Over the past few months, I’ve been working with a lot of companies on various kinds of community and content projects. Some are startups looking at community as the foundation of their marketing efforts, others are enterprise companies trying to galvanize a channel, or develop a customer community. It’s amazing to see the convergence around this concept as Social Media enters the mainstream marketing mindset. But it’s also incredibly confusing, because the convergence is also having a huge impact on the technology markets.

Almost every enterprise technology that touches marketing suddenly must have a social component, and hundreds of different startups are offering point solutions. This has made it tremendously difficult for marketers to get their arms around while trying to partner with IT in building a community project. Should you bolt something on to your Extranet? Should you leverage your investment in Sharepoint or Plumtree? Should you shave your costs and launch an open source effort with Drupal or Joomla? Or should you pick up a point solution from the exploding ranks of Web2.0 startups? Maybe KickApps or Intellimar? And when you really start to dig into this mire, should you start with a content management system like Clickability? Or should you start with a social networking application like Visible Path? Maybe you should try to piggy back on an existing platform and pay nothing, by setting up a group on Facebook.

Obviously there are a whole lot of questions that mitigate the path to a solution. Are you building a private community or a public forum? Are you focused more on providing support, or participating in open dialog? Are you trying to integrate with other information systems? Do you have an IT team that knows the space? But what I’m seeing out there in my discussions with companies is that most marketers are still in the “How do I make sense of all this?” phase. It’s a little overwhelming.

So I’ve started some discussion points on the Web to start tapping into the experience of marketers and engineers who have been working on these issues. Right now, I’m just asking questions. But over the next couple of weeks, I’ll be sifting through the answers and my own research to start putting together some kind of guide to community and content software. If you’d like to weigh in with your own insights, experiences or questions, please don’t hesitate to join the discussion. You can plug in right here by commenting on this post, or you can get all interactive and stuff by plugging into this discussion atFacebook or LinkedIn.

So after I just crowed about getting 600 leads through our latest lead gen program, Jeremiah Owyang, who writes one of the best blogs on social marketing out there, says “dude, that’s so 1.0″. And he’s right. Out of 600 leads, we’ve had phone conversations with about 30. No community, no open dialog, no engagement. As Owyang points out, he can post something similar on Facebook, drive dialog and engagement with dozens if not hundreds of marketers, and know as much as he wants to know about everyone who engages through their profile.

Take this as part of the learning curve, even for agencies that are supposed to know what they’re doing. We still have a lot of room to learn. The fun part is, we can learn quickly.

So, we’ve set up a group on Facebook, where we’re making the whitepaper available as an unregistered download. All we’re asking in return is for opinions. What do you like? What sucks? What would you like to see us cover in a future marketing brief?

Join us on Facebook at the MotiveLab Network.

BTW. You should also check out Jeremiah’s Facebook group, called the Web Strategy Group.

It’s been about eight weeks since we launched our whitepaper discussing “12 Essential Tips for Success in Social Media“, and the response has been tremendous. We’re approaching 600 registered downloads this week, which frankly blows my mind. With a qualifying form and a short survey gating the download, I figured maybe we’d break 150. 600 is crazy.

The whitepaper details 12 basic steps to help marketers get engaged in social media marketing initiatives, and the steps are pretty simple, organizing a lot of major points we’re all hearing about social media into a straightforward plan of attack. Start with clear business objectives and metrics, spend time listening to the market and finding out where the important conversations are taking place, be authentic when you engage, integrate social media with the rest of your marketing programs.

I’ve been looking through the registration pages and I see some patterns emerging in the survey data that I’ll talk more about in the coming week. We asked two questions that are really interesting to parse. The first was asking about attitudes toward social media, and the second was asking who they trusted to assist them with social media marketing. Without tipping my hat before we really analyze the data, I’ll just say that interest in social media is very high, and agencies have a big challenge.

A big thanks to our whitepaper sponsor, BuzzLogic, and a major tip of the hat to Bulldog Solutions, who promoted the whitepaper in their newsletter, and to Netline, who syndicated the whitepaper through their tradepub network.

I visited SAP Labs last night to participate in the Online Community Roundtable hosted by Bill Johnston from Forum One Communications. I made the dumb mistake of writing my notes directly into my blog’s Web form, and subsequently lost all my notes when my browser crashed. But I’m going to recreate some of my notes here, because I found a lot of value in the insights from some of the participants in the dialog. What impressed me most was that among the 20 or so people who joined the roundtable, there was a tremendous amount of real-world experience from people who are managing vibrant communities among some very influential brands, including SAP, Intuit, Cisco, WebEx and Schwab.

There were three or four issues that stand out in my memory:

• Points of Pain. Bill Johnston recalled an experience he had developing a community portal for a large software company. The company was excited about the portal, and placed it at the front of their application, forcing users to log into the portal every time they accessed the application. Participation was low, and user frustration was high. The adjustment that improved participation in the community was to move the entry point to the portal to so called “points of pain”—places where users were running into problems with the application and seeking help—particularly the customer service link on the applications navigation bar. There was a lot of head-nodding and affirmation about the importance of the contextual entry points to community sites.

• Signs of Life. An executive from a company called Public Square—a provider of a social network publishing application—talked about the importance of demonstrating to users clear signs of community participation when they log into a community. These can be “latest posts”, “latest comments” or “logged-on users”—anything that clearly displays the participation of other users so community members can see “signs of life”.

• Profile Completion. Many communities encourage participants to fill out user profiles, but general experience among roundtable participants shows that only 25% of users typically fill out the complete profile. A few strategies were discussed to increase participation. One recommendation was to clearly demonstrate the value of filling out a profile, for example by providing affinity feedback to users about similarities with other users in the community. If you indicate an area of professional interest, the system might show other users who share similar interests. Another strategy offered was to enable the incremental development of profiles, rather than expecting users to fill out a complete profile all at once. Linked-in was mentioned as an exemplar of this method.

• Building Community Value. There were a number of threads in the discussion that touched on the importance of providing real value to the community as a core ethic to support growth. Jeremiah Owyang, from PodTech, also talked about the importance of rewarding participation—something he does by making sure he acknowledges active members by calling out their participation and linking to their blogs or Web sites.

One of the most impressive aspects of this group to me was the genuine focus on building the value of communities, rather than a single-minded focus on extracting value from the community. I asked the group about this, especially in light of the growing interest in community development among business executives. Among companies actively pursuing community development as a business goal, I hear discussions about scaling and monetizing opportunities growing alongside discussions about building community participation and value. Indeed, many community leaders acknowledged that one of the core business metrics they track is the size of their community. It will be important for community leaders to watch this trend as the goals of building value and extracting value come into sharper focus with the growing popularity of community as a marketing expense.

Thanks to Bill Johnston at Forum One for driving the roundtable, and to SAP Labs for hosting at their beautiful building overlooking Palo Alto.

I’ve been following an interesting story about Facebook that’s been playing out over the past couple of days. The original, and best coverage, was reported on Techcrunch, where Nik Cubrilovic reported the exposure of Facebook’s sourcecode for the application’s main index page. Facebook’s Brandee Barker responded to the report in the comments section, and didn’t do much to allay fears about Facebook’s security, not to mention their sophistication.

According to Barker a misconfigured Apache server exposed the source code, not a hacker, which, Barker explains, means it’s not a security breach. Uh huh. She also says the code is essentially worthless since it doesn’t shed any light on the application’s structure. But then she quickly points out that this oh so meaningless code that is not in any way a security problem for Facebook is, however, protected property and that publishing the leaked code is a “violation of several laws.”

Now I’m worried. Because while this particular issue is not the kind of security breach that threatens user data, it shows two very serious weaknesses in Facebook’s operations. First, it has weak development DNA. The code was unsophisticated, and the misconfiguration of the server is a bad sign for such a huge site. Second, their response to the problem is to deny it rather than to take it head on. Facebook users are now on notice that protections for user data are likely unsophisticated, and users will be the last to know when a real problem exists. Not good news for Facebook or its users.

The story has also led to some other, peripheral concerns about user data on Social Networking sites, as reported
in The Register. Be careful about the personal data you put in your profile. When you’re just getting started, you may think your data is only going to be seen by “Friends”. But as you get more engaged, the criteria of who you admit as “Friends” may broaden far beyond your original intentions, and you may be exposing personal data to people you don’t know–people who may want to use that data for nefarious purposes.

I’ve been following some of the arguments recently about the professional use of social networking tools, particularly the debate over Facebook vs. LinkedIn–a discussion accelerated by Jeff Pulver’s much discussed comment that he’s abandoning LinkedIn to focus only on Facebook. Given that Facebook has only recently made the jump from college social site to wide open networking, that’s either a prescient move or grandstanding. But the debate is worth discussing.

LinkedIn is what some people refer to as “Resume 2.0″. It’s a professional site designed to help users build their contact network. It’s not designed as a social networking site, though the market seems to be pulling in that direction. One thing that I think helped pull it that way is the prominent display of the number of people in your LinkedIn network. Early on, I was very selective in building my network, confining my contacts to people I know and endorse. LinkedIn functioned primarily as a web-based contact manager and a resource to check people out before a business meeting.

But recently–especially after launching MotiveLab–the notion of being a social media strategist and only having 100 people in my LinkedIn network became untenable. What? You’re in social media and you don’t have 500+ next to your name? How can we take you seriously? Suddenly the social imperative becomes the number of contacts, and the drive to find and add contacts begins. Unfortunately, LinkedIn isn’t really designed as a social mixer, though that’s changing with new functionality like the Q&A section.

Facebook is a very different experience. It’s all about the interaction and engagement, and the connection not only with friends and contacts, but with what they’re up to. You can see whose wall they’re writing on, groups they’ve joined and friends they’ve added, which can rapidly broaden your horizons. Facebook is also a much more open technology, with API’s available for programmers to create their own Facebook plugins.

But Facebook is not really ready for prime time as a business tool. The groups are great, but clunky to use–there’s no RSS feed for groups!!!–and the process for connecting with friends often seems to lead into a black hole of a user interface. There’s very little focus on the profile, which means you don’t get nearly as much insight into who you’re dealing with, though it tends to be much less formal and maybe a little more human.

For these reasons, a number of commentators say leave the two separate. Keep your professional contact network in one place, and your social network in another. But I think the synergies are obvious. Business is now inherently social, and the social network tools of Facebook would add a great layer of interaction to a site like LinkedIn. If you could somehow keep a separate social and business network, that might be nice for some users, but no necessary to me in an increasingly wide-open and public world.

Will Facebook buy LinkedIn, as some people suggest? I find it hard to believe Facebook–riding high with the hype of a 1B spurned offer from Yahoo!–would see the value, which is something of a shame. LinkedIn excels at precisely what Facebook lacks, a tightly programmed user experience that works.

Over the past few weeks, I’ve given up on MySpace and started the transition over to Facebook. I’ve just finally gotten fed up with the babe spam of “friend invitations” on MySpace, and the lack of good marketing and business discussions. I’ve found a couple of really good Facebook groups that finally sealed it for me, and I set up a profile and a startup group for MotiveLab to discuss social media topics with our network of friends and clients, along with a Marketing Technology Group associated with MarketingRev.com. If you’re interested in connecting with other marketers on Facebook to talk about social marketing and technology, join us.

There are some other worthwhile groups on Facebook touching on other facets of marketing and business, and there’s some very compelling dialog. Jason Preston over at Blog Business Summit has compiled a list of the best discussion marketing discussion boards that are definitely worth a visit.

In the few weeks that I’ve been playing around with Facebook, I’m impressed with the calibre of content and people. I won’t be looking over my shoulder at MySpace, and I suspect they may even start to give LinkedIn a run for the money in the market of business professional looking for a way to connect. They’ve got a ways to go, however. The searching capabilities suck, as do the profiles, and the ways for friends to connect. But if the content’s worthwhile, I suspect people will overlook the shortcomings for a while.

If you’re not already up online at Facebook and you’re interested in social media, I strongly suggest you check it out. It’s free and easy to get started. Look me up when you get there.

/chris kenton

One of the most powerful aspects of social media is radical transparency . Transparency is especially “radical” in the corporate arena where communication is increasingly open, honest and truly bi-directional between enterprises and the individual stakeholders who work at, buy from and trade with each other as interlocking networked communities.

For the companies who embrace and foster transparency it often plays out all the way to the office of the CEO. As a long-time blogger and chief executive posted on his company blog:

“The recent global technology and communications revolutions are allowing for ever-increasing interconnections and transparency in processes on every imaginable level in free societies. The need for the specialist intermediaries, such as professional journalists and lawyers, to interpret, inform, and communicate on behalf of other people is rapidly declining. I love the fact that I can now communicate my own opinions and interpretations directly to people instead of depending upon a journalist to both understand and accurately communicate what I’ve told him or her to other people. It is very frustrating to be continually misquoted and misinterpreted. Now I can speak directly for myself and that is very liberating.”

This new species of corporate communications – unwashed, shoot-from-the-hip, tell it like it is transparency has great appeal. When CEOs “speak directly” they build trust and confidence. Their teams can focus on tracking and monitoring conversations. Spin turns to engaging honestly with the constituent communities and building new communities to promote and defend one’s brand. In fact, we can learn to live without the spin doctors in radically transparent communities. Simply listen and share opinions. Let the most compelling rise to the top.

However, the statement above, in spite of its appearance of transparency, is perhaps more translucent than clear. You see, its author is none other than John Mackey, who has gained a lot of attention for his social-media-savvy communications as the CEO of Whole Foods, but who has also been posting messages for eight years as “Rahodeb” on Yahoo! Finance to promote Whole Foods and denounce a competitor he was setting his sights on for acquisition.

The chronology of events left open the possibility that Mr. Mackey had a conversion, and recognizing the power of transparency, chucked his Yahoo! Finance alter ego and joined the social media band wagon. After all, the Yahoo! Finance postings predate most of his blog entries. But prevailing opinion points in a decidedly different direction.

Mr. Mackey is a successful businessman, of a socially- and people-sensitive company to boot. That usually takes a modicum of smarts and ethics. For some reason success occasionally throws those attributes out the window. How many CEO’s, high government officials, and even highly-respected clergy have we heard of that can’t seem to keep their hands out of the cookie jar or their flies zipped up? The drug of power, the blinders of ego.
Evolving Excellence:Smart? Then act that way.

Credibility and authenticity are what builds trust between people. John Mackey has been inauthentic in posting anonymously on the Yahoo! Finance website. He boosted his own company and criticized his competition without revealing his own identity.
John Cass

So the news that Whole Foods CEO John Mackey posted regularly on Yahoo message boards under the name Rahodeb is shocking. This is a major ethical lapse, and I hope that the Whole Foods board is treating it very seriously indeed.
Felix Salmon: Potfolio.com

The best barometer, however, of Mr. Mackey’s translucency is his “own” terse apology. It is ironic that that the man who relished speaking for himself (or about himself and his company) is relegated to a 35 word heavily polished statement with no opportunity for two-way dialogue other than the e-mail address of a company PR contact.

AUSTIN, Texas (July 17, 2007). Whole Foods Market today released the following statement from Co-founder, Chairman and CEO, John Mackey: “I sincerely apologize to all Whole Foods Market stakeholders for my error in judgment in anonymously participating on online financial message boards. I am very sorry and I ask our stakeholders to please forgive me.”

Now the question is, will Whole Foods take a step back from social media or will they use this as an opportunity to become fully transparent in engaging with all their stakeholders? Let us know what you think.

JG

Jupiter Research is touting a new study that purportedly shows Social Media has little impact on influencing online retail sales. But in the first paragraph of their press release, they betray a study bias that seems to contradict their own headline, and throws the relevance of the study into question.

…despite the growth of social networks and online communities, they have little effect on influencing online retail sales. … social and community sites are only driving about 12 percent of online shoppers to buy more than planned.

So “influence” in the report refers only to the ability to drive shoppers to buy *more* than they planned? And even with that narrow a definition of influence, they report that social media still drives *12%* of shoppers to increase the size of their online purchases? How does that translate into “little impact”? That seems like a substantial impact to me.

Later on in the same press release, although they talk in broad terms about “social media”, they lament that while 53% of shoppers go to directly to an online retailer to shop, only a paltry 3% go to ~blogs~. Who shops at a blog? If you’re researching a product purchase there are many social media sites more effective than blogs, including forums, consumer opinion sites, and product review sites. Blogs are much more about keeping up with new products, features and problems than providing substantive research to inform purchase decisions- -though there are certainly exceptions. And if a consumer goes to Google and comes across a well-positioned blog post that eviscerates the product they’re considering, you can bet that will have an impact. But in the context of Jupiter’s study that user would probably report that they first went to a search engine to research their purchase- -the blog just happened to be a relevant search engine result.

I’m *really* suspicious about the quality of this study. I’m trying to get my hands on a copy of the report to dig into it more deeply, but there’s no way I’m paying $1500 for it, based on what I’m seeing in the press release. Make no mistake–I’m interested in critical analysis of the impact of social media, and I’ve seen some good critical reporting at ClickZ, like this post from Sean Carton. But if Jupiter’s just getting on the bandwagon to slam social media, it’s going to show in their report.

A report, 2007 ITtoolbox/PJA IT Social Media Index: Inaugural Survey Results published by IT Toolbox and PJA Advertising+Markteing, revealed that a significant number of IT Executives are referencing Social Media in their purchase decisions. After reading the results, I concluded that this research validates social media as essential to a marketer’s demand generation strategy.

The publishers surveyed both large (greater than 1000 employees) and small companies (less than 1000 employees). They explored “What information sources do you reference the most for your company’s purchasing decisions?” and came away with the following observation, “IT professionals who responded to the survey cited social media as the most trustworthy online source of information when making purchasing decisions.”

I downloaded the charts and spent some time wandering through the data and uncovered a fascinating nugget: a sizable discrepancy between large companies and small companies who reference industry analysts for purchase decisions (18.7% of large companies versus 7.9% of small). Intuition suggests that many of the respondents were VERY small companies and do not have the budgets for analysts and their pricy reports. These same “small companies” according to the study also reported they are more likely to turn to trade magazines and to user generated content than their larger counterparts.

While I believe that the next time ITtoolbox fields this survey they should segment respondents into more meaningful clusters, it is also clear to me that this report is just the beginning of a flood of data suggesting that marketers who embrace social media strategies are making good choices in not only reinforcing brand attributes (trust), but also in generating demand for their products and services (purchase decisions).

JG