Are You Talking “To” Or “With” Customers?
Whenever the buzz gets so loud you can’t hear yourself, that’s a good time to step back and take a look at what’s really going on. As the number of branded “social networking” sites seems to grow by the hour – consider Samsung’s just announced laundry-related “Moms Like Us” or the newly launched NPR Community - now may be the time for doing just that to consider the hows/whys of leveraging online community.
But, while it is a much broader topic than I could possibly address here, let’s look at one angle raised by recently released research: What is the difference between talking “to” and “with” online community members, and why should it matter? Much as we may have assumed that web-based social networks were a way to talk “with” masses of customers, it turns out they are instead a better way to talk “to” those customers. Hmmm.
This “to/with” factor was raised by the experts at Rubicon Consulting, whose study results show that the subtlety lies in how the average customer, specifically, doesn’t tend to be the most active online community participant – as so noted in MediaPost’s Research Brief:
These findings mean online community matters enormously to companies. Online discussion is a poor way to communicate with the average customer, because average customers don’t participate. But it is a great way to communicate to them, because average customers watch and listen.
Most Frequent Contributors are different from the average web user:
* They’re more ethnically diverse;
* More technically skilled
* More likely to be single
* More likely to work in technology, entertainment, or communication companies
* More likely to be Democrats
* Younger than typical web users. Half of the web’s most frequent contributors are under age 22
Interesting. So – while there is no question that brands should be leveraging online community, they need to do so more deliberately than they otherwise may have. These Rubicon findings make it sound like web conversations may not be the most direct approach to reaching the more “average customer.” Yet, a brand’s indirect approach of influencing the online talk of those far-from-average, extremely active online contributors will eventually get the message to everyone else.
So, does that layer of translation and re-phrasing by active contributors end up delivering the same initial message on down to less-active online community members? It sounds a little like playing that kid’s game, telephone, to me.
Of course, reaching strong influencers first, and then encouraging them to pass your message to the outer layers of possible customers has traditionally been an effective marketing strategy. But, that same approach taken at web speed can unfold very differently – as many of us know. Online, a brand can’t step back into a conversation again and regain “control” of its initial message, while offline it might still be an option.
So, what to take from this latest research? Keep your eye on that subtlety – the difference in reaching average customers versus reaching actively engaged online influencers. Tailor your message either for a few layers of relaying (telephone) or for direct accessibility by the average customer.
A brand can definitely use the word-of-mouse however it starts, but there will continue to be cases where talking directly with the perhaps less influential folks will still be more effective for marketing purposes . The balance of to/with conversations in both on-and offline customer community should be finely and individually calibrated for each unique marketing message.
If brands are as committed to customers as they should be – now, especially – they’ll find this challenge worth meeting. “To” is always going to be easier than “with.”
