Bernaisesource

My wake up call came last year.  Do you remember the private exchange made very public between former AOL customer Vicent Ferrari and a soon-to-be-fired AOL rep?  Calls between customers and company call center representatives can be amplified loudly in the blogosphere. It made me realize how new media had put immense power in the customer’s hand.  It also made me realize that companies could use that same social media to redefine and improve the customer call center experience.

Communications is fundamentally changing.  People want control of their user experience.  Think Tivo.  Tivo frees viewers from watching a program on television with commercials at a set time.  Similarly, there is no reason why customers need to always rely on a service rep in a set way in real time.  (For account and billing questions, calling customer service is appropriate and recommended.)  Why can’t customer service be asynchronous, transparent, unfiltered, rely on multiple sources of information and allow employees and customers to answer questions?

Several companies have begun looking at new media to better support customers.  Intuit has been particularly successful.   DirecTV is another. There is even a new company Satisfaction that helps companies or their customers set up Satisfaction pages where they can ask and answer questions.

In that same spirit, EarthLink is planning a service that lets customers use an alternative channel to get answers to questions relating to the Internet, computers, software, products, and service.  We are hoping to create a community where employees answer questions, and customers help each other.  It will be an interesting dynamic.  Most communities are designed to bring people together keep, facilitate engagement and forge lasting relationships. 

Generally, customer support is for people with problems.  Resolutions should be quick and easy.  Customers with multiple visits are not the ideal.  However, online support forums and networks are an ideal way for customers to optimize their experience.  It also creates an outlet for customers who enjoy problem solving and helping others. 

This effort is not about defraying costs; (it may).  It is not about putting the onus on our customers.  It is recognition that social media allows companies and customers to use the Internet to best meet their needs.  It is also a way to assemble a body of practical knowledge that may not be possible from call center reps alone.

As with any social network, there will need to be rules of engagement.  Censorship and failure to acknowledge mistakes are recipes for criticism and ultimately irrelevance. 

Creating such an online customer community is not without risks.  Will employees participate?   Will customers use it?  How will they use it?  What kinds of questions will they ask?  Will it become a forum for customers to complain about our service?   Will all questions be answered?  Is it worth the investment?   Will it solve problems or create new ones?   

Clearly, difficult questions, and we don’t yet have the answers.  If successful, we will have created an employee platform for greater customer engagement.  We will have created a community. Most importantly, we will have improved the customer experience. 

Why Corporate Communications?

Traditionally corporate communication has focused on media relations.  In the past, we have also coordinated with customer service to make sure reps had FAQs on important announcements. 

But helping create online communities and advising customer support on the use of new media are terrific opportunities for corporate communications to extend its influence.  As the AOL experience demonstrated, new media is drawing (or perhaps propelling) customer support directly into the realm of public communications.  How we speak to a customer is subject to the same public scrutiny that once only existed when speaking to a reporter.  For better or worse, customer support reps are all public spokespersons and therefore it behooves corporate communications to use their expertise to update the customer support communications process.

Technorati Tags: Customer Support; Call Centers; Social Networks; Tivo; DirecTV; Intuit; Satisfaction; EarthLink; PR;

Add to NewPR Save to del.icio.us

Thanks C.B. Whittemore for tagging me for the 8 Things Random Things About Me meme.   The game is to come up with 8 things people probably don't already know about you and then tag eight more people to play. 

In the spirit of community fun here is my list:

1. When I was 6, I wanted a Johnny Cash album.  Concerned about his lyrics, the salesperson convinced my parents to buy me a record by John Davidson, who later hosted the Hollywood Squares.
2. When I was 12, I wanted to be Jimmy Connors, the tennis star.
3. My favorite television show is the Andy Griffith’s Show, 1960-1965. The chemistry between Andy and Don Knotts was special.  After Don left, it went downhill.
4. I am more likely to buy a book or see a movie if it has been favorably reviewed by the New York Times. 
5. I hate missing the very beginning of a movie and, once started, I will more than likely read a book to the end even if I hate it.
6. I would rather photograph with black and white film than digital.
7. Neither my VCR nor my DVD player has been hooked up to my 1997 television set.
8. I started using the Internet in 1993, but didn’t begin blogging until 2006.

So now I have to tag 8 people.  Here they are:

Let me get back to you.

Technorati Tags: 8 Things; Meme;

Save to del.icio.us

 

Let me get back to you. 

A nice call out from Peter Kim, an analyst from Forrester Research (full disclosure:  EarthLink retains their services.)  He is building a list of top client side marketing blogs. His list does not include group and brand blogs or those written by consultants, agencies or service providers.  Overall, there are not many client side marketing blogs -- though the list is quickly expanding beyond Peter's initial 13. I am hoping in time that a client side blog will be the rule not the exception. 

Here is Peter's initial list: 

Flooring the Consumer  :: Technorati authority = 504.  Authored by CB Whittemore, Director of In-Store Innovation, Wear-Dated Carpet Fiber.

Marketing Nirvana  :: 424.  Mario Sundar, Community Evangelist, LinkedIn.

Experience Curve :: 332.  Karl Long, Web/Social Media Integration Manager, Nokia.

The Marketing Excellence Blog :: 254.  Eric Kintz, VP Marketing, Digital Photography & Entertainment, Hewlett-Packard.

Consumer Generated Media :: 191.  Pete Blackshaw, CMO, Nielsen Buzzmetrics.

Decker Marketing  :: 167.  Sam Decker, VP Marketing, Bazaarvoice.

Masi Guy :: 162.  Tim Jackson, Brand Manager, Masi Bicycles.

Attention Max :: 153.  Max Kalehoff, VP Marketing, Nielsen Buzzmetrics.

Churbuck.com :: 148.  David Churbuck, VP Global Web Marketing, Lenovo.

Emerson Process Experts :: 130.  Jim Cahill, Marketing Communications Manager, Emerson Process Management.

Bernaisesource :: 99. Dan Greenfield, VP Corporate Communications, EarthLink.

John Dragoon's Blog :: 29.  John Dragoon, CMO, Novell.

Randy's Journal :: n/a.  Randy Tinseth, VP Marketing, Boeing.

CB Whittemore

---------------------

Technorati Tags: Peter Kim; Forrester; M20; Client Side Marketing; CB Whittemore; Mario Sundar; Karl Long; Eric Kintz; Pete Blackshaw; Sam Decker; Tim Jackson; Max Kalehoff; David Churbuck; Jim Cahill; Dan Greenfield; John Dragoon; Randy Tinseth;

Add to NewPR Save to del.icio.us

Beached, Kaua'i, 2007
(Click on thumbnail for full image)

To view previous Photos of the Week, check out my flickr site.

Let me get back to you.

Ahh, what confusing times we work in.  The Daily Show makes fake news more popular than real news, and marketers pass off professionally produced advertising as amateur content.  Where visibility was once the name of the game, companies are choosing to obscure, not highlight, their involvement.  At the same time, we celebrate candor, openness and authenticity.

Welcome to the world where PR and marketing professionals must navigate between real and fake, news and entertainment, deception and transparency.

When it comes to leveraging user generated content and social media, should we reveal ourselves or hide in plain site?  The new rules of transparency afford us both options.  Sometimes good publicity entails anonymity – lest we reveal the man behind the curtain.   And sometimes it is the man behind the curtain, the inside story, that we want to highlight.

It’s no wonder that Newsweek Senior Editor Steven Levy recently asked YouTube founders Chad Hurley and Steve Chen at the D Conference this past spring how they felt about YouTube viewers being duped by advertising masquerading as amateur content and what they can do about it? 

For marketing professionals and, increasingly, PR practitioners, it is not enough to be informative, we have to be entertaining.  We can’t be straightforward, we have to be edgy.  We can tease and redirect, but we can never deceive. 

Clearly, hoaxes and fake news are not a new phenomenon.  Well placed disinformation has started wars and ended careers.  But as Robert Love asks in his excellent article, “Before John Stewart: The truth about fake news.  Believe it,” in the Columbia Journalism review,  “Can we continue to trust ourselves? Are we prepared for the global, 24-7 fake news cage match that will dominate journalism in the twenty-first century?...The boundaries have vanished, the gloves are off.”

Consider the following: 

• We accept television ads for pain relievers knowing full well the testimonials made by actors are fake because we know the ground rules; we’re used to the form.

• We tune in the Daily Show and while the subjects are real, the treatment is not.  They know it; we know it.  We laugh; it’s funny; it’s entertainment.

• Or the other hand, it’s decidedly unfunny when Wal-Mart Stores set up a pro Wal-Mart blog and didn’t fully reveal that the bloggers were tied to Wal-Mart.

• Or possibly it’s illegal as in the case of John Mackey, chairman and chief executive of Whole Foods who used a fake name to post pro Whole Food comments on an Internet message board.
   

So when is “fake” acceptable?  Talking to marketers and social media experts, I believe it comes down to intent and context.  Make believe is appropriate when it’s intended to entertain; it is completely inappropriate when it’s deception designed to mislead or advance an unstated agenda.

A wink and a nod to the audience may be the difference between a wildly successful viral campaign and outright hostility.  It’s the difference between the saga of lonelygirl15 who was in fact just an actress and the fake blog of a cosmetically-challenged woman Claire who was just a creation of Vichy, a division of French cosmetics giant L’Oreal.  The former was entertainment; the latter was an attempt at a fast one.

Consumers need to be in on the joke, not made to feel that the joke is on them.  At some point, there must be a sign or signal that what they are seeing, reading or listening to is entertainment or make believe.

And that’s exactly what The Lenovo Group did. Most people don’t they are the world's third-largest personal computer maker.  What did they do?  They went viral with a spoof Web site.  As Steve Hamm reported in BusinessWeek that the site attracted 3 million visitors in first few weeks.  The campaign pretended to let viewers in on some super advanced technologies being tested by the company. The site's anonymous producer had supposedly received some videotapes revealing the secret research. The joke is apparent once viewers click through to the tapes.

So how did the YouTube founders answer Steven Levy’s question?  Chen responded that it came down to a question of trust and individual decision.  He felt that it was up to informed users to decide. 

I think that is true, but it is only half the equation.  We as marketing and PR professionals must act responsibly and respectfully.  The mixed signals in the marketplace don’t give us the right to deceive even as we take advantage of new technology, new forms of content and changing consumer expectations to entertain, inform and ultimately promote our companies and our clients.

Let me get back to you.

Technorati Tags: Daily Show; Jon Stewart; Steve Levy; Lenovo; Robert Love; Chad Hurley; Steve Chen; D Conference; Marketing; PR; Fake News;

Add to NewPR Save to del.icio.us

 

Let me get back to you. 

The genesis of today’s posting was Hamilton Nolan’s analysis (June 11, 2007) in PR Week (subscription required) – “Opinions Vary on Editorial Page’s Outlook” – which I found to be a very useful launching pad to consider the value of opinion and authority in the PR profession.

For most of my career, a positive editorial in a leading national newspaper or targeted local one was a critical beachhead.  Written by trained journalists and experienced professionals, editorials have had the authority to shape public opinion and influence legislative outcomes. I don't minimize their influence, but I recognize their grip is loosening.  

Newspapers themselves are having to work harder to shape public opinion.  Fewer people read them, and now legions of blogs provide alternative forums for public debate.  Once more, the whole notion of opinion is changing.  Opinions mean much more with increased opportunities for exposure, but the notion of definitive source for opinion is becoming anachronistic – a victim of the so called “wisdom of crowds” effect.  In an effort to remain relevant, I am sure newsrooms across the country are engaging in healthy discussions about the importance of objectivity and editorial influence.

In an age that seems to value opinion and subjectivity over fact and objectivity, how ironic is Wikipedia’s ever widening readership and influence.  Consider Jonathan Dee’s observation in a recent New York Times Magazine article:

"Wikipedia may not exactly be a font of truth, but it does go against the current of what has happened to the notion of truth. The easy global dissemination of, well, everything has generated a D.I.Y. culture of proud subjectivity, a culture that has spread even to relatively traditional forms like television — as in the ascent of advocates like Lou Dobbs or Bill O’Reilly, whose appeal lies precisely in their subjectivity even as they name-check “neutrality” to cover all sorts of journalistic sins."

A quick and easy information source, Wikipedia, the six-year old, global online encyclopedia, can be edited by and added to by anyone. You need not be an authority to submit – an opportunity for wide and varied discussion, but maddening for PR professionals.  I am a frequent user, but its single-minded focus on neutrality limits my ability to edit or add submissions about the company that employs me.  I am an authority, but not the right authority. I personally think the wikipedia community should be confident enough in its position to tolerate a wide array of opinions and postings – even by those who get paid for having or making them and as long as they are honest, accurate and fair.

Wikipedia brings me to my final point today:  Andrew Keen’s new book, The Cult of the Amateur. 
  

This book about the value of user-generated content, social networking and interactive sharing has certainly generated a lot of discussion and heat, including Alerati, Geektronica, P2PFoundation, and Corante.

Challenging the wisdom of crowds, Keen argues that the “Web 2.0 revolution is really delivering superficial observations of the world around us rather than deep analysis, shrill opinion rather than considered judgment.”

I am not sure if my personal blog, reflecting 20 years of professional experience, constitutes amateur hour, but Keen, no matter how provocative or inflammatory, raises some interesting points about the limits of authority and the impact on public discourse and traditional media.

With Web 2.0, egalitarianism replaces expertise and speed to publish often counts more than thoughtful deliberation.  Sources like Wikipedia and YouTube don’t escape his examination or criticism. 

Is Keen an elitist?  Is Web 2.0 the threat he suggests?  Perhaps.  I don't share his level of concern.  But it is a great deal harder to point to a definitive source and in the age of anonymity, more difficult at times to even identify the source itself.

So where is a PR person to turn to for validation?  Should I pine for the days when an editorial written by a “professional” held primacy, making my job either infinitely easier or difficult with the morning edition?  Or do I revel in a world where a multiplicity of viewpoints – some grossly misinformed – rule the day? 

Certainly the low cost of entry makes the Web 2.0 world appealing.  But while traditional media is losing its influence, I believe the changing nature of opinion and authority puts the PR profession in a better place to play a pivotal role in interpreting and, yes, shaping it.

The reality: I can’t change the new model or public opinion making; I can only play by its rules -- continuing to court editorial boards as I spend more resources reaching out to bloggers. 

Let me get back to you.

Technorati Tags: Andrew Keen; Cult of the Amateur; Wikipedia; Jonathan Dee; Hamilton Nolan;

Add to NewPR Save to del.icio.us

 
Girls Running, Atlanta, 2007
(Click thumbnail for full image) 

To view previous photos of the week, check out my flickr site.

Let me get back to you. 

Technorati Tags: Michael Bay; Transformers; Summer Bockbuster; Branded Entertainment;

Add to NewPR Save to del.icio.us