Tuesday 26 April 2011

What's Wrong with your Social Media Policy?

MPOW recently drafted its first social media policy.  I wasn't completely happy with the outcome.  It's not terrible by any stretch, and it is similar to many social media policies I've read from other organisations. Here's my thoughts on what's wrong with social media policies in organisations.  (please bear in mind that these are my personal professional opinions and do not represent the views of my employer)

Many social media policies are concerned solely with placing restrictions on what staff can say online, who can say it and who's responsible if someone says the wrong thing, whether as representitives of the organisation or in their personal accounts on social networks.  The biggest problem I have with this approach is that nowhere in the policy is there a recognition that social media is social.  In my opinion the way the policy is written suggests a fundamental lack of understanding of social networks.

To be social a network must be a two-way conversation.  What if someone went to a meeting (substitute a party or any other social situation) and began to talk without listening to anything anyone else was saying. What would be the point of going? If you are not going to listen to what others are saying then you're missing the point of social media. 

Social networks are different from traditional forms of media such as print, radio and television.  By there very nature these are broadcast media - information published centrally and then offered for consumption by the masses, hence the term mass media.  Social networks should not be treated as an extension of the broadcast media.

The raison d'ĂȘtre of social media is as a place for people to come together because they share a common interest.  You publish information in reports and websites.  You promote things in the advertisements.  To use social media effectively you make friends with the people who might find what you're talking about interesting.

Despite this, the emphasis of many social media policies lean strongly towards ensuring that nothing is said that could damage the organisation's reputation.

Now, reputation management is crucial as we move increasingly toward a reputation economy - nowhere more so than online - but I don't believe you can control the conversation that is happening online. On the contrary, you develop your reputation online by building trust amongst your connections. In social networks you build that trust, person to person, by being a good citizen. By listening before you speak. In many cases, who you are connected to, friends with or following has as much impact on your reputation as anything you might say. I really like the following illustration of the reputation cycle in social media.

The nature of social media should be reflected in your organisation's social media policy.  Rather than simply setting out the rules, a good social media policy should provide guidance to staff on best practice in social networks.  It would be great to hear from anyone whose social media policy at work does address these concerns.

Monday 4 April 2011

You're only as good as your worst customer experience

It's funny how a short simple idea can be the jump off for so many ideas.  I had one of these moments this morning when I read a post from Seth Godin called, The worst voice of the brand *is* the brand.
We either ignore your brand or we judge it, usually with too little information. And when we judge it, we judge it based on the actions of the loudest, meanest, most selfish member of your tribe.
It's so obvious, yet how many organisations... councils... libraries... give this any thought or attention?



It has been bugging me all day, how many opportunities we have to provide a bad experience to the people we serve.  How many times have you formed a judgement about a company based on one or two interactions? A dispute with over a transaction; a telephone call transferred all over the place; staff who are too busy talking between themselves to notice you; even something as insignificant as staff who's use of language leaves a little to be desired.

And our websites aren't immune.  You can spend all the time in the world on developing your site but if there's a key interaction or transaction that has been designed poorly you can leave your visitors with the impression the site is a waste of time.  This was brought home to me when we started receiving feedback about our recently launched site.  The feedback was generally positive, however, there were a few key things that didn't work as expected for our site visitors.  We hadn't really tested some of the key touch points well enough. Because we understood how things worked we didn't, or couldn't, see where the experience broke down for users.

I'm not completely pessimistic though.  I think that the converse is also true.  Going the extra mile to make your customer experience better can have far wider positive influence than one happy customer.

Going out of your way to satisfy a customer request; taking responsibility for someone's enquiry even if it's not your area of expertise rather than just referring them on; working to make an interaction easier for the customer even if it means more work for the organisation. These are all ways that we can leave our users with a good impression. A good impression will leave them more willing to come back again.  Do this enough and your organisation will build trust with our customers and that's something no marketing campaign will achieve.

How to make sure that all areas of your organisation are on the same page when it comes to this attitude? Well, that I don't know. Any thoughts...?