens servant de médiateur à l’échange du savoir.

Il est sans doute temps de considérer les «médias sociaux» (où devrions-nous dire les «canaux sociaux») sous un angle réellement «social»: un environnement disruptif dans lequel le savoir circule librement, et jette les bases d’un nouveau «contrat social» économique et politique.

J’aimerais beaucoup savoir ce que vous en pensez et, bon sang je suis en retard, je vous souhaite une très très très belle nouvelle année.

Posted in Francais, Vécu, Vu, lu ou entendu | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Have We Yet Integrated Social, Scottie?

Another day, another buzzword… Integration is quite a hot topic on these days of predictions, especially after both David Armano, from Edelman Digital, and Jeremiah Owyang, from Altimer, qualified 2011 as year of social (‘media’ for David, ‘business’ for Jeremiah) integration.

Integrating social into business

As many words, ‘integration’ has quite a few meanings, but they all rely to the fact of ‘getting the part to fit into the whole’. From a business perspective, the matter of integrating ‘social’ into every aspect of companies’ operations is of course a trend we will all see happening one day or another, but I cannot keep from being dubitative about the length of the road 99.9 percent of businesses will have to follow to transform themselves from their present state to truly social businesses. Integration requires parts to exist before they can fit into the whole.

More and more initiatives exist which prove the competitive advantages associated to becoming a social enterprise, and the exponential growth of the social web, where most of customers’ conversations now take place, is now an unavoidable business fact, but the vast majority of organizations still do not get it at all. These are still mainly emergent behaviors. Seriously, heralding 2011 as being the year of social integration amounts to claiming it the year of time travel.

Integrating social into platforms

Integration is also a technology matter. In this context, ‘integrating’ can be helpfully defined as ‘dealing with’. The iPod ‘deals with sound’ so that, when associated to iTunes, it integrates most of the ways we daily interact with sound. The result is a sleek, one-size-fits-all device able to generate the best ever user experience while hiding all internal complexity.  Similarly, Microsoft Excel ‘deals with numbers’ with the single elegant paradigm of a grid.

We all dream of integrated beauties such as Star Trek’s Tricorder, but ‘dealing with’ doesn’t always stands for a great user experience. Another Microsoft product, Word, for long, is a synonym for big bloated piece of software, with many features one doesn’t even want to hear about. In fact, Word ‘deals with words’ in the same way the iPod ‘deals with sound’, which shows that integration is far from being straightforward when it comes to deal with complex concepts. There are so many radically different ways we use words in written documents that no software can seamlessly integrate them.

When it comes to ‘dealing with social’, large platforms tend to look much more like Word than with the iPod or Excel.  Huge sets of collaborative tools clearly do not facilitate collaboration: not even do they facilitate the comprehension of what ‘social’ means. Time will tell if vendors will succeed in developing a new paradigm for collaborative interfaces, but, in that sense, actual toolsets clearly demonstrate a failure in what we can expect from integration.

Nevertheless, we are seeing today technological integration happening much faster www.moneygrampoint.fr than business integration… for better or for worse.

Integrating social into CRM?

Considering the growing importance of the social web, it is not surprising that companies are looking for ways to monitor customers’ activity and interaction beyond engagement in communities. ‘Dealing with [social] customers’ is Social CRM’s ambitious promise. As you have guessed, integration is here too a key concern (or should be); but should we look after integration in this domain?

If I had one prediction to make for 2011, it would be the rise of analytics tools.  Dealing with customers means a lot of data mining and analysis, and most tools are either quite awfully imprecise, like sentiment analysis, or require deep knowledge and heavy hand-tuning, like social network analysis. Add to that the difficulty of tapping into real-time modifications of your customers’ interactions, and you will understand why we need much stronger analytics tools than those available today.

Furthermore, a global understanding of what your customers are talking about is a lame objective. What customers want is a personal experience, at every single point where they choose to interact –or not- with your company. Traditional CRMs are about personalized relationships, and Social CRMs must follow this track, and aim at offering a comprehensive view of individual customers’ interactions.

Unless being able to deliver on such a demanding promise, social CRM integration, from a toolset perspective, is quite nonsense. Whether you start from a collaborative or a CRM platform, present offering will leave you with a gathering of imperfect tools for a less than perfect result.

On the other hand, companies’ needs –and will- to better understand social customers’ behaviors grows rapidly, whether it be to progress toward a more social business, or, more often and prosaically, to ‘traditionally’ increase profit through social channels.  While integrating social into business is still far away, interacting with social customers is a reality most departments are facing today, to reach different goals, following different processes, using different tools. To understand how social business can drive better business, companies need to be able to reach them, they need to feel the way customers now want to get their jobs done better with the help of the goods and services they buy. Social CRM has this power, and, as fuzzy a concept it still is, its integration into business has the potential to change the way most business is done.

Posted in As seen, heard or read, English | Tagged , , , , , | 8 Comments