Brands need an online social media strategy

Jeremiah Owyang  is right, a Brand should not “throw away” traffic on its corporate site by inviting visitors to join the Brand profile on Twitter or Facebook or other social site without a well thought strategy.  It is a bit like sales associates of a high street shop telling visitors on their way out: “We invite you to visit us at our small corners inside most department stores”.  This might seem to be sending the positive message “we’re present in these locations” but it might lead to the visitors buying at other Brands also located there as well as not coming back to the original store!  The same as sending a visitor of your Brand website to twitter where he/she will receive twits from many other Brands, is likely to lead to another Brand attracting more of his/her attention, and not have him/her visit your site again!

A Brand does typically spend much much more on its own website than on its social networks presence (if it has one) so if not careful, doing so might mean actually losing these visitors as potential active fan of the Brand, to become at best simple passive observers of some Brand-related activity.


However,  I am not convinced by Jeremiah’s matrix on the Evolution of Social Media Integration and Corporate Websites.  Or rather, I do not see it as a “must follow this path” for all Brands.  Let’s just take the last stage for example: “Complete integration between corporate site and social sites”.  I can think of most of the Brands in the luxury goods sector that would not benefit from such an integration.  This would lower the Brand name status too much to the level of just another network relation such as a friend on Facebook.  The Brand would risk losing its exclusive image, its capacity to generate and fulfill dreams.  Luxury Brands would need to maintain this image online and a complete integration with social media would make this difficult. 

Marci Ikeler from Publicis has a very good presentation on slideshare  “Digital strategies for luxury Brands”. 

Digital Strategies for Luxury Brands

View more presentations from Marci Ikeler.

She mentions the successful examples of Gucci on Facebook and MAC on twitter, both of which support the Brand image instead of “cheapening it”.  I noted this statement supporting Jeremiah’s first point: “The most successful luxury digital campaigns are fully integrated with a larger digital strategy and align with the brand’s values”.  But do not confuse this with a complete integration of the Brand’s website and social media!

You must read the chapter 10. Use digital to convey exclusivity (slides 43 to 45).  It shows 2 examples of exclusive social networking, illustrating why complete social mass media integration will not be beneficial for all Brands.

Enterprise 2.0 is not a game anymore, it's serious business

Another good post from Bertrand Duperrin following the Enterprise 2.0 Forum in Paris on March 17th/18th.

His bullet point list of conclusions is good news for everyone (like me) promoting the uptake of E.2.0.

I will highlight the following 4 points:

• It’s not a game anymore. Now projects are global and carried by the top management. That’s the end of social bubbles disconnected from reality. Companies think global and pilots are not made to test but are the learning stage before global rollout. I really appreciated Claire Flanagan’s approach that set a time limit (5 month) instead of limiting the number of users what allowed her to quickly get a critical mass (nearly 30 000 users) with an opt-in policy.
  
• Tools come second. We talked a lot about management, culture, governance. 90% speakers did not even mention the name of the platform they used and, in fact, the question is elsewhere (even than there’s always the same usual drudge in every conference). The best example comes from Danone where the “networking attitude” program was launched in 2003. It’s all about management and behaviors. Management 2.0 without web 2.0 tools. Tools came only when the behavioral dimension was natural in people every life in the workplace.
  
• There’s no “one size fits all” adoption model. Each company has to define its own way depending on its culture and on local cultures.
  
•  Support from top management. That’s been known for ages but it’s clear that a bottleneck appears when top managers are not active sponsors. I don’t mean being benevolent from a distance (”ok…let’s go guys…I’m watching you play..”) but being able to understand the change, make it theirs and imagine them, their staff and their behaviors in the future, be comfortable with it to be an active sponsor.

I (and many others) have been writing for years now about the importance of a strategic consideration, visible top management leadership, conducive corporate culture, adapted management behaviours and internal processes for the successful introduction of knowledge-sharing tools in an Organisation.  Looks like business leaders are finally getting the message. 

TCS KM maturity model and implementation methodology

Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) have defined a simple KM maturity model and a KM implementation methodology (SIGMARG)
Their maturity model for an Organization is as follows:

1. Initial - Organization has no formal processes for using organizational knowledge effectively for business delivery.
2. Intent - Organization realizes the potential in harnessing its organizational knowledge for business benefits.
3. Initiative - Organization have knowledge-enabled their business processes and are oberving its benefits and business impacts.
4 - Intelligent - Organization has matured collaboration and sharing throughout the business processes that results into collective and collaborative organisational intelligence.
5. Innovative - Organizational knowledge leads to consistent and continuous process optimisation giving it a business edge.

If the speed at which an Organization go through the stages will vary greatly, the authors do stress that an Organization must go through these stages in this order and they are "no shortcut" to the innovative level, and they are absolutely right.  A young company with the right leaders might start at level 3 but would need to go through level 4 before reaching 5. 

Having said that, what is important to understand here is less the number of levels and their definitions, but more the fact that a KM strategy cannot be underestimated and will involve a difficult journey requiring strong leadership, committed resources and patience.

The authors are also correct in identifying the 3 main building blocks (or "pillars") of Knowledge Management:

• People and Culture (the "soft" pillar)
• Technology (the "hard" pillar)
• Process (the "glue" pillar) 

A KM strategy must be concerned in taking these 3 pillars through the 5 stages of maturity. 

Minimal information is given about the SIGMARG implemenation strategy (for obvious reasons) but you would expect it to rely on a set of benchmarking tools to assess the current state of the 3 pillars, followed by a roadmap of how to take them through the maturity levels.  For the most important (in my view) pillar "People & Cutlure", my list of cultural traits not conducive to knowledge-sharing could be such a tool to assess the corporate culture for instance: the more of the 20 traits relate to your Organization, the deeper it is stuck at level 1.  I would expect a level-5 Organization not to have a single of these traits.
The next pillar in importance is the Process pillar.  This is primarily to ensure that KM is embedded in all business processes and not considered as an additional activity on top of the regular daily activities.  This is not a simple endeavour and will require process re-ingeneering.  Ideally, the Organization needs to become process-based instead of function-based.
Then only comes the technology pillar to facilitate the cultural and process changes by making them pervasive and time-resistant.

W.L. Gore & Associates: A workplace that epitomize the corporate culture conducive to knowledge-sharing I keep bragging about

Check the full news article on the W.L. Gore & Associates website but here is the extract that made my day:

[..]
In addition to its diverse innovations, Gore is known for its unique, team-based culture and flat management style. President and CEO Terri Kelly said Gore remains true to its core values, even in the face of challenging business conditions.
"We recognize the importance of fostering a work environment where people feel motivated, engaged and passionate about the work they do," she said. "In difficult economic times, the true values of an organization are tested, and I am proud to say that our associates have rallied together to make the company stronger than ever. Our culture promotes an incredible level of ownership and entrepreneurship. It encourages associates to channel their talents and interests to produce a continuous stream of innovative, high-value products for our customers."

[..]

How many more successful example like this one do most leaders need to be convinced that this is the right type of corporate culture in the Knowledge Economy?

Are the consulting firms partly to blame for the fact that only a relatively small minority of companies have adapted their internal culture to the knowledge intensive economy?

Last month (Dec 09) I posted this question on Linkedin:

Are the consulting firms partly to blame for the fact that only a relatively small minority of companies have adapted their internal culture to the knowledge intensive economy?

In so few companies are collaborators incentivize to internally share freely their valuable knowledge (and rewarded for it). I would think that if consultants were to start advising "en masse" their clients about the benefits of such cultural change, "knowledge focused companies" could become the norm, not the exception.  This question concerns only the companies that do call in consultants (however, the others do get to learn of successful cases so could benefit indirectly). I am assuming also that most consultants would be aware and agree about the knowledge sharing benefits but maybe this is being optimistic. As for the competitive advantage of a knowledge focus culture, I believe it is not an assumption but a fact.

This question received 16 answers.  About 5 disagreed with the suggestion that consultants have to share the blame for the lack of organizational knowledge-sharing.  A couple seemed “neutral” on this point.  So, a majority seemed to agree.

I particularly liked how Nerida Hart put it: <<I think that what is happening is that the 'big' consulting companies only tell their clients what they think they want to hear - rather than - guess what guys you have a massive cultural problem and it won't matter what I write in the final 'report' - unless you want to address these issues nothing will change.>>

As the best answer, I chose Nicole Marchand’s:

<<Thanks for raising a subject that I really believe organization should all practice. Here is my take!

There are a few issues here that I believe contribute to the lack of buy-in, to adapt a knowledge focus culture. Are consultants responsible? As mentioned above, I believe it is a partnership between the consultant and the CEO but most importantly success is proportional to the leadership commitment to implement such an initiative. The lack of involvement at the senior level has proven to be a barrier in building a knowledge focus culture. Commitment from Senior Management is not restricted to the allocation of resources but also requires them to champion the initiatives, model the desired behaviour through the enhancement of their own learning, participation in the collaborative process, in essence; the promotion of knowledge sharing through concrete actions and consistency. Knowing that, I am honestly curious to know if senior leaders are willing and capable to commit to that extent. Could this be part of the lack of collaboration to implement such an initiative?

Another factor, because knowledge is an intangible asset, the business requirements to produce a return-on-investments and cost/benefit factor is often a huge challenge and tough sell. KM (knowledge management) practitioners need concrete evidence both qualitative or quantitative including a special place in the organizational financial statement to enhance the value of this intangible asset. (that will be my next question!) Experts report that 80% of organizational knowledge lies in the head of individuals, a fact worthy of attention.

A knowledge focus culture is a newer way of doing business. If leaders and managers keep thinking that water cooler conversations are a waste of productivity and not part of sharing knowledge and building trust and relationship, its implementation will be difficult. It requires a change in mind-set and behaviour and yes trust.

Implementing a knowledge focus culture takes considerable time, effort, energy and resources, it is the consultant’s responsibility to enhance the value of knowledge management, provide an accurate and informed assessment of the present knowledge manipulation situation, present a solid implementation plan and educate leaders on its present status and benefits. The success of the execution though, at the end of the day lies in the hands of the leaders. According to Bossidy & Charan (2002), “no company can deliver on its commitments or adapt well to change unless all leaders practice the discipline of execution at all levels” (p. 19).

There are many other factors affecting a successful implementation but I have hope I have managed to bring a contribution to your question. >>

My position is also that the responsibility is shared and successful cultural change depends on a partnership between the leader(s) and the consultant(s):  “…it is the consultant’s responsibility to enhance the value of knowledge management, provide an accurate and informed assessment of the present knowledge manipulation situation, present a solid implementation plan and educate leaders on its present status and benefits.”  The leader then makes it happen.  However, I believe that only a minority of consultants initiate this change unsolicited.  The consultant should not wait for the leader to ask them “help initiate a knowledge-focus culture”, as he unlikely knows that this is indeed what the organization needs to gain competitive advantage in a sustainable way.

Could it be that knowledge-focused companies less need to call on consultants? Since these companies make much better use of their human capital by leveraging internal expertise and talents for creativity and innovation, maybe they can do away with consultants for most problem-solving situations.   I do not want to initiate another conspiracy theory but what if many consulting firm partners are aware of this and consciously refrain from spreading too quickly the knowledge word?