Posts Tagged metrics

A practitioner’s perspective on putting the SOCIAL back in social business

Posted by on Monday, 3 December, 2012

My colleague Kelly Smith (@kellypuffs) and I were having a bit of a chat about social business, as we do nearly every day. In the course of that conversation I said:

“SOCIAL only works where there is a human element. Not just a warm body, but a warm body that embraces humanism.”

Immediately I saw a blog post developing before my eyes… what do I really mean by that simple and misleadingly absolute statement?

In order to excel at social business, any practitioner needs to understand one core concept that drives every activity, post, update, or comment: Humanism. (When I say humanism, I’m not referring to the ideological definition, but rather I’m taking a secondary definition of the term as: the concern with the interests, needs, and welfare of humans.) But even more than to understand the concept is to actually EXHIBIT the traits of humanism so that your audience, your fans, your followers can sense that you are a real and complex person, not just a single faceted marketing shill. After all, shills are easy to spot and get quite boring rather quickly.

Yet, humanism is the critical element most businesses miss when rolling out any social business program. Why is that? Quite simply, companies need to see returns on their investments, and if a company is encouraging social activity by its employees, then it demands to see results (and rightly so, this is a business after all). This pressure to provide direct results actually cause practitioners to focus on corporate messaging and canned phrases, to up the frequency of their chatter about a product or initiative, and ultimately to stop posting about things that aren’t on message.

I’ll call this the “measuring effect”: that the single act of measuring a practitioner’s results will focus that practitioner’s actions towards things that increase their results, while abandoning those which do not directly cause change in measured results.

By example: Johnny is interested in both sailing and brewing beer. Johnny also happens to work for a large brewery which has encouraged him to participate more in social media. At the start, Johnny posts about his yacht crew, rigging a boat, and his latest races, while also discussing his work at the brewery and what ingredients are going into the next batch of beer. Since the Brewery has encouraged Johnny to participate more, they want to see results that are specific to their business so of course they don’t care about his sailing posts and only measure based on Johnny’s brewing posts.

After a while Johnny begins to notice more pressure for better results, and is encouraged to post even more about the brewery, so he starts adding in posts about when the tasting room is open in hopes he can drive more customers in who will hopefully buy more beer. But as time goes by, we see Johnny posting more and more about beer, brewing, and the brewery, and less about sailing even though he is just as active as ever with his yacht crew. Because he is being measured, he has shifted his posts to get the most value for him and sailing posts just aren’t directly adding value to his job.

After a little more time, though, we see Johnny’s posts are now only about the brewery and are nearly all “canned” messages because social engagement has now become just another activity of his job that he is measured against. He has lost his humanism with in his social posts and has moved from what was once a position of influence and interest to just another ignored account that posts the same ideas over and over.

We really can’t blame Johnny, though. We can’t expect someone to go against human nature when it comes to being measured. We all want to excel and when presented with measurements, we all get sucked in to the gamafication aspects and work to improve those measurements however we can. Combine that with expectations/perceptions from upper levels of management that practitioners be “on message” 24×7, and you can easily see how all this serves to skew the critical balance towards shill and away from human.

What we’re missing is how those otherwise “unrelated” posts actually play in directly to the value of the related posts: they build that humanism into the account and cultivate actual relationships. Now, we as the audience can connect more deeply with Johnny as a person when he is posting about sailing and brewing; we can identify with his challenges at work or his triumphs at sea. He is now a complex and interesting multi-faceted person, not just that flat voice with an avatar who is always trying to sell you something. And really, interesting people are the ones you want on your side in the social spaces. They are the ones other people are listening to; they are the influencers, not the “on message” shills.

The call to action for all companies, large and small, who want to excel in social business: Empower your employees to engage online as themselves, as individuals. Give them the freedom to be who they are. Measure results, but do so with a holistic view over time and don’t focus on just company messaging. Your influencer employees will bring results into the business whether in direct tangible fashions or less direct fashions through overall perception and slight shifts in decision-making down the line.

Social business is here to stay; a far more scale-able “word of mouth” model which you can’t ignore. Let’s make sure we’re doing it right, with the long-term benefits of investments in view, not just the short-term immediately measurable results in focus. You can have warm bodies tweeting for you all day to no effect;  what you need are trusted thoughtful people who believe in you and your business.


image credit: (cc)  Some rights reserved by DonkeyHotey

Musings on social business ROI for support…

Posted by on Monday, 16 May, 2011

Having troubles providing ROI for your social business efforts in a client support context? Yeah, you’re not alone. As support workers, we deal with intangibles every day. It is actually a big part of how we solve problems at times; using that support intuition and gut feelings which come from experience and a roll up of all the differing variables at play, not to mention some well-implemented educated guesses. But how do you quantify all that into a reportable metric to show the value returned from the efforts?

Martin Hill-Wilson over on had some great insights to share as they relate to ROI and Customer Service. He makes a point of showing that the intangibles of support can’t be measured, yet are still as critical (a fact which those of us working in the space already know):

“… the inability to directly measure something does not mean it is worthless. Quite the opposite. In fact the most abstract topic that has continued to evolve up the greasy pole of corporate favour is culture. This is illogical from the perspective of corporate Vulcanlogic. You can no more directly show me culture that I can show you that unicorn. Yet huge amounts of cash are invested by the C-suite to improve corporate cultures.”

Everyone who is working today in the social business spaces knows there is value. We feel it in our bones with as much certainty as there is coffee in our mugs (which is to say, a lot). If we were not so convinced of the value and need to be social, to engage with our clients and colleagues in these spaces, you can rest assured we’d not be spending time here. But we’ve all been tasked to find that one thing that evades us, the holy-grail of social business: tangible metrics to show real returns on the time, energy, and capital we have invested to be engaged in the social spaces.

In the marketing worlds, these intangibles are a bit easier to quantify through what Martin calls ‘proxy metrics’; linkages between tangibles and intangibles that indicate correlation if not causation. Imagine a television ad running for a week’s time, and measured sales increasing over the same period. You could make the correlation there that the campaign had a particular return on investment.  And while, yes, we do have proxy metrics in the support world, connecting these linkages from investment to returns is a far greater leap. In marketing, there may be a three jump difference from a campaign to sales increases. But what about support where we aren’t focused on driving revenue?

In client support, the number of jumps grows exponentially from any given activity to revenue recognition, be it direct product sales or maintenance renewals. Does a single tweet containing an FAQ solving an issue translate directly to revenue recognition? No, no more than a television ad for a new car can translate directly into a sale. Both provide the potential, but with so many other factors in play, how can you say that this one piece of content made the maintenance renewal sale? I imagine even ad agencies and dealerships find it difficult to prove that TV ad was the deciding factor for that new car purchase!

Unless the clients are providing direct feedback, noting the explicit reasons for their maintenance renewals, or lack of need to open support tickets, we only have indicators at best to help guide any potential ROI measurements. Martin comments on these client-satisfaction proxies as well:

“But remember, at best these are indicators and should not be assumed to be true in every market. In some, the nature of the product, the price point, the availability of alternative choice, are stronger drivers as to whether customer are predisposed to hang around a brand for any length of time.”

Without that direct client feedback, within support we can only rely on indicators like “visits to content” and “audience base” (followers counts) to show us reach and potential for increased revenue or call ticket avoidance. While call ticket trends and content visits can be easily tracked, I’d argue that connecting the two directly to social business efforts is a dangerous practice. Like so many other aspects of business, trends in revenue and client problem tickets are not tied to a single variable. Changes in the economy, product stability, support staffing, along with any social business campaigns or overall program efforts can combine to drive trends up or down, or even cancel each other out of one effort is successful while another variable may be causing problems (think improved products in a down economy causing sales to plateau rather than increase or decline).

In most instances, de-constructing these trends into their various, granular pieces is simply not possible. You simply can not isolate the various trends and look at the measurable components in a vacuum. Each piece needs to be weighed against the entirety, as a collective effort; each portion doing its own work and supporting the other pieces at the same time. We do not live in a black and white world, why would we think our various efforts are effective in black and white ways?

What does that leave us to gauge our efforts? Transactional data; simple indicators of progress or failure which may, or may not, be entirely accurate or reliable. Yes, we should continue to track those quantifiable items like visits, click-throughs, and followers, but not to the detriment of longer term benefits. Taking the television ad analogy again: that ad spot may not directly impact a purchase decision tomorrow, but the benefit may be seen 6, 9, 12 months, or even years later as part of an overall affinity for the brand. How do you connect such a compound and complex result with a single ad or campaign to show direct value for that single investment? Translating back to the Support arena, how do you connect an intangible, something which doesn’t exist (like the lack of a problem submission), with an individual tweet or larger social program to show any causation and direct return on that social investment?

Let’s look at a shift in thinking for a moment: what if we use transactional data as simple indicators, and then reset our focus to work and efforts designed to build overall relationship value? After all, isn’t that the social part of Social Business? Building that trust, and personal connection with clients is a key part of ensuring not only their success, but our mutual continued business relationships. The trick, of course, is figuring out how to measure those highly valuable but intangible connections. Activities alone won’t show that value… sometimes a handshake is just a polite greeting, other times it is the start of a long term complex relationship with decided fiscal impact, but there’s no way to attach value on the handshake alone.

Obviously I don’t have the answers here. If I did (and I’ve joked to my boss a number of times) I’m quitting my job and going on the lecture circuit for 6 figures per engagement… because that is how big of a deal this is to the industry. Find that silver bullet, that perfect ROI formula, and you’ll be set for life. As it stands, we’re all inching closer, but we’ve still got a giant chasm of a gap to bridge.

Until then, we stand with the belief that within a support context raising visibility to our content to help prevent problems, and providing solutions just in time when problems do arise is one more way we can ensure client success through our social business program. But more importantly we believe that open, transparent communication is simply the right thing to do for our clients and our business.

Martin Hill-Wilson’s source article, as linked above:

Full transparency: I am an IBM employee. This post is wholly my own and does not necessarily reflect any official IBM policy, opinion, or position. Read more about the guidelines which I follow at IBM’s Blogroll Policies and Guidelines for Blogging