Comments on: Is community management unimportant to senior marketers?

By: Term Papers

Term Papers — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 07:16:00 +0000

Informative text, thank you very much. Well done.

By: Term Papers

Term Papers — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:22:01 +0000

Great info, i glad to see this blog, such an informative article, Thanks for share this.
It's always nice when you can not only be informed, but also get knowledge, from these type of blog, nice entry. Thanks

Term papers

By: ?°•.?.•°????•¯`•°•.?

?°•.?.•°????•¯`•°•.? — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 05:06:05 +0000

Community enagement is one of the keys to savvy social network marketing

By: Steven Parker

Steven Parker — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:57:14 +0000

Your point is a good one, Michael. But I do think it's hard to draw conclusions from this study or frankly any that use the term community. It's a bit perilous because it has so many different meanings, most if not all of which are legit. This is one of those “devil in the details” things. If we use “community” as a handle for the sum total of ALL customer engagement, that's one thing. But what if the respondent thinks it means the company's online user group? Or what if they think that and the company doesn't have one? It's probably too soon to expect senior marketers to consistently pull the lever for community. We need much broader consensus on what it means first. It'll come.

By: Pat Campbell

Pat Campbell — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:33:26 +0000

Michael,
You make a great point about companies and brands paying more attention to their actual engagement with consumers through Social Media.

Companies and Brands who only have scheduled tweets, updates on their agenda without listening to and responding to their consumer base are not using the power of Social Media well.

They are to be commended for getting a presence within Social Media, for being current. They have relationship issues to learn.

Companies who have not yet created Social Media accounts would do well to pay attention to your blog posts!

By: larryirons

larryirons — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 14:55:40 +0000

As you suggest Michael, it is unclear whether the data point on "social networks/applications" includes brand communities. I'd suggest it probably does, because a brand community can exist on a social network platform as well as other Web 2.0 platforms, even though the latter are typically designed specifically for longterm engagement and participation. Research published in The Journal of Marketing late last year suggests that there are really interesting implications for co-creation when we view brand communities from the point of view of practices rather than technologies. I offered some thoughts on the topic a few months ago.

http://skilfulminds.com/2009/10/20/customer-com...

By: ConversationAgent

ConversationAgent — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:23:43 +0000

Good, helpful content is also a way to stimulate interaction along with building context. Yet, as I wrote about that a couple of days ago “there is no money in content creation” – everyone expects the tools to be expensive or the custom programming, and not the hard work that goes into listening, tracking issues, responding with tailored content.

By: kennethlim

kennethlim — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:21:55 +0000

You're right, Michael, and I'd be interested in seeing to what extent businesses perceive "social media usage" to be.

In my experience, it's also worth pointing out that "engagement" isn't a binary something. It's much more contextual.

A recent example of this is a tweet I sent to @klm (Royal Dutch Airlines). I mentioned to them that I wasn't really fond of their latest email. They sent me an invitation to sign up for something I was already a member of for more than a year and the email had Dutch and English mixed up.

I even left an opening for them to reply by adding that the site (they wanted me to sign up for) was still buggy, without giving any details.

No response. And it's not because they're inactive. All the great tweets they get, get retweeted and they're happy to interact with "satisfied customers".

Engagement is one thing, but then it becomes a matter of to what degree you are going to engage. If you're only engaging with and through happy messages, you're not better than the one-way messengers or those who don't engage at all.

By: Michael Brito

Michael Brito — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:42:34 +0000

Pat — you are exactly right. Interaction in te form of a conversations .. and yes, it could be just sending you to a web page to download a driver or answering a question. What this interaction doesn't mean is some flash web site with a bunch of cool widgets/gadgets.

Yeah, the last data point doesn't make sense. I might have written it wrong.

By: patmcgraw

patmcgraw — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:17:30 +0000

Michael,

What do they (85% of Americans using social media) expect in terms of interaction? Personally, I haven't run into too many customers for clients or employers that want anything beyond fast access to accurate, relevant information - so is the expectation access to a knowledgeable representative that can get me what I want/need?

Also, I am reading this over morning coffee so the fog hasn't lifted completely but I am confused by the final statistic regarding social media users' expectations - it seems to say that of the 85% of people that want companies present on social media, 7% think companies should not be involved at all. Should that have been of the 85% of Americans using social media?

Best,
Pat