cgm

Business Week on Consumer Vigilantes: Customer Service, Emotion, and CGM in Focus

Business Week's 3/3 edition (available online now) features a very important cover story by Jena McGregor entitled Consumer Vigilantes: Fighting for truth, justice, and the right to speak to a manager. The issue also includes an annual ranking of "Customer Service Champs" -- many of whom, interestingly, have been profiled in either this blog or my forthcoming book, "Satisfied Customers Tell Three Friends, Angry Customers Tell 3000!"  -- as well as a provocative (and spot-on) op-ed by Jeff Jarvis entitled "Love the Customers Who Hate You".  Importantly, McGregor writes:

"The sting of a bad experience can cut so deep that it transforms an upset customer into an activist no longer interested in just a refund." 

As we've probed many times in this blog (see tagged links), and in nearly a dozen ClickZ columns, marketers and business executives have yet to internalize the critical symbiotic relationship between brand/service "experiences" and "media" output (and I'm not talking about paid media). McGregor's piece helps make that connection more obvious and transparent.  The propensity to speak out (hence generate CGM or social media) is inextricably tied to depth of consumer loyalty or disloyalty, and its powered by the web's growing arsenal of megaphones that seem to get even more powerful every day thanks to the advent of multi-media (e.g. video, audio, photos) as well as "I second that emotion" community and social-networking capability.    The upside of extreme loyalty and brand emotion might be found in places like Facebook's 40,000+ member Southwest Airlines group or the nearly 70,000 member "Addicted to Starbucks" group (more perspective here). The downside of extreme disloyalty and boiling emotion -- what McGregor describes as "venom-spewed tales of woe" -- can be found in tens of thousands of places on the web's digital trail, from message boards to blogs to YouTube.  (As Jarvis suggests, just go to Google and add the word "sucks" to a brand query.)

So What Next?  Business Week does a great job diagnosing the problem, and the "winners" part shines light on a host of best practices (Fairmont, Lexus, Trader Joe's, Lands End, Enterprise), but I still worry whether there's a big missing piece of the conversation around "what next."  Importantly, are the marketing leaders -- the owners of the biggest discretionary budget, and arguably the most influential drivers of change in large enterprises-- internalizing the message, and translating these new insights around consumer behavior into better "media" models.  If "service is the new marketing," as they say, what's the blueprint for re-engineering the marketing department along these lines?  How should the CMO -- or the constellation of communications agencies (media planning, advertising, PR, digital) -- be incented to move in this direction?  And will there be rewards and recognition for the mostly undervalued (and typically non-strategic "cost center") owners of the call-center, email feedback, and more?   

First Things First: Since 2000, I've attended over a dozen conferences of the Society of Consumer Affairs Professionals, one of the largest industry group's representing corporations and brands that own the "listening pipe." While not nearly as glamorous as the "new media" or Web 2.0 confabs and conferences, these SOCAP events always hit me like a refreshing cold-shower because they are grounded in the real nuts and bolts of listening, training the front-lines, adapting to an increasingly diverse (e.g. Spanish speakers) and demanding consumers, developing fair and consistent methods for responding to consumers, and navigating impenetrably complex legal barriers (and fear).  I have also learned that this department is consistently underfunded and under-resourced, and mostly divorced from marketing.  As boring and mundane as their work seems, it's hard not to conclude that if a company can't nail the "basics" of consumer listening they'll never get it right, or be credible, in the far more vexing and volatile social media zone. (Remember, most of the vigilantes Business Week's McGregor highlights initially reached out the company, but those experiences were poorly managed and only made the situation worse.)  So you have to start with the source.  That said, like the CMO, the consumer affairs and customer relations leaders also need to step up to the plate, a point I underscored last fall in a SOCAP keynote entitled "Wake Up and Listen to Consumer 2.0."  If they want more budget, more respect, more leeway to nurture meaningful consumer loyalty -- and hence positive word-of-mouth and CGM creation -- they need to make their case, and do so now at a time when the resource-rich marketers are dotting every third word in speeches and memos with the word "conversation."  My book lays out a host of strategies for making such a case, but short of even reading a book (or Business Week's story) business leaders simply need to take a long, hard stare at today's consumer and negotiate a new relationship.  The good news is that there's a growing laundry list of best practices in this area I like to refer to as Listening-Centered Marketing, from Dell's Ideastorm to the 800-number-all-over-the-place Zappos.com.  We're also seeing new metrics and measurement protocols (this is part of what I do in my day job) that make it far easier for brands to understand and act upon varying degrees of consumer emotion (the building block of consumer loyalty or even defection) flowing across the CGM landscape.

Final Question: And so I end this post with a simple question: how do we shift from consumer-powered "vigilantism" to company-powered "service vigilance."  Business Week's piece fires up that conversation, and I really hope it continues down the right path.

Search and Reputation: Your Brand Standing Is Your Shelf Landing

My most recent ClickZ article, entitled Search & Reputation: Your Brand Standing is Your Shelf Landing, insists that "search and brand reputation share an inseparable, symbiotic relationship, and CGM is the dominant, if not final, arbiter of that marriage. That puts the exercise of managing brand equity on the thin, precarious line between control and capitulation." Further:

"In both pleasant and unsettling ways, companies are quickly learning their brand equity and credibility is the sum total, and composition of their search results. They're also beginning to internalize (usually the hard way) that CGM is now the fastest-growing source of indexed content in search results....That means, in essence, we're all hostage to the conversation."

This issue is a key theme in my upcoming book, and it powers one of my "six drivers of brand credibility" -- affirmation.  Brand credibility and reputation heavily rests on how well search results "affirm" brand attributes.  For example, after hearing a "we solve all your problems" ad pitch from a particular brand, a consumer might conduct a bit of extra due diligence on a search engine, or even Wikipedia. In some categories such as wireless, search results often "affirm" negative -- not positive -- experiences with the brand, hence eroding credibility. Every brand stakeholder needs to be attentive to these dynamics.   Again, here's the article.  If you want to dig deeper, John Battelle, not surprisingly, has written a fair amount about this topic.

Type in Pete Blackshaw into Google and

Official 2008 Buzzword Forecast

Must admit, I had more fun writing this last ClickZarticle ("The Official 2008 Web 2.0 Buzzword Forecast") than just about anything I've written this year.  And based on some early feedback, I vow to keep it growing.  If I am claiming credit for anything that's already been circulating in popular Web 2.0 vernacular, by all means let it out!  Here are the highlights.  Enjoy!

"Search moptimization": Yes, that's "mop," as in to clean up. This is the increasingly common, if not essential, brand practice of attempting to clean up negative search results against general or specific brand-related queries. For many brands, particularly in the consumer electronics category, hostile CGM is beginning to fill, even dominate, the organic search shelf, a zone that we all know has an unmistakable impact on the awareness and trial of new products. For many brands, the mopping process can take two to three years (often longer) and heavily depends on operational and product, rather than marketing, decisions. Dell, for example, still has lots of "search moptimization" to clean up Jeff Jarvis's two-year-old mess, though it's worth noting its customer service blog and IdeaStorm initiatives have already helped mop up or reroute some of the venom.

"Wombagging": This exercise tries to protect, or sandbag, your brand from negative or undesirable word of mouth (WOM). This could include anything everything from buying negative keywords on search engines to putting videos on your Web site featuring your CEO begging for patience and forgiveness. For some companies, wombagging might even include employing staffers in defense of bad buzz. But again, all this falls into the defensive branding arena, not outright promotion.

"Friendiligence": This will become very popular in 2008. It involves the extra layer of due diligence on friend requests on Facebook, MySpace, and all the me-too social networks popping up here and there. Friendiligence will also dial up as marketers oversaturate the social networking space with fan sites and more. Is this a real friend offer, or is it spam? Trust me, we'll all ask harder questions, and some friend lists will start to shrink.

"Converstations": Brands now have multiple entry points for meaningful dialogues or conversations with consumers. These are essentially converstations. Brands fully immersed in CGM or social media may have dozens of conversations, from the consumer affairs interfaces and toll-free numbers to the corporate blog. They all matter, and every brand manager should know his or her converstations.

"Social mediation": This is the process of rethinking or renegotiating certain advertising, marketing, and communications practices as a result of user backlash. What took place with the Facebook privacy backlash was essentially social mediation, and Facebook's own groups served as the third-party arbitrator between disgruntled users and Facebook (the company and policymaker)

"We-bargaining": A close cousin of social mediation, this is a bit more centered on brands and companies seeking peace, appeasement, or a lesser sentence with consumers when they screw up (particularly with viral, WOM, or CGM campaigns). It's a tough exercise, because it typically pits a brand against the wisdom of the crowds. Richard Edelman did a very good job of we-bargaining after the controversial Wal-Mart blog incident last year. He was open, forthright, contrite, and resolved to fix the issue.. So, too, was the CEO of JetBlue when he posted his apology to YouTube.

"Greenlashing": Woe to the marketer who over-claims or over-promises benefits on the green front. The market's just too transparent. Sites like TreeHugger, now owned by Discovery, are part of mainstream consciousness these days, and smaller green skeptics will vet out a green imposter faster than you can say "carbon neutral." As the number of do-good green blogs increases, you can expect even more greenlashing about brand missteps in this area. Mya Frazier of Ad Age deserves credit for firing the first big warning shot against marketers' bows on what she calls "greenwashing."

"Shamsparency": Don't get busted buying shills or engaging in unsavory activity. Just don't do it, or the forces of shamsparency will catch up with you. It happens all the time, and firms in the CGM monitoring space (like my own) make it easier to uncover the imposters. My recommendation: avoid this term at all costs, and write the WOMMA ethics code on the whiteboard 30 times.

"Credlining": Credlining is when consumers sift the good from the bad, the credible from the discreditable, and publish a scorecard accordingly. When protesters of Facebook's Beacon feed effort started posting lists of Facebook's advertising partners, credlining was in play.

"Facelifting": This is the process of taking a hard look at traditional conversational touch points ("contact us" pages, feedback forms, surveys), and slapping on a friendlier, more empowering face that the usual run-at-all-cost one. Brands must think harder about the sincerity and believability of the invitation. How do you make consumers feel important and valued?

"Blog groveling": This is the already-getting-old process of sucking up to bloggers and key influencers to try, test, or sample your new product or service. Usually it involves hokey headlines, repetitive phrases, and an unmistakable hint of desperation.

"World War 2.0": Face it, the battle lines are calcifying around Web 2.0. Ambiguity reins supreme on "Who owns the conversation?" and "Who owns the influencer?" Sure, we all talk a mean game of cross-functional harmony, but war's already erupting between the brand and IT departments, the PR agency and the digital agency, and, most important, consumer affairs and everyone else. Did I forget to mention legal? Top executives, meanwhile, fancy pitting one against the other in the impatient name of just getting it done. Expect to hear much more about World War 2.0 in 2008.

"MicroTubing": This is what's happening in TV and video development. New content forms are proliferating and appealing to smaller audiences. Small publishers, even mom-and-pop players, will continue to make inroads into the video publishing zone, many getting snatched up by brands and publishers for ongoing content.

"Lipsmacking": This is process of talking trash about brands, services, or goods, usually with a digital trail

Ten Important Takeaways From Steve Jobs' iPhone Pricing Apology

What an incredible year to watch and learn from CEO-level behavior in times of crisis and difficulty.  First we had Jet Blue, faced with an impossibly difficult situation, take to the airwaves on YouTube, apologize profusely, and announce a new passenger bill of rights.  While Menu Foods practically hid their CEO during the pet recall issue, Mattel put their CEO, Bob Eckert, on the website video airwaves to nurture trust and confidence in the wake of the toy recall (a still-in-progress case study).  Now we have Steve Jobs, who just wrote and posted the most remarkable letter in response to concerns about iPhone’s recent price decrease. He coupled an apology with a $100 Apple credit for all early-buyers of the iPhone.  This is classic Defensive Branding.  I predict it will be one of the most discussed, debated, and linked-to letters of the year, and so far I've already counted over 800 unique blog postings referencing his letter since 6 PM last night.  I'd thought I'd dissect the letter, and draw out key "takeaways."

Exact Text From CEO Steve Jobs Letter

I have received hundreds of emails from iPhone customers who are upset about Apple dropping the price of iPhone by $200 two months after it went on sale.

1. The Power of Listening: He read his mail, and he understands the core issue. Most CEOs wait for the formal report from the consumer affairs department.

After reading every one of these emails, I have some observations and conclusions.

2. The Power of Responsiveness He has listened, and now he is responding. 

First, I am sure that we are making the correct decision to lower the price of the 8GB iPhone from $599 to $399, and that now is the right time to do it. iPhone is a breakthrough product, and we have the chance to 'go for it' this holiday season. iPhone is so far ahead of the competition, and now it will be affordable by even more customers. It benefits both Apple and every iPhone user to get as many new customers as possible in the iPhone 'tent'. We strongly believe the $399 price will help us do just that this holiday season.

3. The Power of Restating the Rationale: He’s re-affirming excitement around the product, as well as rationalizing Apple’s core decision to lower iPhone price. He’s doing so confidently and rationally, and as a build up to his eventual apology.

Second, being in technology for 30+ years I can attest to the fact that the technology road is bumpy. There is always change and improvement, and there is always someone who bought a product before a particular cutoff date and misses the new price or the new operating system or the new whatever. This is life in the technology lane. If you always wait for the next price cut or to buy the new improved model, you'll never buy any technology product because there is always something better and less expensive on the horizon.

4. The Power of Empathy: Jobs is attempting to show empathy and understanding for those who have a tendency to buy products as soon as they hit the market. These are the coveted early adopters and enthusiasts, and they represent to sweet spot of the “new” marketing.  These are also the same consumers who ranted to loudest when Job's announced, barely 24 hours earlier, a 33% price slash. They are the influentials. 

The good news is that if you buy products from companies that support them well, like Apple tries to do, you will receive years of useful and satisfying service from them even as newer models are introduced.

5. The Power of Service as Brand: He’s underscoring Apple’s historic legacy of providing value and exceptional service, no matter when and how consumers buying the product.  (Caveat: a smart statement, but not 100% accurate. Apple still has service blemishes.)

Third, even though we are making the right decision to lower the price of iPhone, and even though the technology road is bumpy, we need to do a better job taking care of our early iPhone customers as we aggressively go after new ones with a lower price.

6. The Power of Accountability: In essence he’s taking accountability for not being sufficiently sensitive to these coveted early customers. He's also expressing resolve to right the wrong.  Key message: we can't afford to lose you!

Our early customers trusted us, and we must live up to that trust with our actions in moments like these.

7. The Power of Nurturing Trust: Job's is openly underscoring the undeniable role of trust in the relationship between the brand and the consumer.  Indeed, trust is what makes the world go around, and it’s one of most important drivers of credibility.

Therefore, we have decided to offer every iPhone customer who purchased an iPhone from either Apple or AT&T, and who is not receiving a rebate or any other consideration, a $100 store credit towards the purchase of any product at an Apple Retail Store or the Apple Online Store

8. The Power of Walking the Talk!  Jobs is putting a real, tangible value on consumer value. If you were there for us early on, we will credit you $100.

Details are still being worked out and will be posted on Apple's website next week. Stay tuned.

9. The Power of Imperfect Timeliness: Jobs didn’t have all the detailed worked out but he clearly saw the upside in communicating the basic concept as quickly as possible

We want to do the right thing for our valued iPhone customers. We apologize for disappointing some of you, and we are doing our best to live up to your high expectations of Apple.

10. The Power of Forgiveness: In the end, he is offering a sincere apology, but also advertising the degree to which Apple consumers expect and demand more.  In essence, his apology is reaffirming the power of the Apple brand. Here it's also important to note that saying you are sorry is a "consumer bonding" moment. It cements emotional connections.

Let's keep this case study alive.  And to that point, what promises to be an excellent thread has just started on WOMMA's Facebook thread.  My very smart WOMMA colleague Rick Murray of Edelman has fired off the first comment, suggesting that "entire episode was avoidable had Mr. Jobs done one thing: reach out to and listen to his most ardent fans.

Defensive Branding & Video: Keeping Trust During a Crisis

Well, you read about it here first, but I dedicated this morning's lead ClickZ article (Keeping Trust During a Crisis) to a more extended discussion about the use of video in crisis communication.  Mattel, J&J, and Menu Foods are cited.  In terms of "actionability," I suggest that brands should "aggressively think about how to leverage interactive capabilities and platforms, especially video, to drive deeper emotional connections and trust with consumers."  Tough situations, I add, are the best place to start.   

Video response within site search results. Brands have a long way to go in shoring up basic site search, but one opportunity is to use video-based responses against the query. If a consumer types in "ford safety," the results page should link directly to a trusted voice from the brand walking through the company's commitment to safety. It doesn't need to be the CEO; it could be the product manager or some other trust figure.

FAQ databases. Similarly, FAQ databases should make better use of video responses. Right now, virtually all FAQ databases on corporate sites are grounded in text.

Feedback forms. Should every feedback form or "contact us" link have a video of the head of customer relations talking about how sincere she is about getting the forms back? Think about how the Kashi brand conveys a "we're listening" mindset.

External search. If consumers type in a directionally negative term on the major search engines, brands should buy text ads that link directly to a video response.

Mattel vs Menu Foods: Is Video A Better Way to Show Empathy?

At what point does "sight, sound, and motion" make a difference when trying to connect with consumers during a crisis?  Well, let's start with everything we as marketers picked up in TV copy Training 101.  TV ads work well because they drive or reinforce emotional connections; they enable "benefit" visualizations, and they typically have some form of dramatic effect you don't find in other forms of advertising.  Which is a long way of saying that I think Mattel's use of online video featuring it's CEO reaching out to consumers on the toy recall issue is right on the mark.  It works far better than a letter, a newspaper ad, a website button, or a downloadable PDF file (the curious, impossible-to-share format of choice in crisis management these days -- e.g. pet recall). 

Out of the Woods?  This isn't to suggest Mattel is out of the woods, or even close.  Indeed, the consumer fear factor around this issue, reflected in just about every form of CGM, is just warming up.  My wife and I, parents of twins who reign over countless toys of every shape and size, were just talking up this issue yesterday.  But the video works, and represents a smart first step.  It connects emotionally, demonstrates empathy, and appeals to the highest "trust" figure in the organization.   Here it's hard not to recall Jim Burke, CEO at Johnson & Johnson during the Tylenol crisis, who in an case-study codified interview (I watched it a dozen times my first year at Harvard Business School), used compassion, sincerity, and "I'd be upset too" empathy to address an impossibly difficult issue. In fact, many would argue that that poignant moment turned the corner for J&J.  Even then, well before the online video age, no print ad could compare to seeing the eyes, and hearing the voice, of Burke talking about the issue. 

Mattel Vs Menu Foods:  Now, compare this to the near lifeless approach of Menu Foods in addressing the recent pet food recall. Yes, there's were words of concern, even compassion, from the Menu Foods CEO, but the message is carried in words only.  And you don't even feel like he's talking to everyday pet owners.  The one document posted with CEO commentary on the matter reflects formal remarks at the "Menu Foods Annual Meeting." The content of the message is right -- "As pet owners ourselves, we have been saddened by the events of the last four months," he notes -- but you just wonder whether he'll get even 10% of the credit for those words given his choice of communication formats.  At the end of the day, half the equation in crisis management or defensive branding is appearing real and accessible. 

The Consumer-Fortified Media (CFM) Effect:  There's no guarantee of anything in a crisis, but companies that strike the right emotional connection with consumers typically get rewarded in the CGM currents.  We saw that clearly in the then Jet Blue CEO David Neeleman's well received (and appreciated) video apology posted on YouTube (arguably an even bolder than Mattel's effort).  Consumers fortified the brand generated media with their own commentary, reactions, opinions, and, fortunately for Jet Blue, reinforcing views. I like to refer to this as Consumer-Fortified Media (CFM), and you'll recall earlier ClickZ and blog commentary on this.  Of course, you can't take any of these tactics for granted. If the gesture doesn't appear real or authentic, or if it comes across as a spin-job, you won't get anywhere!  Looking ahead, brands need to invest more energy in carefully thinking through how they can leverage the interactive platforms -- upon which on-demand video now practically falls in the "add water and stir" category -- to drive deeper emotional connections and trust with consumers.   (I talk more about all these things in a more official capacity in a recent For Immediate Release podcast with Shel Holtz and Neville Hobson on Defensive Branding.)

Defensive Branding 101

Defensive branding is the process of preparing and protecting your brand from the volatile ups and downs of today's never predictable marketing environment.  In the age of consumer control, a good defense may be a brand's only realistic option.  As I noted in a podcast interview today with always-engaging Neville Hobson and Shel Holtz, the hosts of For Immediate Release, it's too simple to say this is merely about PR  2.0.   Defensive branding requires a host of holistic communications strategies -- all anchored, of course, to active listening. On Friday, I'm co-hosting a webinar on this topic entitled "Defensive Branding: Trouble Shooting Your Brand in the Age of Consumer Control."   It's free and you can sign up here.  Joining me will be John Giacobetti, VP of Brands for Comcast, and moderator Dan Mechem, former BuzzMetrics VP and FoxNews correspondent.

Let's put all this in perspective.  corporations and brands it’s harder than ever to defend your credibility. The time available to respond to a crisis, rumor, problem, or embarrassing gaffe is a fraction of what it was in other years. For most corporations, speed is the enemy. This is one unmistakable reality in the age of consumer-generated media.  Suspected bad news flies at the speed of sound, and the old rules of “let’s wait until the morning” simply no longer apply. That said, all is not lost for major brands. There are a host of steps to defend and protect – and perhaps even grab the offensive – in a major crisis.  From the brand website or blog to consumer affairs to how you buy keywords on Google against less flattering consumer searches, there are a host of tactics brands can apply to "defend" the brand.  I've written about this extensively in this blog, and here's a link to some of that commentary..   

Defensive Branding: jetBlue Meets YouTube for Crisis Talk

While we've read tons about marketers taking to the "CGM" airwaves to drive positive word-of-mouth, precious little attention has focused on how brands can use these same platforms for crisis communications and what I call "defensive branding."    Here's JetBlue's CEO addressing his latest crisis to customers and others in a YouTube video.  Expect to see much more of this...on YouTube and beyond. As I noted in MediaPost this morning, the blogosphere and CGM venues continue to percolate on this issue, mostly negative, so it makes sense for executives to tackle the conversation directly.  Moreover, it's always good to know the brand is being 100% transparent about who's managing company message.

CGM Week in Review: Dell Enters the Conversation

In this "first to know, first to tell" blogging world, it's hard to resist the temptation to drop commentary the second news or a key development breaks.  On one hand bloggers often maximize their so-called "social-currency" by being the first to comment, but on the other hand many of us are also anchored (at least rhetorically) to a "listen first, then enter the conversation" philosophy.  So what's the right time to credibly enter the conversation?  In the context of Dell computer launching a new corporate blog, I asked myself that question all last week.  I now have a few observations, and a ton of questions, but first some backdrop.

The Dell Blog Backdrop: The short version of the story is that Dell Computer, a recent subject of blogger and media scrutiny over customer service  (underscored last year by what's now been memoralized as the "Jeff Jarvis Incident" whereby one of the web's most prolific bloggers took Dell to the public woodshed for a customer service mishap), just launched a new corporate blog. The blog is named Dell One2One and is dedicated to informal conversation and dialogue around "the products, services, and related technology we provide (or could provide) to our customers."  To participants, the blog notes in it's Terms of Engagement

"You are encouraged to speak in an honest, informal voice and to foster productive, candid dialogue that can help us learn from each other. We’ll listen, as well as post, and ensure we engage in two-way conversations. Our intent is to provide a timely and accessible alternative to more formal, one-way channels of communication.

Reactions:  Blogger reaction, not surprisingly, was swift, and most, it seemed, initially were on the prowl for holes, gaps, discontinuities, inconsistencies, or that "achilles heel" issue the brand didn't think about (you know, the stuff bloggers typically do).  Steve Rubel and Jeff Jarvis offered early (somewhat) critical reactions that generally set the tempo for much of the debate in the blogophere, as well as the first few days of media coverage (reporters so far have taken most of their cues from early blogger reaction).  Jarvis's early comments also precipitated an unexpected controvery (which warrants it's own blog post).  My own assessment is that Dell so far has done about as good a job as you can expect considering the legal considerations and corporate constraints that surround blog or "conversational" initiatives.   The sincerity behind the initiative seems genuine, and the fact it's being presented against a backdrop of Dell claiming to spend upwards of $100 million to improve customer service fortifies the authenticity.  Importantly, at a time when prominent bloggers are opting to remove comments from the blogs, the Dell blog has managed to secure more external comments on it's blog in one week than just about any other corporate blog I've studied, including GM's Fastlane.  So by that standard, they clearly succeded in "entering the conversation."

Speakers & Seekers:  Moreover, if you pay careful attention to organic search-results, Dell also appears to be shifting the debate.  If you type in "Dell Blog" in Google, you'll note that the shelf-positioning has taken a meaningful shift from the early "Jarvis Dell Hell" content to coverage over the new One2One blog.  The biggest challenge facing Dell to date -- and one with enormous ROI implications -- is that the negative experience of one particular "speaker" (Jarvis) so dominated shelf-positioning that it interfered (Jarvis would probably prefer the world "enlightened") with buyers "seeking" information about Dell.  Dell is among the most "searched" brands on the internet, and when the conversational currency that appears on the shelf is negative, it acts like a targeted "media" impression.  This is a big reason why I'm so adamant about use of the term consumer-generated "media" versus the world "content."  The digital trail we leave acts like "media," and this is why nurturing feedback loops and meaningful conversation is so fundamentally strategic to brand building.

No Magic Wands for Customer Service?  The part of the blog that most engaged me was a post entitled "No Magic Wands for Customer Service?"  I appreciated the candor and honestly of the post, as did other bloggers, and it triggered perhaps the most important conversation on the blog, one I hope Dell keeps nurturing (for the sake of the entire marketing community).  Here's are excerpts from my own comment to this post, which gets to the heart of why these issues are so difficult for companies to address.

"Re-engineering customer service is one of the most difficult challenges for large brands...  Despite the consumer-generated "media impressions" that emanate from  customer service operations, the reality is that customer service/consumer affairs rarely commands the attention and respect (or resources) of marketing or media planning.  I say this with the frame of reference of having attended and presented to over a dozen conferences of the Society of Consumer Affairs Professionals, and it's very clear that these departments are rewarded for two core behaviors: reducing contacts, and reducing time-spent per contact.  Even the PR industry, which is so focused on blog creation and conversations, is largely divorced from core strategies and business processes around customer service, call-support, contact-us."

The Brand "Listening" Gap: This is a theme I've discussed extensively in previous articles, and it's one that really became obvious to me as far back as 1999 when I founded PlanetFeedback.com, a site that has processed over a million letters and comments about customer service.  Marketing and consumer affairs typically work at cross-purposes. What's so curious (at times glaringly inconsistent) about corporate blogs these days is that their approach to "feedback" and "conversation" often run in a different direction than the bread and butter listening operations of the company, and only in rare cases (Dell appears to be an exception) is the consumer affairs department even involved...much less given a "courtesy" heads-up.  While Dell has dramatically improved the availability and customization of 800-numbers on its site, it's not entirely intuitive or easy to figure out how to send a basic e-mail to the company.  In the case Dell, GM, and so many other companies that have created ambitious corporate blogs, it's generally easier to deliver online feedback via the corporate blog than through the traditional pipe.  Key question: in the pursuit to stay credible with consumers, how do listening strategies stay consistent across all touch points?  This is an issue Laurent Flores, who frequently comments on this blog, keeps tackling head on.

Defining the Word "Conversation." Part of our challenge is that we all have different definitions of "conversation."  Is conversation a dialogue?  Is it something that only takes place "externally?" Is it "problem resolution?" Should we only think about "conversation" it in the context of a blog, or other "Web 2.0" marketing vehicles?  Or maybe we should ask the harder question of whether enabling public "conversation" from the get-go is a good idea in the first place (or in corporate shareholder's interest), a point Amanda Chapel has been hitting hard in her blog Strumpette.  Dell's challenge is greater than other brands not only because the "conversation" has opened up difficult issues to the public airwaves but because it built it's business on the power of product-centered "design it yourself" feedback loops, which implies, from the get-go, a more intimate relationship.  The brand also pioneered "direct" online selling on the internet, going as far back as the late 1990s (a development I watched closely while at P&G, as our agency of record, Grey Interactive, also owned Dell's first foray into direct online selling).  All of this set a different set of expectations -- and a higher bar -- relative to other computer brands.

Final Questions:  Back to my very first point: we really need to continue "listening" to the pulse and tempo and reaction to this blog before reaching hard and fast conclusions, or codifying this into a "case study" of "dos" or don'ts".  Conversations take time; good learning takes longer.  In the meantime, I do think Dell's entry into the CGM-powered blogosphere has triggered some very important questions for any brand or company entering the blogosphere to ponder:

Key Question For Corporations Creating Blogs

• In our blog strategy, who are we really talking to? Real customers?  Former customers (e.g. Jarvis?) Influencers?  Bloggers who may or may not use our products?  Brand stakeholders? All of the above?
• What’s more important: customer reaction or influencer reaction?
• Do we really want an “open” conversation? What are the liabilities? Do we even have a choice?
  
• What do we really mean by "conversation?" Blog comments?  Problem resolution? Do the participants expect a true dialogue?  How consistent should this be with other "feedback loops"
• Do we treat certain bloggers differently?  What are the consequences in a "transparent" environment when everyone has equal access to a brand's "recovery" strategy?
• How well does our blog strategy match up with how we manage consumer affairs or consumer relations?  Any disconnects?  Are we "conversationally" exposed?
• How is the conversation impacting my search results?  Do the results appear authentic or manipulated?  Are they pushing out less desirable conversations?
• How do we manage the patience of internal stakeholders and managers who may be eager to pounce on the first embarrassing stumble or negative criticism?

MSS (Manually Simple Syndication) of Relevant Articles on Topic

Sam Decker (excellent perspective from a former Dell employee),BlogPulse Citations on Issue, Shel Holtz, Listening Post, Jarvis Posts on Topic, Richard Cleaver, NixGuy, SteveRubel (see trackbacks), Robert Scoble (good comments as well), Andy Lark (good comments)

Disclosure:  My firm works with a large share of Fortune 500 companies on blog and CGM strategies, and in the past this has included some work for Dell.  That said, have no tie to the Dell coporate blog.

WOMBAT Dispatch: Advancing the Ethics Conversation

“We respect and promote practices that abide by an understanding that the consumer – not the marketer – is fundamentally in charge, in control, and dictates the terms of the consumer-marketer relationships.”

This is a key statement from the WOMMA ethics code that just flashed on the screen. It’s not perfect, but it reflects a very important attempt to establish a set of voluntary parameters for marketer self-discipline and self-regulation around word-of-mouth ethics.  Ethics was a key motivating for  establishing WOMMA in the first place, and it remains a driving issue for those of us who care about the future of not only word-of-mouth marketing, but the broader integrity of marketing and business.  That said, this is a very difficult and complicated issue, laced with ambiguity, changing definitions, and an every evolving and changing “social media” landscape.  It’s difficult because it’s almost impossible to evaluate WOM ethics independent of other difficult questions like “disclosure” in product placement. It's complicated because it calls into question the practices of one the world's most respected and revered marketers, even though the company is a die-hard believer in the principles and tenets of quote above.  And to add yet anther twist, it's messy because even the consumers themselves are contributing to a confusing and potentially deceptive atmosphere, evident in today's Boston Herald story noting that BzzAgent is elimating 10,000 "pests" from their 190,000-strong panel for "gaming" the system with abuses like creating multiple accounts.

Companies Setting a High Standard: Fortune 500 company Dupont is one player that has not only been proactive on word-of-mouth ethics, but who has established itself as a highly visible “case study” in word of mouth ethics.  Gary Spangler, Dupont’s e-Business Leader and WOMMA board member, just delivered a powerful “follow our lead” presentation around WOM ethical guidelines.  Importantly, he explained how he managed to educate his entire organization on the importance of WOM ethics, and ultimately sell through a full endorsement of ethical guidelines that not only now permeate the entire company, but reinforce Dupont’s core values. Consumer respect is at the core of Dupont’s philosophy on this issue.  Spangler, borrowing from the literature of non-other than Spiderman, flashed the following quote on the screen:

“With great power comes great responsibility”
Uncle Ben to Peter Parker (Spiderman the Movie)

On one level, this is easy quote to brush off or mock, but coming from a large corporation, it's appropriate and resonates.  What’s clear here at this 400 person conference is that companies, brands, agencies, and consultants are looking for guidance and leadership and “best practices.” Large brands like Dupont, Intuit, and P&G clearly carry important “currency” in the eyes of others, and the standards they set can set the pace for the entire industry. 

In an effort to advance this discussion, Ann Moravick of Rowland Communications offered an excellent framework for helping brands understand what’s ethical and what’s not.  She offered seven scenarios that are all worthy of Harvard Business School “what’s the right thing to do” case studies.  This was so good I’m republishing some of the scenarios verbatim.

“Your company has hired vendors to monitor disease-related blogs and chat groups.  Now you are ready for he next step – to influence some of that discussion. The plan is to hire medical professionals to log on to sites where there is negativity about your products, and to steer the conversation in a more positive direction.  You are planning to have them identify themselves as healh-care professionals, but not mention that they are indirectly on the company payroll…is this appropriate? “

“In training a buzz advocate for your company’s product, you identify one advocate who is generally critical of the brand.  As a result, you decide not to include him in your campaign and tell him you’ve got too many advocates already?  Ethical or not?”

“You arm a series of evangelists with information to spread he word about your product.  You tell them that timing is important. A Consumer Reports article is about to publish.  You know it will be critical to your brand.  You don’t want to dampen the enthusiasm of your evangelists so you unleash them without pointing out the CR report to come. “

All these scenarios form the basis of an important discussion and debate?  The WOMMA code is relatively straightforward in calling for honesty of identity, opinion, and relationships.  Do these scenarious meet the "torture test."