People are talking. Are you listening?
Hearing is a funny thing.
One can hear, but not be listening. One can listen, but not really hear what’s being said. Either way, the conversation goes on just the same. People are talking to you and about you, but you may not be making the connection that its “you” who is the topic of the conversation. Take it from a guy who has had the benefit of hearing impairment most of his adult life.
Those same conversations go on about organizations and brands every day. Everyone talks, but few organizations really listen. It seems to me that most organizations are “hearing or listening impaired,” and the older the organization the worse the problem. Granted, most organizations try to hear what is being said, but some are still using an old-fashioned hearing aid (ear trumpet). There are others who let their hearing aid batteries weaken, or worst of all, still others have removed their hearing aids because they don’t like what their hearing.
Don’t believe me? Do you work for any of these organizations?
The Ear Trumpets
Organizations listening to customers with the ear trumpet funnel many voices down a long tube where only the loudest are heard. In an organization, this is like sending all the calls to “customer service” or the “help desk.” The ear trumpet solution works poorly for the hearing impaired and even worse for organizations. Think about it: just because the organization is not hearing the softer voices doesn’t mean friends, neighbors, and competitors aren’t.
The Weak Batteries
Those organizations that operate on weak batter power for their hearing device miss critical elements of the conversation with their customers. The conversations continue, but the organization picks up only bits and pieces—like a conversation with your mom on a bad mobile phone connection. She keeps talking; unfortunately, you’ve dropped enough of what she is saying that don’t realize you’ve been offered a free trip to the Bahamas… and declined to go. The same thing happens with customers when an organization only hears parts of the conversation—good opportunities are lost.
The Not Listenings
The organization that removes its hearing device, or has decided not to buy one in the first place, does not want to participate in the conversation with its customers. It would rather yell at a customer and hope a few want what it’s selling, than open up a conversation with the customer about needs, values, and expectations. Who likes to be yelled at all the time? Not me, and I’ll bet not you. Aside from great products and exceptional service, all customers really want is to be heard.
Social media tools help level the playing field for organizations that are “hearing impaired.” It’s like having a pair of super-charged, digital hearing aids that help you amplify just those frequencies you need to hear. This ability to listen, hear and actively engage in conversations 24/7 allow your organization unbelievable opportunities to learn from your customers, correct your mistakes, and build a loyal following.
Now, turn on those hearing aids and engage in conversation. You’ll be surprised what you will learn when you start listening again.
| 0.0 |
The non-interested followers
Using just 140 characters, folks are striking up conversations around world on a variety of topics and in “real time” with Twitter. If you are not already familiar with the tool, essentially users get a “platform” from which to speak about their passion (similar to a blog) that occurs at the speed of instant messaging. Like blogs, it creates a medium where everyone has a voice; like instant messaging, it is sometimes irreverent. (If you’re not familiar with Twitter, Fortune Magazine published an informative article in August 2008, The true meaning of Twitter.)
Once you have a Twitter account you’ll need to “follow” someone to get the most out of the tool. This means you’ll be listening (or reading) to what that person has to say. As an information junkie, I follow those who talk about things that interest me. Although, I have to admit following a hundred or so simultaneous conversations can sometimes be daunting. Nonetheless I learn new things daily, I’ve found a great breeding ground for new things to think about, and I find new sources of information relevant to my interests. Because these topics interest me, I can also contribute something to these conversations.
On the flip side, some may desire to follow you and here’s where it gets a little sticky. Not everyone thinks the way I do and follow people who engage in topics of interest. Some believe that it is the size of the network that’s important. I would like to think the general idea behind Twitter was “relevant conversations” with others; therefore the size of your network would be somewhat limited by those with similar interests. Unfortunately, like rabid “network marketers” some desire to follow solely so someone in your network may see them and investigate the latest “business opportunity” being pitched or product sold. Those people are simply trying to increase the size of their network. I dislike this approach, as it seems to me that the “follow” is somehow disingenuous.
Consider this: When you met your neighbor the first time, did you work to find common interests, or were you pitched all-purpose, non-toxic cleaning solutions that he or she happened to be selling? I dislike the latter and will avoid that neighbor for a while.
The same is true online, and especially with Twitter. It’s very easy to “unfollow” someone. You can also block your updates, as I do, so that you must approve everyone who follows you. I like this because it gives me the opportunity to manage my “implied endorsement” of those who follow me. I review every website and Twitter stream of every follow request, and make a conscious decision as to the “fit.” If there is not a fit, I decline.
Social media tools are specifically designed to build conversations. Think about it like talking with your neighbor across the back fence, only you’re talking across Internet. Shared ideas and interests are paramount to building personal credibility and friendships. Twitter and other online tools can accelerate credibility building, but they can destroy it just as quickly.
For me Twitter is not about building a large, non-interested following. It’s a waste of everyone’s time and erodes credibility of the followers. I hope those I follow feel the same way.
| 2.8 (1 person) |
The “Great” Facebook Blackout
December 15, 2008, over a million members of Facebook.com planned to stop using the website for a day. It seemed many users were unhappy with the new layout, account deletions, and interaction limitations of the network. They believed that by staging a blackout, Facebook management would listen. It didn’t work.
There are more than 40 million users in the United States alone. The Blackout folks didn’t even register a hiccup. In fact, Alexa.com did not show a sudden drop in pages views on December 15, or a sudden increase in page views on December 16.
The core generation using Facebook understands that the masses can move the direction of a company. They understand that the customer (in this case a Facebook user) can control and guide the brand. The problem here seems to be that the users think they “own” the brand that Facebook has developed. It’s a subtle, but important difference for both Facebook management and its users to consider.
We understand that Facebook management wants to build a website that attracts the masses, build user stickiness, and tastefully monetize the website through advertising. Management’s goal is likely to make money for investors (0r at least cover the cost of operating the service.) We also understand that users just want to interact with each others using the website and tolerate the advertising in exchange for free user of the tools.
Facebook management does seem to listen to requests and input from users, but I doubt the Blackout garnered much of their attention. Although, if the Blackout participants had numbered 10 or 20 million it might have raised an eyebrow or two. Facebook, like many Web 2.0 services, is designed for “the many” and not “the few.” It’s a very small number who are complaining about the changes Facebook management is making.
I suspect “the few” just don’t like any change in their lives.
Yet, in our online and offline worlds, change in our lives is the only thing on which we can depend. So, you (Facebook user or not) really have just three choices:
1. Drive change
2. Accept change
3. Freeze from fear of change
What will you chose in 2009? I hope you don’t choose the third option.
Happy New Year!
| 2.5 |
Trust is still the currency
As Web 2.0 and social networking technologies gain a greater foothold on our culture, I often hear LinkedIn.com founder Reid Hoffman’s quote, “Privacy is an old man’s concern,” tossed about. There is some truth to that, I suppose. Although I suspect the real issue is “trust” and not “privacy.” Trust is certainly not an “old man’s concern.”
Baby Boomers and Generation X’ers view the increasing requirements of Web 2.0 for personal and private information with a wary eye. We are the children who came of age in a time that knew Vietnam, the concept of the Cold War, and Watergate firsthand. We are largely skeptical and don’t easily trust the “establishment,” whether it be the government, the corporations or unseen faces behind the wall of the Internet. To us, relationships are built one-on-one and face-to-face, and privacy is something protected until the deepest stages of the relationship.
The Millennial Generation, the generation fueling the development of Web 2.0, are children of technology. They have grown up with computers and technology, and their distrusting and skeptical parents (see above) were increasingly protective of them in their formative years. This generation’s social life was controlled by their parent’s ability (or inability) to take them where they could engage others (play dates, dance classes, baseball games, etc.) They saw little unstructured playtime in the neighborhood with their friends and their primary means of social interaction was (and is) online. Their online relationships are real and intimate because they are an extension of their daily interaction with their friends. To this generation, privacy is not something to be concerned about; it is simply the price paid for building trust.
Although the perceptions, behaviors, interactions are somewhat different between the generations, the act of sharing information and building relationships (face-to-face or online) is tied to one single factor: Trust. Trust is what makes the relationships work. Trust is the only thing that can make or break that relationship. It does not matter if it’s a personal, friendly relationship, or one build on expectations of your company or your brand.
Yet, companies violate our trust daily; and, we keep going back for more. Well, at least those of us who were skeptical and distrustful in the first place are returning. Our expectations were low at the outset, so we largely tolerate the violations of our trust. That’s about to change though. The Millennial Generation has higher expectations of our companies and our brands. Violate their trust, and we are history. We will not get a second chance.
Trust is still the currency for business success. It does not really matter how much private information is shared and kept by the company; it is what is done with the information to build trust that is important. As our culture continues to evolve, keeping the trust is going to be a lot harder than earning it in the first place.
Are you prepared for that?
| 2.8 (1 person) |
Connect with me
Recent Comments