But what about social media within organisations? There are some interesting LinkedIn discussions on the subject, and a number of consultants are working with companies on this, but case studies and candid examples are few on the ground. A book like Sandy Carter's Get Bold shares a great deal of insight into how IBM and its partners are deploying 'social' internally and across all sectors of the business, but this is pioneering stuff.

The technology is out there. ESN solutions such as Yammer, Jive and Tibbr are installed in an ever-increasing number of workplaces, and employees encouraged to fill out their profiles, form cross-departmental groups for collaboration, brainstorm ideas collectively and (yes) be sociable. The potential for capturing knowledge, cost cutting (reducing the need for travel and meetings), process improvement, employee empowerment, satisfaction and retention is generally acknowledged.

But so often it seems these projects fail. On Retailwire, a retail industry discussion forum, you can frequently see the kinds of doubts that people have: isn't it risky? How do you control it? How is it better or different than a good old bulletin board/discussion thread (easily set up on the company intranet)? How do you get people to use it? (non-adoption is a big problem.)

These are just some of the big questions - and they're all noticeably to do with human behaviour, not the technology.  

You have to feel sorry for the developers - these tools look fantastic, and I've no doubt once people see them (or whatever comes next) as a second-nature part of their job, like a computer or a phone or a car, they will be using social media almost without realising it. But for now, they're like the toddlers who've been bought an expensive toy, and would rather play with the packaging. 

I won't trouble you with the details, but let's just say that however enthusiastic everyone is at the start, there comes a time when the difficult questions begin. And the most difficult is 'what is the ROI of our social media activity?' In other words, what is the payback for all this blogging, tweeting, commenting and community nurturing? Should we be bothering with it at all?

There are two ways this conversation can go. The first is to bring up all the other marketing that gets done, with no hope of knowing the ROI, or even establishing a definitive, causative link between the activity and a single sale. Was it the advert that did it? Or that article in a magazine? Or that leaflet drop? Or a personal recommendation?

No matter how many times you ask people 'where did you hear about us' you get the same reply - the first thing that comes into their head. The question is impossible to answer accurately. We don't know exactly, we have a pretty good idea and we can make some reasonable assumptions. The point is that traditional marketing is essentially an act of faith - it must work, because when we do marketing, sales go up - right? Plus all those ad sales people say it works. But when we add social media into the marketing mix, even if sales go up we demand to know it was the tweeting that did it - we need proof! 

OK, if you're a supplier or a consultant you may not want to start arguing with the client that social shouldn't be given such a hard time and WHY should IT have to justify itself when those PR peeps have gotten away with it for decades...

No, the way to tackle it is to explain that the primary role of social media in the marketing mix is not to increase sales. The main point of it, like all marketing activity, is to increase profit. And how does it do that? By reducing the cost of sales. Everyone needs sales, sure. But at a profit.

If your social media marketing is working, you should be doing LESS advertising, LESS paying for directory listings, LESS direct marketing, FEWER special offers/incentives and LESS discounting. And yes, LESS PR. Not only that, but social will break out of its current 'marketing' cul-de-sac and be seen for the culture-changing, evolutionary force that it is, effecting massive shifts in the way business is done.

This is the true return on investment - but it takes time. I'm a big fan of Jeff Bezos's 'Three things I know about business' - see below. One of his three principles is 'take a long term view'. I do believe that if organisations could make a long term commitment to social, they will see the payoff, they really will.

Feature image credit: http://articles.businessinsider.com/

I started to unpick my own experience of 'brand loyalty', and first in my mind came Bosch. In my kitchen there is a Bosch washer-dryer, a Bosch dishwasher and a Bosch gas hob. If asked if I had a strong preference for a kitchen appliance manufacturer, I don't think I would spontaneously name Bosch. And yet the evidence is there! I can't recall seeing a single advert, in print, TV or online, for Bosch. I couldn't tell you anything about the brand, except that I believe it to be German. 

So there is the first factor: I associate German engineering with not only reliability but also style. Audi, Mercedes, 'vorsprung durch technik' and so forth. I lived in Germany a short while, and although it wasn't a totally happy experience, the high quality building standards I found there left a strong impression on me. 

Once back in the UK, when we needed a new dishwasher we first considered Miele, but it seemed pricy, so we opted for Bosch - still not the cheapest, but perhaps 'reassuringly expensive' - another ad tagline that obviously appealed to me! The machine was reliable. So, because we felt positive about the brand, (and also I must admit I like the idea of matching appliances!) we started buying Bosch.

Fast forward to last week, when our five-year old washer-dryer developed a fault. We considered replacing the machine, but a quick search for 'Bosch washer-dryer repairs' brought up the site Bosch Home UK. It's nothing fancy. In fact, I wasn't sure at first if it was an official Bosch site at all. But the customer services section was comprehensive and we quickly understood the machine could be repaired. My phone call was answered promptly, the person I spoke didn't sound bored, irritated or like she was reading from a script, she explained the options, was polite and exuded what felt like genuine empathy. In short, it felt like I was talking to a reasonable and intelligent person who considered herself to be doing a professional job.

The earliest appointment available was in ten days' time - which might have been a problem if I had been kept waiting in an interminable queue, or if the customer service person had been patronising or unable/unwilling to see my point of view. But as it was, I didn't mind at all. The treatment I received mitigated any annoyance I might have felt about not having a working washing machine for over a week.

Not only did the engineer arrive at the appointed time, but I received two text reminders in the days beforehand. He was polite, quick to fix the problem, explained what had happened and seemed happy in his work. Job done.

I then did what many others do - I praised the whole experience on Twitter. Within half an hour, @BoschHomeUK had thanked me for my comment, without re-tweeting it to their followers without my permission (the way that too many people do on Twitter). I was impressed.

Do I feel more loyal to Bosch than I did before the dryer breakdown incident? Yes. Was my initial attraction to the brand down to advertising or other brand-building work? In part - but work done by Audi, not Bosch. Brands don't exist in a vaccum - we are influenced by everything on our radar, and the creative work of one brand can clearly have an effect on our perception of another (positive and negative).

Is customer service as crucial to brand building as the creative work done in marketing? In my mind, yes. It isn't nearly as sexy, or as much fun, it doesn't win high profile awards or create Don Draper-style careers. But it creates repeat sales and brand advocates, it ups the lifetime value of customers and increases profitability. Great customer service means it's harder for competitor brands to make an impact, but poor customer service creates jumpy customers who will look for a better deal, and cancel out all that hard (and expensive) creative work it took to attract them in the first place.

Social channels allow brands to monitor and respond to customer comments and complaints, and when all the customer touchpoints deliver a consistent experience, the added value this creates is not to be underestimated.  And yet for all the talk of listening and engaging, the majority of brands are ignoring even direct questions put to them on social forums such as Facebook and Twitter. In a post on Econsultancy last month, Luke Brynley-Jones came up with ten reasons why customer service is failing on the social media front. There are some big issues here, but it is possible to get it right, and compelling business reasons to do so.

Online data privacy is a hot issue. Next month, a new EU Privacy Directive comes into effect, which will oblige website owners to give browsers the choice as to whether or not they wish to accept cookies (little bits of code that get 'implanted' on your computer when you visit a site, in order for that site to recognise you and customise your experience). In a recent survey by econsultancy, marketers condemned the Directive as being unrealistic, out of touch and impossible to implement.

A big perceived problem is that consumers don't know what cookies are, or how they work, so the knee-jerk reaction is likely to be "no, I don't want cookies", and then to complain when they find certain things don't work as they did before, such as saved items in a shopping cart, preferences or account details. Ironically, unless it's your first experience of shopping online, your computer is already awash with cookies, and frankly there are worse things to worry about when it comes to privacy and security.

But cookies we could manipulate ourselves - that could be interesting - but it would require a sea change in people's attitudes to technology, which we've been conditioned to think is something best left to the experts.

That's a shame, because the web as conceived by Tim Berners-Lee was an open-source, egalitarian place to be developed by everyone and anyone and used for the common good. Not the Apple-style closed ecosystem, do-not-tinker-or-bother-your-little-head-with-how-it-works world young people today are faced with.

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/propagandatimes/

(By the way, there are some interesting stats in this November 2011 infographic about email vs Facebook on the VisibleGains blog.)

In a way this doesn't surprise me - I have clients who tell me that the humble email shot still generates a sales surge every time, and if the mailing doesn't go out, those sales just don't happen. It seems we're all coping with email overload pretty well - spam filtering is better than ever and we all know how to hit the 'unsub' button.

The article defends email against the apparent increasing dominance of social media - hence the title - but ends with Joshua Baer of Otherinbox saying that he would "much rather have an email subscriber than a Facebook fan."

I can see where this comes from - the idea that you can market directly to an email subscriber and put a value against acquiring one. But it's an 'old marketing' viewpoint because it only considers the 'push' value. Whereas my feeling is, although not all Facebook fans are equal, having a brand advocate who is highly digitally connected within one or more social networks, with the power to influence others with a single 'share', is potentially more valuable than a single email customer, even if they do 'send to a friend.' 

(image: http://blog.visiblegains.com/)

(The "Putting Social HR in Its Place: The Employee Lifecycle" infographic created by Elizabeth Lupfer, The Social Workplace. Click on the image to see the full infographic.)

The most famous legal case till now involving a tweet is probably the so-called Twitter Joke Trial, in which Paul Chambers was convicted of 'menace' for sending a joke tweet about blowing up Robin Hood airport.

Aside from the legal cases, plenty of other social media bloopers have been catalogued, from the 'Motrin Moms' episode to rogue customer service operators declining to mince their words.

Now, some CEOs or Communications Directors (especially if they are a tad sceptical about the value of social media) might be inclined, when hearing all of this, to batten down the hatches and run a mile from the idea of employees being let loose on Twitter (or Facebook, or any online community outside the firewall). Look how easy it is to say the wrong thing! Can we really afford to put corporate reputation on the line or risk an expensive lawsuit?

The advice nervous companies may wish to hear is yes, it can be done, but only with ironclad governance in place, a social media policy and limitations on who 'does' the social media and what they are allowed to say. 

This approach sounds reasonable, and it is certainly how come companies are handling it. In some organisations, tweets have to be signed off by the PR department before they can be posted. At others, agencies are hired to do the tweeting in the company's name, while at the same time company employees may be banned from accessing Facebook.

A corporate social media policy where all communication has to be passed by the PR department? Agency staff ghost tweeting? Employees being banned from Facebook?  Is it just me who finds all of this wrong?

The whole discussion about whether twitter is or is not a form of publishing is an interesting, but separate issue.

What we are talking about here is trust - whether a firm can trust (or learn to trust) its employees, and the judgement of its employees, on the social web. Unfortunately, I don't know of many (any?) training courses on 'How to develop good judgement' or 'How to think before you act', and yet these are the kinds of intelligences required. I do believe everyone can develop them, but through a mix of training, learning by example, nurturing/encouragement and practice.

Practice is key - which is why organisations should be introducing employees to a private social network. Tools like Yammer or Jive are a 'safe' way to explore online social/business interaction. Getting people to use these tools is a whole other issue, of course, but the point is that it doesn't just enable internal collaboration. It nurtures the kind of 'social intelligences' needed when speaking for the company out there on the social web. It's also less risky to let people experiment and make mistakes behind company lines.

But that's good, I hear you say, where's the problem?

The problem is that not enough people use the tools. They just don't use them. This is not news to anyone in internal communications. Company intranets, newsletters, noticeboards and other vehicles for the distribution of messages within organisations all suffer at some time from the apathy of employees. 

The bottom line is that we're asking people to behave differently - to stop using email, or the phone or whatever they are used to, and adopt a new communications channel - just like that. It's not easy, and even if you have a change programme in place - education, persuasion, leading from the top and so forth -  companies too soon move to the stick approach rather than the carrot.

Unfortunately, even if that tactic used to work, it won't work now. And pressure from the Financial Director, often also backed up by IT (in other words, the people in the company most concerned with measurable, 'hard' data) means it's not long before questions are being asked. Why are we doing this? What's the ROI - is it paying off yet? Why are people not using it - have we wasted our money on this technology?

Instead of giving up and blaming the technology or the apathy of staff, or retreating to the 'it's a all a gimick anyway' camp, companies need to invest at least an equal amount of time and money in managing the people aspect of the change. This may involve facing up to some painful truths about the company's culture, leadership and organisation.

There are plenty of different views on whether changing people's behaviours and perceptions can or should be actively driven or facilitated or whether it can merely be supported and nurtured as an organic process.

If you haven't already seen this, it's good fun and food for thought - How to Start a Movement (video of a TED talk by Derek Sivers).

photo: Web MD

Ecommerce sites are all about making buying easy. In fact I'd say that was a pretty good mantra for any online communication where there is a desired outcome. Make buying/responding/taking part/commenting/ unsubscribing/ whatever it is you want someone to be able to do ... easy.  

Of course there are exceptions. Marketers come up with various strategies to create demand, or urgency, or brand cachet by (for example) limiting availability, delaying a launch, hiking up a price, requiring a complex sign-up. Some do it for other reasons - to filter out timewasters or unsuitable candidates, for example.But the majority of inconveniencing that often goes on is rarely this sophisticated. Sometimes it's the result of incompetence, not listening to the customer's needs, poor use of resources or penny-pinching. Companies that can't deliver on time or via a channel that suits the customer, websites that are broken, firms with limited opening hours or who don't have an email address. You know the kind of thing.

Then there are the other kinds of deliberate (sometimes dressed up as 'strategic') obstruction tactics. Making the customer travel the entire store to get to the checkout even if they've only come in for one thing (hello Ikea), or placing escalators so you have to walk through each floor to get to the next one. Or how about the speakers at conferences who send you to a URL to get the handout, but you can only download it if you give your email and allow them to market to you (yes this really did happen to me recently) or all those utilities providers who are very quick to answer the (free phone) sales line, but if you want customer service you hold the line for thirty minutes, get cut off and never speak to the same person twice.

I suggest it's also down to lack of joined-up thinking. In large organisations there often seems to be no connection made between happy customers and sales. Sales is sexy but customer service is a drag. Sales figures are easy to understand, customer satisfaction and how it relates to actual revenue, less so. The sales, marketing and customer services teams may be different departments and have different job responsibilities, but as far as the customer or prospect is concerned, those differences don't exist. They want it to be easy for them to do the things they want to do - not just the things you want them to do.

Nothing wrong with jumping through a hoop or two once in a while - obstructions can increase the desire - like Groucho Marx once quipped, "I wouldn't want to be a member of a club that would have me." But not when it makes the customer feel their needs, their time and their desires have no value, are irrelevant and not respected.

Whatever you want to call it - sales/customer service/re-sales/relationship building  - can we please all try to make it easy. Even the negative stuff like unsubscribing or complaining. In fact especially that stuff.

Image: from The Vinyl Anachronist

Coming up very soon, just to let you know about a couple of open workshops I'm running for The Hive in Lewes:Twitter for Business

Wednesday 21st March 2012, 10:00am – 1:00pm 

Come and learn:
● what makes a great Twitter profile
● how to integrate Twitter into your business
● how to monitor trends and competitors on Twitter
● how to avoid the most common mistakes
● how businesses are successfully using Twitter
● tools, tricks and shortcuts

Useful for:
● Novice or soon-to-be business Tweeters
● Experienced business Tweeters unsure if they’re getting the most from it

Format:
A mixture of presentation, hands-on (bring a lap-top or tablet) and discussion.
Handouts provided.

Cost: £45/£50 (**Early bird booking- before Friday 16th March)

Introduction to LinkedIn

Wednesday 28th March 2012, 10:00am – 1:00pm 

LinkedIn is probably the largest professional online network with over 135 million users worldwide. It is aimed at business professionals and offer many opportunities to connect with others and grow your business or professional reputation. It also offers much for job seekers and career changers. Although premium (paid) membership is available, much of what LinkedIn offers (and all the features covered on the workshop) is basically free.

Come and learn:
● how other professionals are successully using LinkedIn
● how to find and connect with relevant people
● an overview of Profiles, Groups, Answers and more
● how to make your profile stand out
● how to get the best out of LinkedIn’s search facility
● how to avoid the most common mistakes
● tools, tricks, shortcuts and etiquette

Useful for:
● Employed or self-employed professionals, job seekers,
students, anyone facing redundancy or retirement
● Anyone with a LinkedIn profile but unsure how to make the most of
● Anyone curious about LinkedIn and wanting to know what it offers

Format:
A mixture of presentation, hands-on (bring a lap-top or tablet) and
discussion. Handouts provided.
Cost: £45/£50

To book for either event, contact Claire at The Hive on 07846 554316 or email
info@thehivelewes.co.uk