In today’s omnipresent social media world, the key question plaguing companies and consumers is: can we trust the information we see and find on the Web? It might be an overenthusiastic couch potato telling and narrating (with pictures and videos) about his daring adventures half way across the world OR a company using an agressive viral marketing campaign to show interviews with satisfied consumers of their products (when the reality might be very different).

How do we trust the info, how we use the info and how much weight this should carry in strategic decision making for companies is still evolving.

Good article. Contains handy tips for companies looking to leverage Web 2.0. The LEAD technique makes a lot of sense. My only gripe is that the article hardly speaks on how Web 2.0 would morph into Web 3.0.

I may be a little bit naive, but maybe the times when you could trick people into buying snake oil are over. Maybe there is a new game: invest in user research before you design your product (or service) and then, put it where people can see it. They’ll know a good deal when they see it. On second thought... I am naive.

Colley and La Roche hit the nail on the head - this is not about the end of marketers or marketing (unless you believe marketers simply create ads), it’s about the necessity to evolve an organization’s ability to understand markets and customers in new, dynamic ways.

Excellent advice, particularly for the healthcare provider industry. We tend to take ourselves too seriously and downplayed social media initially. With so many procedures being elective these days (e.g. bariatric surgery), we’ve found it critical to monitor various blogs and Web sites where the most honest information and evaluation can be found!

Years ago we talked about electronic communications coming to dominate how a company does business. I don’t think we anticipated how much of this communication would come from way outside the company—the occasional consumer. It seems to expand the stakeholders that a company has and can talk to and keep “in the loop.” As you know, that is not generally the way even modern companies are designed to communicate. There’s an organizational barrier between “us” and “them” that marketing straddles. Furthermore, with consumer goods, social networking can jump the additional barriers that retail sets up between the producer and the consumer. On the other hand, the chatter out there can deliver lots of early warning information about what the consumer thinks, wants, and hopes to change.

Marketers are not replaced of course just because audiences behave differently in the Web era. They just need to refocus and rethink their strategies. It is probably a stereotype, but I do think that the major obstacle here is the difficulty of an internal “culture shift” and the accompanying institutional inertia of companies which still think along old paradigms like ATL (above the line), BTL (below the line), PR, promo, and so on. In this new world, the lines are blurred for good. This being said, I also think it is too early to pronounce the death of advertising. Social media tactics cannot replace the power of mass communication which is largely responsible for creating a “common consciousness” around a product (it’s called branding). Now, what we do need is better metrics (we still do not have the equivalent of TV ratings which are the currency of trad media placement) and better strategies seamlessly merging off-line with on-line. It’s called marketing strategy.

The success of Web 2.0 and the prospects for Web 3.0 and beyond are inextricably linked to a culture shift regarding the status accorded to information. Traditionally, information has benefited its owner—the law has come to recognise that in the concept of intellectual property. With the networking opportunities now at our disposal, the power of information lies in its accessibility on a global scale, whereby the value of it resides in the dynamics of the conversations it provokes. Mirroring the economic disputes of the nineteenth century around free trade, we are now engaged in a debate over the benefits of this new order. Is the tide a relentless one, and if so, will it really pay off?

Excellent strategy. But this article does not explain who should lead these Web 2.0 projects. Should there be a central coordinated effort led by corporate executives, or should it be dealt in piecemeal by marketing /sales department? I think it should be a coordinated effort by CIO and CMO jointly owning a long term Web 2.0 strategy. The CMO can own the user ‘experience’ and CIO can own the ‘scalable’ IT infrastructure. I think the ‘D’ in LEAD is critical and if Web 2.0 is implemented in the absence of business strategy, it will be of little use in the long run.

I think the issue that many businesses have not yet grasped is that Web 2.0 is based on the simple concept that people buy from people they know, like, and trust. For big brands many people subconsciously jump to the trust stage. But this is only because their peers have referred the product to them.

So how do you achieve know, like, and trust? Know: Twitter about the company and the people that work there, not the product and services or breaking company news. Like: a Facebook fan page where sales vouchers are given, deeper information about latest product releases, and the benefits of the new product. Trust: a company blog with interesting things going on in the industry as well as that company. Stories about employees, why it’s a great place to work there, green policy, social responsibility policy, ethics, etc. All this should be managed by a social media manager to make sure the correct messages get out in the correct channels. Also be open and transparent, that’s the number one lesson from the banking crisis: people no longer trust big business you have to get their trust back.

What strikes me is that often the question is more important than the answer. And the question is not how to change from Web 2.0 to Web 3.0. The question is what follows after Web. When asking like this it’s more obvious we have to think in bigger scales. I also guess that most participating in this discussion are older than Millennials...

@ MA Wehbe: I completely agree with you, discussions about Web 2.0 for enterprises are for some reason always restricted to the b2c setting. I for one think that it could have an even greater impact for b2b or intra-firm, where closer and more natural communities and networks are being built already without the technology. Furthermore, the efforts would not only be aimed at mitigating or regaining control over the conversations out there, since firms don’t have the same authoritative relationship with other parts of it’s (b2b) community. Just imagine how a global purchasing department could use social networks, blogs and wikis to enhance its network of commodity managers, suppliers, relevant academia, and purchasing departments of other similar (but non-competing) firms.

I thinks this is called Feedback 1.0. The only change is the speed of the process.

Social media is already on the path to seeing brands share the power over who/what determines its brand equity. It is also a mechanism that is forcing brands to engage more with stakeholders and be more transparent. In essence, it could well turn out to be the change in our world that facilitates James Grunig’s 2-way symmetrical communication model being practiced more frequently. This, in theory, will lead a more responsive business sector and a more equitable society. That would be something, wouldn’t it?

Social media is definitely transforming the way consumers communicate about value they expect to receive. But at the same time that the level of granularity in communication increases, will not the same occur with the consumer’s expectation for the customization of offerings? Unless companies are prepared to better respond to individual product specifications, will they not just be increasing the level of dissatisfation out in the market place? I believe processes, electronic or not, need to assist on both ends of the spectrum or a lot of frustration will be created. A company better be ready to respond, or down goes the experience. Social media and mass-customization can make a winning proposition.

If Web 2.0 was all about Online User Engagement, next would be Experience 2.0. One key customer expectation is to have a seamless customer experience across a multi channel environment which would be the Journey from Web 2.0 to Experience 2.0 (Multi Channel Experience Management & Multi Channel Analytic).

You hit the nail on the head when you suggest that companies must rapidly flee from the mass-media broadcast mentality. We’re moving from one-to-many to one-to-one or peer-to-peer communications. This is a paradigm shift for marketers that sees control of the message move away from them. The role of marketers will become less and less important in organisations as this shift happens, unless of course they can re-skill and adjust to the new paradigm.

Luis Martinez Funes raised an important point: the need to listen rather than control. That said, there is tremendous value for a business to provide leadership, direction, and investment to nurture a positive experience for the community and company. Finding the fulcrum between the positive concept of “leadership” and the negative concept of “control” is an interesting topic for further discussion.

We should rather talk about Marketing 2.0 (or 3.0). People make change happen, not the technology. Focussing on Web 2.0 and 3.0 is, again, a techno-driven, myopic view of the change that is happening in the commercial and societal environments. Let’s move beyond the lines of HTML code and the functionality they bring!

Useful essay, but what is more critical today is understanding the relationships that are driving this complex cultural shift. As Lawrence Lessig and many other experts put it: it’s the emergence of commercial and shared cultures which are at odds in this space. Companies need to adapt and learn to operate in this shared culture, especially if their industries can go digital in any way. It’s not enough to just shift communication into digital realm, it’s a culture of living in this new paradigm whether its internal, external culture, or the relationships that a company has with its customers, suppliers, or other stakeholders. This requires a major shift in world view and in the way we understand, view, and manage relationships at every level. The business successes of today: Google, Facebook, You Tube, Twitter are all based on this understanding while the traditional-model businesses struggle to even be part of the discussions going on about them.

Very valid point on marketers being replaced. In fact, I would go as for as to say that many other roles are being impacted, if not necessarily replaced, as well. For instance, these days it is very common to see people checking for solutions online before contacting a company. I have done that a countless number of times. Isn’t this an example of service representatives getting replaced? The challenge really is controlling these ‘new’ marketers/representatives/others. They are not on your payrolls and hence they decide what they want to say.

A straightforward and usable paradigm. What will be interesting is to see how the tone of the conversation changes as companies actually do respond to consumers and react to their input. Will they do things that real people do in real conversations, such as admit ignorance, apologize, disagree, express feelings, change their minds? The companies that figure out how to do this properly will have a huge advantage.

I enjoyed the article. I like the fact that more guidelines are emerging about how to engage with consumers, who clearly are in the driver’s seat as far as controlling the conversations. Granted that there are not hard and fast rules to getting value out of social media, but there are a good number of case studies and examples to mimic!

I agree with the principles of this article. The lessons from web 2.0 will hold water with web 3.0. Having said that, brands and companies have much work to do across the marketing function—dealing with and addressing empowered and savvy consumers, tailoring brand propositions for real segments and down to individual levels, creating genuine value, addressing an ever expanding array of channels and touch points, injecting the social component into marketing, integrating across channels and touch points, and so on. Focusing solely on the lessons of web 2.0—at the expense of reinventing the marketing function as a whole—will prove dangerous.

After reading so many articles on Web 2.0, very little can be learned on how this trend can benefit B2B marketing. Most, if not all, examples and case studies focus on B2C. I think there is potential for Web 2.0 in B2B marketing and PR, but maybe not through FB, Twitter, YouTube and the likes.

Again, we are oversimplifying the situation. While nothing in the framework is objectionble, it does not hint at the bigger issues that companies will face, especially in the move to 3.0. It’s not just about listening, which is the right starting point. It’s about engagement, it’s about allowing people to take content from a site and make it their own. It’s about things we can find trivial—like tagging and taxonomies—that can, within short order, provide the ability to value content and its organization. We need to get beyond the obvious and start focusing on models that will deliver value.

Good marketers have always followed a LEAD model. The difference now is that marketing is no longer a silo function, but an integrated, co-creative, transparent catalyst for the dialogue between customers and organizations. The challenge is to manage the myriad of moving parts, to accept the loss of control, and to go with the flow. But while building viral, virtual interactions, marketers need more than ever real-time physical, face-to face interactions with customers and stakeholders to align resources and to make quality decisions.

Conversations bring insights and marketers can no longer control conversations. What’s new about that? This has always been the case, only now we can see, track, and measure it because the conversations are digitized. The key challenge for marketeers remain the same: distill the insights to build your brand on and decide where you want the conversation to develop towards, only then... participate.

Two thoughts. One, I agree this article doesn’t get to ‘Web 3.0’ though perhaps the authors are trying to introduce their own notion of such. But, to date, Web 3.0 has been more about 3D and virtual worlds. Two, the important point is two-way interaction. It’s a new technique in a new medium. Not one-way PR and not one-way feedback coming back (as with traditional consumer research). It’s virutal dialogue and that’s the way it should be managed. Which means dedicating some of the right people to interact in this manner. There’s a new marketing management practice to evolve out of this.

I do agree with the fact that it is too early to gain acceptance for investments in web 2.0 & beyond concepts. For now, organisations are evaluating technologies in a small way without any major commitments for reasons such as difficulty in quantifying benefits in dollar terms and establishing a strong business case for an implementation and also to establish return on investment metrics. What we see in the market place is lot of excitment around web 2.0 & beyond but when it calls for committing dollars, companies shy away with investment on traditional projects.

Good article and comments; thanks all. Web 2.0 channels and tools now play a significant role in how people and businesses observe, collaborate, innovate, and respond to needs and opportunities. Social media and networking are part of the world we live in — there is no turning back because Web 2.0 is an extension of Internet and mobility experience, value and expectations.

The reality is that Web 3.0 is going to lead an “outside-in” transformation for a lot of companies, provided they develop the systems to listen. Customers are definitely in a postiton to provide meaningful and critical insights into products features, quality, and selling propositions. I believe that this, in turn, will bring about much faster changes to new product development and supply chain management than we have ever seen in the past. Timely article McKQ!

The wisdom of crowds is a dual edged sword and companies would do well to identify areas where this would work (for example, in product improvements) and where it would not (strategy shifts). The media is different and the crowds more aggressive. The rate of flow of information is mind-boggling and, sadly, unpredictable. Some great stuff has fizzled out quickly and mediocre stuff afloat forever. Given this, control and manipulation of converstaions and content is more of a matter of luck. Consumers in non-HiTech industries are still not so Web savvy to constitue a major consumer segment, especially in developing countries which have young populations (the very type Web 2.0 managers seem to address). This paradox will sustain in the near future.

People trust Corporations 74% less than they did last year, and 87% of people say they would never buy anything from a company they did not trust! And now for the real clanger: CEO’s are the least trusted source of information when seeking the truth about a company! (source: Edelman Trust Index March 2009).

Why is this relevant to Web 2.0? Simple. The landscape for business has changed, and it wasn’t technology that changed it! Web 2.0 was never about technology, it was about consumers and their demands to be consulted, involved, and trusted. Until corporations understand this, forget about using tools like Twitter or Facebook or blogging. When I asked Ben Self (Obama’s digital media strategist) what made the difference in the Obama campaign and the digital strategy he responded simply “the leadership.” Barack, David (Plouffe and Axelrod), and Ben all kept it simple—get to know as many people as possible (hence their plans to collect emails). Web 2.0 tools just made it easy to do this.

So what is my message? Until corporations trust employees, have nothing to hide, and genuinely want to connect with consumers, then nothing will change, and web 2.0 tools (and philosophies) will not be adopted. Those organisations that build a culture around consultation, involvement, and collaboration will find no challenges with 3.0. My simple advice to organisations: forget about prospects and customers and clients. Instead, adopt an attitude of ‘friends with budgets’ and 2.0 and 3.0 will be nothing more than new versions of the same thing!

This was an interesting article and at IBM we have been actively doing the ideas mentioned here. But, the ideas mentioned above have limitations. Web 2.0 stuff gathers momentum initially and then looses its fizz. Blogs, Facebook, Orkut, etc. help only to a certain extent. If the topic under discussion in any of these Web 2.0 sites is generic then continuity is better but the moment the discussion becomes specific the fizz is lost. So, while the article states a four-step method to help the end user, I feel it is passe and doesn’t scale up.

Web 2.0 as a virtual conversation and word-of-mouth opinion sharing is a must leverage “place” for all enterprises. While it is not mentioned in the article, I find fascinating the coming explosion of true “mobile, in the moment, perhaps driven by impulse” conversations and recommendations that are going to be enabled by smartphones (IPhone as the leading example). Companies that are experimenting with Web 2.0 will also need to adjust their thinking to account for the mobile experience, as opposed to either the online/laptop experience, or the texting experience. Location targeting, ad hoc social networking, co-created services/products, and real time FAQ’s, offers, and promotions will be altered by the possibility of the customer acting in the moment. In fact, it offers a real integration of Web 2.0 and face-to-face communication.

Having a presence just for the sake of “keeping up with the Jones” is a big mistake, you need to have a firm outcome in mind for what you want to achieve or else you have no target. Engaging with customers in identifying prioritised product development is a tangible and relevant objective. Just gaining awareness or market exposure that doesn’t simultaneously deliver a positive message is dangerous.

LEAD (listen, experiment, apply, develop) is a good process explanation. I agree with another of the commenters that supplementing Listen with data is useful. I’d go beyond the search and site analytics to create a way to test qualitatively and quantitatively on the virtual run. Avid fans and rabid opponents can sometimes cloud the importance of a conversation thread. While we shouldn’t disregard any legit stakeholder, it’s probably more important to test repeatedly to assess the level of promoters and detractors for the organization and their points of pain or pleasure. Doing so and adding the power of good intelligence to your side of the conversation can be very powerful.

It is still a low number of organisations that have implemented 2.0 in their Web or internally, so talking here about 3.0 seems to be too much. I believe that the vast majority needs to re-invent themselves and that will take as long as cultural shifts do in general. And more likely a lot will not survive and will never reach the next step called 2.0.

Hi Donna. Thank you for your conversation starter. May I suggest LEAD becomes LEADER? Let me explain. Web 1.0 was about websites being digital brochures created by sellers that had the production tools. Web 2.0 is about consumers producing content aimed at egocentric social satisfaction. For the consumer, the barriers of entry to content production have disappeared due to the arrival of open source free solutions. IT departments and ad agencies simply haven’t caught on yet! Some regard Web 2.0 as two way dialogue between producer and consumer. You know, B2C and C2B via blogs forums and carefully controlled, moderated environments.

Perhaps the phenomena Chief Marketing Officers don’t yet get, is that maybe 99 percent of Web 2.0 is C2C and B is about as welcome as that TV commercial you’ve seen 67 times interupting your ‘me-time’ or worse, the telemarketing call during dinner! Cs expect their voice to be censored by Bs and they also disbelieve what Bs say about what they sell. Yet Cs do listen and interract with other Cs about their experiences with Bs.

So what about Web 3.0? In my scenario, it’s simply marketing departments being outsourced to crowd-controllers before the brand looting takes place. In the information economy the C will find the B if they choose to, on their own terms and B had better get used to living up to the cliche the customer is king!

Web sites in a Web 4.0 world will no longer exist. Content will simply be embedded data plugged into C’s online neural network. The Web site will get smaller and more focussed as content such as reviews become more relevant. So under Web 4.0, B had better plan for Widgets 4.0! Whether it’s Open ID or Facebook Connect, the goal is for B to have the ability to embed their content and sales process into the C’ experience of choice. Which brings me back to LEADER, Donna! You see, the extra ‘E’ currently stands for ‘Engage’ and for the cluey, it stands for ‘Embed’. The ‘R’ simply stands for ‘Recruit’. Embed is the simple phenomena of cut, paste and spread. Recruit is the process of engaging brand advocates to become sales agents in a micro-payment C2C environment. It’s no longer about hardware and it’s no longer about software. The world is morphing towards experience, emotion, and the meshing on social, financial, and neural networks. So read up on game theory and psychology and realise the revolution has already happened. Marketers are fast becoming obsolete. It’s time to get real and follow the LEADER!

An interesting, and I think valid approach. I talk to many clients who say, “We want a Web 2.0 site so we can connect with our customers better and be more cool (with it, up with the times, add your term). We usually tell them that they need to stop and think first. Figure out what are the technologies out there? What are their business goals? Define how they can apply the Web 2.0 approach to meet their needs, then take a baby step to get it going. Regarding the approach of Web 3.0; I’m not sure what it’s going to be called but when major vendors like IBM, Oracle, and Microsoft are well along in incorporating these technologies in some of their key products, you know that Web 2.0 has become mainstream.

In the marketing world there’s a lot of debate about what’s best: advertising, PR, or social media. It’s a moot argument because advertising, PR, and social media platforms are merging so quickly now. Vendors will have little choice because clients know that the most ubiquitous, least expensive platform for all three is the Internet. The trajectory for a fully integrated marketing platform, which includes the three mentioned plus dozens more, will look similar to that of personal computing. Once the mystery is driven out and the effectiveness established, large corporate and SMB clients will be purchasing fully-integrated marketing tools and platforms like there’s no tomorrow.

The unrelentingly instrumental quality of this admonition—not a conversation, which would be genuinely 3.0—is dismaying. Using technology to Tell Consumers All About Me isn’t the point of 3.0 thinking. Nor is eavesdropping on social networks.

The point of 3.0 is to learn from all stakeholders in the company, including critics and customers. This dovetails nicely with current thinking about innovation and co-creation.

The 3.0 mindshift is “transformational,” meaning that executives, managers, and employees all advocate and accept change throughout the system, including personal change among themselves—is a quantum leap from the traditional marketing approach, here duded up with technology buzzwords.

This article represents an excellent overview of handling web 2.0 issues. Although not very expensive, these relative small web investments pay off in much greater consumer experience and a smoother marketing campaign. Without these investments, your Web presence may be left to the few people who complain loudly for their own reasons. As a company owner, executive, or consultant, I always Google my own company, follow on-line conversations about my product, call the front-desk of our office, walk into stores, check if our name and address is properly listed on-line and in 411, etc. on a regular basis to see what the consumer is experiencing and when action is needed, I take it. This is really an extension of Management By Walking Around but now it includes the Internet.

Like with democracy, one person one vote, Internet provides voice to every individual with an email id. But the truth is that not everybody votes. And so with Web 2.0, not everybody makes their voice heard. First there is the question of all those consumers in markets where Internet penetration may not be substantial for some time. And then it takes a certain kind of consumer to use the medium to voice their opinion. One negative comment can sometimes upset the image balance of a company disproportionately. And there is a tendency amongst all of us to discuss the unpleasant and unsavoury more than the good even if the latter far outweighs the former. The author suggests that Web 2.0 is a powerful tool where somehow the power of balance is with the consumer. If earlier it was with the marketers, there is a belief that they (mis)used it to their advantage at the expense of the consumer. How can we make sure that the consumers, now with power balance tipped in their favour, will not do the same. How does one arrive at an equitable balance of power? In a complete turnaround, companies are beginning to concede all power to the consumer. But cocreation is about balance and a dialogue, not about power struggles. Web 2.0 is only a tool, are we expecting too much from it?

Even though the examples are OK, I think this article remains in the surface. It could have been acceptable two years ago, but useless for anyone in the management world that haven’t been in a corporate ‘cave’ for the last 3 years. I hope the next on the series goes deeper.

I enjoyed the essay but I do not think it fits the title of “Managing beyond Web 2.0”. It is much closer to “How to succeed in Web 2.0 Business”. All the advice is in adopting the new business paradigm and technology. When whatever people call Web 3.0 comes along then this material would also apply (with different case studies) to that era of adoption.

Very interesting to see the MyAlli example. It is indeed a very active community. As it happens, right now we are researching the involvement of pharmaceutical companies with Web 2.0 media. Just yesterday I found an Alli blog and found that it had no posts since September 2008! So I was pleased and surprised to learn about MyAlli. The inactive Alli Connect blog does seem like a paradox, though.

Social networking can indeed prove to be a double-edged sword for many organizations, as the writer of this article demonstrates. Does it, however, really give companies that edge in the playing field?

(1) Social networking relies mostly on ‘pull’ rather than ‘push’. Consider Starbucks, which boasts an active Facebook presence. People most likely to visit the Starbucks fan page are either those who value its products to a great extent, or those who wish to air their greivances against the product or the company. Hence company publicity through social networking, I would argue, attracts individuals at the extreme ends of the continuum and doesn’t do much to sway the middle ground—those that do not exhibit tremendous amounts of brand loyalty or are indifferent to the product.

(2) Despite the tremendous popularity that social networking has experienced in the past few years, we notice that the predominant demographic hasn’t budged much—most users are still between the ages of ten and thirty five, with interest in social networking mostly tapering off in the last five to eight years of the bracket. Within this bracket, the time spent on social networking sites also tends to taper off in the later years. Therefore, as one’s earning potential increases, one’s Web presence and vulnerability to attraction by companies through social networking sites will decrease. This begs the question, would it not be more beneficial for companies to focus their publicity through traditional ‘bricks and mortar’ routes?

(3) The most important critique of the approach, I would think, comes from the emerging markets area. While the average customer in the developed world are web-savvy, unfortunately many consumers in the developing world have yet to reach the point where e-commerce, or even the simple act of Web research prior to making purchase decisions, has gained traction. I refer to the typical middle-class consumer in India, Pakistan, Cambodia, or Laos—who earns less than $10,000 a year—a prime demographic for companies with international ambitions who have seen demand in home markets decline over the years, such as British American Tobacco, Philip Morris, and Coca Cola. So, ultimately, while social networking does indeed have great potential, a thorough cost-benefit analysis should be conducted prior to embarking on a heavy Web presence, and of course, a company should never lose sight of its target market, demographic, or geography.

A timely article. Some companies seem to look for a one-stop solution of having someone come in and address this “social media problem” as if it is just a PR function. What they need to realize is that their product or service owners need to be deeply engaged in this process. The company as a whole needs to converse with its customers and community at large through this new medium. Sounded like GSK did the latter according to the case cited in the article. Good for them.

I agree with your overall premise (...focusing on the fundamental aspects of the consumers’ online behavior— not just current best practices...), but it seems to me this article misses something important. While Web 2.0 changes the channel, it doesn’t change what people really want. They want to do business with companies they trust and like. So the answer to connecting through social media is less about the tactics of using the channel, and more about being a company people care about. The web makes it easier for people to express outrage over poor service or insensitivity, and it’s true you have to be prepared to respond in the medium du jour. Web 2.0 is kind of like a giant game of “Gossip.” Nonetheless, the problem is not the medium. The problem is the intention of the company and the value it places on having an honest relationship with its constituents. Companies who are worth trusting are trusted. Those who are not are eventually found out.

Occasional missteps are usually forgiven, and it has always been this way. The chief advantage or disadvantage of the new media is speed. If you have time to make a lot of phone calls, send out press releases, ingratiate your company to editors, writers, and consumer advocates, you can head off a firestorm if you screw up. Firestorms move faster on the Web. But the fundamentals are the same. Be honest, offer differentiated value, don’t get greedy, don’t look to your competitors for cues to validate your worth, and don’t take your customers for granted. Align your brand behavior, brand expression, and brand experience around a true and valuable idea, and you’ll be trusted. Learn to leverage the medium, but don’t get fooled by it. Truth is truth no matter where you tell it.

One of the biggest problems that companies face with social media is the same one the general public faces: the rapid onset of boredom. More and more studies are pointing to the fact that participants in social media communities, after an initial burst of frequent views and posts, quickly go inactive. This was painfully pointed out during the recent D7 All Things Digital conference when the founders of Twitter were questioned about surveys showing more that 50% of Twitter users use it less than once a month. The same statistics can be found for other social media such as Facebook.

To avoid similar boredom with the corporate audience, companies seeking to leverage a social media component of their marketing must first identify very clear objectives. They need not be numeric, but they must be clear. Without them, social media programs become flights of technological fancy that are off-strategy and budgetary black holes. As such, their end result is likely to be accelerating the trip of the CMO toward the exit. Similarly, in many small and medium-sized companies, social media programs are short-lived, attention getting explorations designed to convince internal audiences that something is being done to market to customers. More often than not it is an increasingly wasteful corporate toy because the mission was not clearly defined. The catalyst was probably a call from the corner office saying, “We have to be on Twitter.” The response should have been, “Why?”

One of the ways companies leverage this online customer experience is through customer ‘communities.’ Companies, especially in Silicon Valley, build out and maintain extensive online customer communities, wherein the company’s customers can come together, connect with each other, share best practices, access knowledge bases, get help from other customers, share experiences etc. As far as the company is concerned, just by observing these online interactions, ‘listening’ to your customers talk to each other about their pain points and such, gives a lot of insight into customers and what‘s on their minds. Then they take these inputs and insights back into the company and use them. Since Ericsson is a global organization operating in over a 100 countires, we have derived immense value from these customer communities.

Aren’t we already at this stage: “What will happen when these consumer experiences are much more interesting than anything your marketers have put up on the Web?” In fact, much of this essay is about fairly basic Web 2.0 steps. Many companies (most of them big brands like HP, Dell, Intel, McDonald’s) have gone much deeper in building customer and stakeholder relationships through social networks. A more fruitful avenue of pursuit would be assessing the sociological shifts driven by social media that are creating new relationship dynamics around goods, services, and, of course, public discourse.

G3 telephony presents design challenges because handset screens are so much smaller than with personal computers, to say nothing of billboards. Segments formed in the days of print and outdoor media will coalesce, destroying some brands, while creating others. Communicators from multi-lingual markets such as India will have a head-start since content has to transcend dated language barriers. Consumers will not forgive the kind of external-marketing hyperbole, in which icons from the worlds of entertainment and sports have indulged in the pre-Web 2.0 days. The marketing function must shed its baggage of past success: advertising gurus first please!

Very interesing piece. In the listening phase, companies should build out their listening tools to include data from search and site analytics and combine this with social media—this helps to build a sense of priorities. Also, it’s dangerous to rely on a single tool for buzz monitoring, none in our experience cover the whole market, and there are dozens available, both free and paid. Finally, don’t rely simply on technology—buzz tools struggle to deal with irony, sarcasm, slang, etc., and this can really throw off the metrics.

The key phrase in this new era is: LISTEN and DO NOT CONTROL. What a lot of companies and managers are failing to understand—or perhaps they simply just don‘t like and don‘t accept—is that these conversations cannot be controlled by the company. As this article well puts it, you have to listen and engage those conversations in a non-threatening way so you can get heard and your products and brand image enhanced and appreciated.

You are completely right to mention that return-on-investment metrics for social media are still in the early stages. However, I do encourage you to take a look at ObjectiveMarketer. Very young company, but the product is already in very good shape and does provide the ability to analyze in details the components and the efficiency of conversional marketing.