Your Questions Answered About Online Communities: Part 1

Posted on November 4, 2008 by Paul

A few weeks ago, I participated in a webcast title of “Using Online Conversations to Turbo-Charge Your Business!” and sponsored by social network provider Lithium. We got quite a few questions that I wasn’t able to answer in the allotted hour. Because of travel and other commitments I have been unable to get to them until now. Over the next couple of weeks, I hope to answer most as blog entries. Here are the first 10 responses. Please feel free to comment, disagree or build upon my answers.

Q: Do you know how forums have helped “turbo-charge” organizations that provide psychological help (advice, life-coach-esque, etc.) as opposed to tangible products?

Medical advice, including psychological self-help, is one of the most popular topics on social networks. Nearly every lifestyle network has one or more areas devoted to peer support regarding medical conditions, depression, weight loss, life changes and other intensely personal issues. It’s possible to set up your own network, but it may work better to become involved in one of the existing networks as a domain expert. Many network operators are happy to accept people who can provide sound advice.

Q: How have employee moderators benefited online communities?

Employee moderators can be very effective at keeping forms on topic, enforcing appropriate behaviors and dealing with unruly visitors. Because employees know the subject matter of the community, they are well-qualified to serve as sources of authority. It’s important to choose wisely, however. You need people who aren’t easily rattled, have excellent domain knowledge and strong interpersonal skills. Not everyone combines all those attributes.

Q: Isn’t a lot of audience information actually “misinformation”?

Because online communities have few arbiters to validate content, the likelihood of misinformation is certainly higher. Generally accepted standards are emerging that enable communities to police themselves. For example, active members who have a large number of friends and positive comments and/or peer ratings about their contributions are generally considered reliable sources. Mainstream media and other trusted sources also serve a vital function in linking to the sources of information that they trust. It’s true that there is more onus on the reader to filter good information from bad, however it is unlikely that bad information will stand for long without being corrected by others. Communities have been proven remarkably effective at that winnowing out process.

Q: How can we not edit /censor certain members when they are clearly offensive to other members?

I don’t mean to imply that you shouldn’t censor people whose behavior is offensive. As a rule of thumb, give unruly members two chances to mend their ways and then cut them off. Be careful, however, that you don’t censor people for disagreeing with you. Differences of opinion should be tolerated, but offensive behavior should not.

Q: Are communities a B2C phenomenon? Or is a B2B community viable? If so, how are B2B communities different from B2C communities?

Most communities at the moment are B2C., but there are some notable examples of B2B success. In the information technology sector, sites like IT Knowledge Exchange, ITToolbox and SlashDot provide expert advice between peers. Many technology vendors also host active forums and employee blogs. Outside of technology, LinkedIn has become the social network for business professionals. Sermo serves physicians. Sphinn is a social networking site for marketing professionals. There are many others. In general, B2B communities tend to be more technical, because the participants assume as higher-level of domain knowledge. They also tend to be more focused on buying and deployment advice.

Q: What are your thoughts on policing who joins your community? My concern is with competitors joining to do covert intelligence missions.

The level of policing depends upon the propriety of the content. If you are planning to start a small and highly focused community for the purpose of market research, members should probably be required to submit business cards, consent to a phone interview and/or sign a nondisclosure agreement. However, many social networks are simply set up for the purpose of gathering general information about customer preferences and needs. In those cases, it’s easier to provide open access and simply limit the domain of topics you discuss.

Q: Please help reconcile the 300 – 400 group size that Paul said should be split with the fact that only 2% of users are active posters

The 2% rule applies to unstructured and unmoderated networks. In cases where the members are invited into an exclusive group and expected to actively contribute to a discussion, it is entirely appropriate to prompt lurkers to speak up and, if necessary, to “fire” unresponsive members. A single moderator should be able to manage a group of 300 members by prompting reluctant participants to contribute.

Q: Do you have an idea of how much super users of a website use the products? Is there a correlation or can this vocal minority actually not be big users of the product?

There is actually evidence that super users are less likely to be active buyers, in large part because they have already bought into the company’s product and are enthusiastic about it. The value of these people is that they have knowledge and credibility with their peers. In other words, their word-of-mouth value exceeds their monetary value. While they may not be big spenders, they can influence others in significant ways

Q: Is the process for granting permissions and privileges for super-users automated?

You can automate the process in the same way that airlines automatically upgrade passengers who have flown a certain number of miles. For example, community members who contribute a defined number of comments or reach a certain rating level may be automatically “promoted” to a higher status. It is often helpful, though, to have a human being involved in the process to provide that all-important human touch, ensure consistency and prevent scams.

Q: What about legal issues of supporting customer-to-customer communication?

I’m not a lawyer, but in my experience, legal exposure is not a problem as long as the appropriate disclaimers are posted and members agree to terms and conditions. A company should never put itself in a position of vouching for information it does not know is true, no matter what the source.

Webcast With Me Nov. 6

Posted on November 3, 2008 by Paul

The nice folks at Communintelligence invite you to Spend an Hour in Paul Gillin’s Head Nov. 6, 2PM (EST). If the prospect of spending an hour in my head isn’t creepy enough, you can come and hear my latest presentation about HOW TO BECOME A THOUGHT LEADER FOR $0. This is the presentation that people are paying tens of thousand of dollars to hear (okay, maybe a few hundred, but the point is that you’ll get it for a lot less by signing up with Communintelligence). check out the link and come to the webcast.

Before You Vote…

Posted on November 3, 2008 by Paul

…compare the technology policies of the two candidates. I did so this week for my Ziff-Davis blog. I was surprised to find that McCain is more activist in some areas than his opponent. They disagree totally on net neutrality.

How to Keep a Fiskateer Happy

Posted on October 31, 2008 by Paul

In the first chapter of Secrets of Social Media Marketing, I write about Fiskars, the Finnish maker of fine cutting tools that uses a community of scrapbooking enthusiasts called Fiskateers to evangelize its products to specialty craft retailers. It’s a perfect example of how to use social media to create street-level awareness.

My wife, Dana, wasted no time in applying to become a Fiskateer, and last weekend she attended a gathering of her fellow crafters in central Massachusetts sponsored by Fiskars. What a bounty of gifts they received! Dana counted no less than 15 raffles for the 28 attendees. She won four of them and carted home about $500 worth of swag. To the left is a photo of the goodies.

Fiskars sent lead Fiskateer Kelly Jo as well as one of its “Fiskaneers,” which is what the company calls its engineers There was also a representative of Brains on Fire, the media agency that conceived of the community. Fiskaneer Doug chatted with the group about ideas for new products, yielding great insight from dedicated crafters. The attendees were treated to plenty of food and a trip to the nearby Yankee Candle superstore. The spent the rest of the afternoon crafting together.

Did Fiskars overdo it with the sheer quantity of stuff it gave away? I doubt it. These 28 women have already declared their allegiance to the brand, and giving them more incentive to promote Fiskars through their online and offline social networks can only help boost word-of-mouth marketing. The group has been designated “crafting ambassadors,” only it’s clear that the brand they favor is Fiskars. By harnessing their enthusiasm, Fiskars can extend the value of a few gifts to a much broader audience. The cost of goods for this exercise is cheap compared to the value of good cheer the participants will spread.

A Top Blogger Speaks

Posted on October 22, 2008 by Paul

John Frost owns and edits The Disney Blog, one of the most popular Disney fan blogs on the Internet. While he’s an unabashed Disney enthusiast, his blog is a straight account of both the good and bad news related to the company he covers. The Disney Blog attracts about 100,000 monthly visitors, but it is not formally recognized as a media outlet by The Walt Disney Co.

John Frost

John will join me on a panel, along with Ben Popken of The Consumerist, next week at Nuance Communications’ Conversations 2008 conference in Orlando. I asked him a few questions about his blog and he generously provided these detailed answers.

Q: What value do you provide that mainstream media doesn’t?

A: I’m a subject matter expert, the voice of a peer, a shepherd to the community and, to some degree, an advocate.

Q: How is your content shaped by contributions from your readership?

A: Mainly through comments and emails. I get leads from readers and they let me know when I’ve stepped over the line.

Q: How do you believe interactions between customers and businesses are changing as a result of Web 2.0?

A: It flips the funnel. It changes the art of marketing to the art of listening and contributing. For Disney, however, they’re still just getting used to providing better tools for guests to make decisions.

Q: How do you avoid inaccuracies and to provide balance in your coverage? What are your practices for correcting mistakes?

A: Use reliable sources, always attribute, provide links to background as needed. Minor mistakes might just disappear, factual mistakes, when caught by readers, are acknowledged with an update to the post and quick notice that a change was made. Major mea culpas usually involve a new post that links to the old.

Q: What could the companies you cover do to made better use of customer feedback?

A: First, show us they’re listening. Have an online community manager and/or liaison who reaches out before feedback is even needed. Then, when feedback is received, you have the trust of the community to respond honestly, even if it’s only “I can’t answer right now, but we will find the answer and get back to you.” Then follow up.

I’m particularly impressed with companies that go out and search for feedback loops and attempt to deal with problems even before the consumer knows there is a problem. RSS feeds on various engines are a great help with this. If someone posts a complaint about all the weekday fireworks shows being canceled, be ready with an answer of alternate experiences for that evening.

Q: What frustrates you most about dealing with these corporations?

A: Faceless voice mail loops, help centers located overseas staffed with people who have no expert knowledge of the subject matter, the usual stuff.

In my case, each division has its own rules and contacts for material that my audience is interested in. Some still won’t deal with blogs, some are beginning to reach out. But our primary audiences are – and I use this term endearingly – the super geeks. They have different needs than the average consumer. PR may only release one photo and no concept art, no details on the background story or interviews with the creator. Mass media gets all that at the press junkets, but I’m not invited, nor can I afford to attend events like that. Why would I want to repost the press release that they can get anywhere?

Q: What could these companies do to put you out of business?

A: Hire me. They can’t put the fans out of business. There will always be a niche market for fan groups online and off. What they can do is feed our need to be brand defenders, not just brand critics.

Q: Blogging is a hard way to make a living. What motivates you to keep going?

A: I wish I was making a living at this. It pays the bills and helps with the costs involved in being a Disney fan. What keeps me going is the same thing that got me started: my passion for the subject matter.

Recent Reading 10/18/08

Posted on October 18, 2008 by Paul

Web ushers in age of ambient intimacy

Clive Thompson has a terrific feature in the International Herald Tribune about social networks and “ambient intimacy”, which is the phenomenon of sustaining relationships through casual awareness of what others are doing. Twitter and the Facebook News Feed are bringing new breadth to this concept, enabling people to glimpse others’ lives through occasional insights into their everyday activities. This intimacy becomes addictive. People who initially reject the News Feed as too intrusive or the constant stream of Twitter chatter as too overwhelming often find themselves drawn in to the point that monitoring the stream becomes addictive. There are also downsides to this phenomenon, in particular the lack of privacy and control over one’s own persona. The Internet was supposed to liberate people to reinvent themselves, but the arrival of tools that let anyone publish information about anyone else has actually done the opposite: it has given us less control over our own image.

tags: socialnetworking, twitter, facebook,

While I Talked, People Twittered – Pistachio

Laura Fitton invited me to post an item from my newsletter about speaking to an audience that was Twittering about my presentation. The article I posted kicked off an interesting round of discussion about the pros and cons of real-time feedback. Check out the comments.

tags: twitter

Tweet Grid

This service lets you create up to nine windows in a browser, each running a different Twitter query. It’s an interesting approach to bringing order to the wonderful chaos that is the tweetsphere.

tags: twitter, tools,

Google Confirms RSS For Web Search Results

Search Engine Land confirms that Google will soon make search results available as RSS feeds. You’ll have to set up a Google Alert first, though. Standard Web search results won’t be RSS-able. Google is currently the only major search engine not offering RSS feeds of web search results.

Kodak in Social Media Space

Jenny Cisney, who’s got the nice title of Chief Blogger for Kodak.com, lists all the ways to contact the company via social media. And there are quite a few!

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Digg Setback Calls 'Wisdom of Crowds' Into Question

Posted on October 9, 2008 by Paul

Journalism junkies have been closely watching the example of Digg.com to see if the wisdom of crowds really is better than the judgment of editors. According to David Chen, it isn’t. Writing on Mashable, Chen offers a detailed deconstruction of Digg’s recent decision to jettison some of its top users, apparently for trying to manipulate the system. The weeding-out process was positioned as a routine cleanup intended to eliminate abusers of the community adjudication process, but it was actually an acknowledgment that decision-making by the masses has serious flaws, Chen concludes.

It’s been common knowledge for a couple of years that the Digg model lent itself to manipulation by a small number of people. In fact, there’s evidence that up to half the stories on Digg’s enormously influential home page were contributed by just 100 users. By taking draconian action to ban members who had, in some cases, contributed hundreds of hours of effort to building the site, Digg is admitting that it has been unable to figure out an algorithmic solution to the abuse.

The problem isn’t in programs, but in people. Individuals can attain fame within the community by contributing stories that are ranked highly by other users. Active members discovered early on that by forming “friend” relationships with many others, they could enhance their performance and popularity. In other words, the more you voted for another member’s contributions, the more the other member voted for yours. As time went on, an elite corps grew more powerful, to the point that their contributions can achieve high visibility regardless of merit.

“In the years following its creation, Digg became less a democracy and more a republic, with a select few users responsible for the majority of front page stories,” Chen writes. Digg has tinkered with its settings to try to mitigate this factor, but some members responded by writing scripts that routed around the problem. It became a giant cat and mouse game that eventually forced Digg to insert human editors at some levels to arbitrate the process. So much for the wisdom of crowds.

Chen contends that the blockade may irreparably damage Digg’s reputation, although the site will continue to be a huge source of traffic for publishers who are lucky enough to be listed there. At the very least, the conundrum points out the limits of a purely democratic model of news judgment. Even successful sites like Wikipedia rely up a small cadre of elite editors to make most of the important decisions. People with significant experience in online communities agree that a very tiny percentage of members contribute the vast majority of content. It appears that editors, whether bubbled up from the community or appointed by management, are inevitably needed to maintain order

Should this be taken as a condemnation of the community journalism model and validation for the rule of editors? Absolutely not. As Wikipedia has demonstrated, armies of ordinary people can create a phenomenal information resource. However, leaving all decision-making to a group without providing rules or oversight invariably results in the ascendance of an elite. in the case of Wikipedia, that elite is self-regulating. In the case of Digg’s more juvenile crown, it’s a frat party.

What You Probably Don't Know About Links

Posted on October 8, 2008 by Paul

I got a press release today from a PR pro whose client has an interesting story to tell.The company makes a security product that combines cellular and global positioning technologies to alert people when valuable items have moved beyond a specified location. This particular pitch told about a customer who had recovered an expensive motorcycle just 20 minutes after it was stolen, thanks to the clever technology.

I have a half-dozen blogs, including one that deals with location-awareness, and I thought this would be a nice item to mention.I searched for the headline on Google, but came up empty.So I contacted the PR person directly. He responded that the press release actually wasn’t posted online anywhere. “It’s a media alert that I distribute to generate press,” he said. “I was definitely not trying to get blog coverage.”

There are a few questionable assumptions in that statement, including the fact that 95 of the top 100 newspapers in America now have blogs. For the purposes of this newsletter, though, I want to address the importance of having a Web copy of anything you send out for media consumption.

Web ≠ Print

The reason I searched for an online version of the press release was because Web publishing differs from print publishing in some fundamental ways. Look at any prolific blogger and you’ll see that their entries are full of hyperlinks. This practice may look strange to someone who doesn’t write principally for online consumption. Is the blogger being lazy by linking to source material instead of summarizing it?

Actually, quite the opposite is true. The comment-and-link approach leverages the strength of online media to minimize wasted time for the reader and while making the blogger more productive.

To understand this phenomenon, look at the way we used to publish. In the print world, journalists typically have to excerpt or summarize any material they reference because they have no choice. The only way to convey information is to include it in the story. This makes articles longer and creates more work for the reporter, who has to guess what source information is relevant. It also means that good information is more likely to be left on the cutting room floor.

Online, the dynamic is very different. By linking to source material, the writer minimizes the amount of background information that has to be summarized. If the reader wants that information, he or she can click through to the source document. There’s less time spent creating extraneous content and less time spent reading it.

This tactic is a core reason why some bloggers appear to be so prolific. Instead of wasting time reinventing the wheel, they can focus on the most relevant information. You need to understand this practice if you want to play fully in the online publishing world.

Personal Productivity

I personally maintain four blogs — paulgillin.com, joyofgeocaching.com, mediablather.com and newspaperdeathwatch.com – and manage to post to all of them frequently. I use comment-and-link combined with some clever online tools to keep the content up-to-date. For example, if I see something interesting online, I can easily bookmark it, type a brief summary or comment and save everything online. My bookmark service knows to gather up these entries every day and post them to my blog automatically (here’s an example of the result).My time expenditure is minimal and I focus only on the material that I think is most important. For audio or video content, there’s practically no other way to do this.

Marketers who want to incorporate online journalists into their communication plans need to understand this tactic and build it into their strategy.Link-and-comment isn’t a copout or a shortcut.It’s a tactic for minimizing waste. By posting every press release online, you not only make it easier for bloggers to reference the information, but you also make sure it’s you who tells the story and not some third party. Why would you have it any other way?

As for the press release I received earlier today, that company is out of luck. Had the press release been available online, I would have linked to it and recommended it to my readers. But reprint the whole thing? That’s just too much trouble.

paulgillin.com

Social Media and the Open Enterprise

Author Archives: Paul