techguerilla talk

Matt Ridings

16
Aug 2010

Enterprise Social Media & SMB - One Of These Things Is Not Like The Other

No one will dispute that there are huge differences between the way a large enterprise business operates versus that of a SMB (small or medium business).  All of the cliche's about a large, plodding, politically motivated behemoth or a small, naive, financially handcuffed operation exist for a reason.  They all contain a grain of truth to varying degrees.  Yet, for all of their differences they share the same basic strategies when it comes to leveraging various mediums for the most part, just at different scales.  And that's how it should be.

However, when I work with these organizations on social media engagements their viewpoints are shockingly divergent.  And frankly, it is many of the social media experts and conferences out there that are creating/reinforcing them.  Let's examine just a few of them.

Differences:
  • Philosophical 
    • Enterprise - Social Media is just a tool.  All of this talk about making friends and 'being social' is a bit ridiculous, if it'll make me money that's great but someone needs to demonstrate that in hard terms first.  All I care about is whether or not I can leverage it for {insert individual department function here}, but I want to own it for the whole organization in case it becomes really important.
    • SMB - Social Media is more than just a tool.  It's a kinder/gentler new way of doing business.  If you just focus on relationships first the business will follow.  All of the best conference speakers told me so.
  • Execution
    • Enterprise - I can't do anything yet, we need to really analyze this thing to death (from a single departments perspective) and come up with a plan first.  Mainly I need that plan to figure out a way to put low level people out there on social media and minimize the risk in doing so.  I mean, have you seen some of these companies getting eaten alive by social media? *shudder*
    • SMB - I read this article about social media so I went and created an account on the various sites.  I've been talking to some people on Twitter and I went to a conference the other day.  The only way to "get" social media is to simply do it, so that's what I'm doing.  I'm not really sure about how I'll leverage it strategically but I'm certainly "being social".

The reality however is that they could learn a lot from each others situations.  On the enterprise side philosophically there needs to be a holistic approach and viewpoint not simply a focus at the individual function (departmental) level.  They need  a top-down strategy.  The SMB does this organically for the most part, nothing happens in these organizations without everyone else either knowing about it or being involved in it.  Everyone tends to wear a lot of hats in these organizations by default.  Many folks will argue that a grass roots movement within the enterprise is the way to go.  I'd be happy to demonstrate to them ad infinitum why they are wrong, but suffice it to say that a grass roots groundswell is fine for getting the attention of management but it then needs to be ripped out at the roots once the organization is serious about moving forward with social media.  On the SMB side, they should tone down some of the kum-ba-ya social media rhetoric.  There's nothing wrong with much of it, it just needs to be balanced out with reasonable business objectives and that seems to be getting lost in the process.

At the executional level, the enterprise and SMB should find a nice comfy spot and meet in the middle.  Diving into social media half-cocked is certainly not recommended, yet neither is going into analysis paralysis.  It *is* possible to actually have a plan of attack that includes the fact that there are areas of social media you will dabble in without having hard justification.  That is different than saying you don't need to think through certain guidelines about avoiding certain risks and exposures.  

I'll concede the fact that there are very few places currently for an enterprise to turn to for a model on how to build an integrated social enterprise.  It's incredibly complex, and it can't be done without significant buy-in from the top.  So I understand why the departments would simply use their own segmented budgets to try and drive their own initiatives.  What is the political benefit of getting involved in something you aren't going to own and that you may have to comply with later on, right?  On the SMB side it's certainly understandable that the initial appeal of social media may be its perceived low cost of entry, which drives a lot of how social media evolves and is perceived in these organizations.  

I get it.  I do.  But enterprises that can take a page out of the SMB book and simply try and do what's best for the organization as a whole vs. the individual or department will ultimately be far more successful.  So if you must look at it from a selfish perspective, just consider it good job protection, or you can try and be the person who will oversee social media for the entire organization if you like.  And SMB's  who look to the enterprise for inspiration may find that a tighter focus on business objectives *via* those fuzzy relationships they've been creating will lead them to greater success.  Serendipity will only get you so far, you still need focus and a destination.

Enterprises aren't just cold, calculating machines.  SMB's aren't just warm, fuzzy, double rainbows.  They both contain warm bodies who care and are trying to do a good job and contribute to a successful business.  They just have different challenges, opportunities, and motivators.  There is one thing however that neither party is, and that's stupid.  There is a lot they can learn from one another, particularly when it comes to social media.  And I'm hopeful that will occur sooner rather than later.

Matt Ridings - @techguerilla

Filed under  //   consulting   enterprise   social media   techguerilla original  
04
Aug 2010

Social Media Society snippets

At a clients recently I did a funny bit on 'Social Media Society" using their whiteboard.  They have one of those 'smart boards' where they can capture what is taking place and sent me a few of the snapshots.  Thought you might get a kick out of a few of them, although without context they may not be easy to understand.  I'll try and get around to giving writing up some context for them at some point. {added notes below}

                 
Click here to download:
social-media-society-snippets-umKwsKuIuU4CjMf49cAw.zip (1159 KB)

 

Slide 1: This was demonstrating how much of an asshole you are willing to put up with in relation to how much influence they have.  As you can see at some point no amount of influence will overcome it and it drops precipitously

Slide 2: Had little to do with the sketch other than showing how very few influencers in social media were actually known for the tangible work they've produced.  The numbers are meaningless.

Slide 3: Was a discussion on how social media likes to jump on the bandwagon of other peoples misery.  Particularly the larger the corporation or when a "social media expert" falls from grace

Slide 4: Discussion of how independent social media consultants tend to oversimplify or 'dumb down' engaging in social media, or how they will take a single perspective (marketing, customer service, branding,etc.) and present their view of social media usage as being holistic.

Slide 5: Was the opposite end of the spectrum.  Large digital consultancies selling to enterprises who actually do get the complexity, but fail to simplify the story

Slide 6: Discussion of social media conferences that at this early stage of the game tend to be preaching to the choir with fluffy messages geared to small business.

Slide 7: Discussion of how there really aren't any social media conferences geared specifically to the enterprise space because noone has really put together holistic solutions in a demonstrable way.  i.e. It's really, really complicated so let's focus on the easier stuff like small business.

Slide 8: Was a in your face (this was an enterprise audience) discussion of the age-old political spectrum in enterprises and how they are still shooting themselves in the foot with ownership grabs

Slide 9: I believe this was during dialog on how you can't just setup accounts in social media, if you're going to be there you have to *be* there else you can do more harm than good

 

Filed under  //   consulting   enterprise   social media   techguerilla original  
01
Aug 2010

Why Should I Pay You? My Approach To How Much To Share

I don't typically post material about consulting in general.  But the irony in writing a piece about 'sharing too much' by sharing too much was simply too attractive to me.

One mistake I commonly see made by those relatively new to the consulting world, is that they overshare their knowledge on blogs in an attempt to prove themselves.  I'm all for using blogs as a vehicle to allow prospects to gauge your level of knowledge, your point of view, and your fit within their particular organization...but as the old saying goes "Why would I buy the cow if I can get the milk for free?".  At the other end of the spectrum are those that never have any truly original material and simply re-purpose what they find elsewhere on the web, there's nothing for a client to get their arms around in regards to your expertise or point of view so no reason for them to engage with you.

I can't tell you exactly where you should draw that line, it varies greatly depending upon your blogging objectives (and your desperation), but I can tell you my approach.  First, I almost never give out "how-to" articles.  How-To information is great if you're only looking for traffic and can monetize it to make a living, but that's about it.  I give away "point of view" materials that make it very clear what my approach to certain subjects is, but not material that you could walk away with and try and execute.  That said, every 4-6 months there will be one main new "offering" that I spend a considerable amount of time packaging.  The approach there is very calculated in determining how I will take that offering apart and segment it into tiers, one of which will be information I push out publicly for free.

It might be easiest if you just imagine a 3-tier pyramid.  
  • At the bottom of the pyramid is the fully formed offering, think of it as a completed book.  It is the tier of knowledge that would be sold to clients in a consulting engagement (and eventually would be used to write a book if that's your objective)
  • The layer above that would be the table of contents with summaries of each section.  This tier is what you would base your presentations on, speaking engagements, etc. You can also extend this tier a little to do paid webinars if the material is appropriate for that venue.
  • And finally, the top layer.  This would be the equivalent of a "book review".  It's opinion based material that touches on the subject matter and makes it clear that there is more depth available below it.  This tier represents give-away blog material, the basis for any marketing materials, etc.  It's your "teaser".  In my case my 'blog' isn't really a factor in my consulting business due to my business model but this tier is where it would go.
As long as there is enough depth to the topic, and as long as you're bringing something unique to the table (either the point of view, or new approach), this method works well for monetizing your knowledge.  The reason I do this 2-3 times per year is simply because it's required to stay ahead in any technology based sector.  But if I'm honest, it also forces me to really stretch myself because I have to not only focus in on solving a particularly in demand customer pain point but make it a killer offering that can be monetized given the methods above.  That latter part is important.  I've had tons of great ideas (or what seemed like great ideas) that simply could not be monetized.  If you're a consultant and don't have a plan in advance for how you're going to get paid you're doomed before you've even gotten started.  If the only thing you have to say when you walk into a client is what they've already read on your blog why would they pay you?

Where consulting is concerned, you don't "share", you "tease".  The above structure is what works for me, maybe there's something in there that will help you find your own structure.

Matt Ridings - @techguerilla

Filed under  //   consulting   social media   techguerilla original  
14
Jul 2010

Social Litmus Tests - Are Agency Executives PH Levels Out Of Balance?

Over time I've had a lot of decent conversation with Olivier Blanchard (@thebrandbuilder) sometimes over even more decent drinks.  And we've certainly conversed enough on twitter to the point that I think I understand his point of view and his expertise pretty well and vice versa.  Which is to say that I always respect where he is coming from even if I don't always agree.  He recently wrote a post on how some large agencies, dealing with large enterprise businesses, are manufacturing roles and backgrounds for social media executives within their organizations.  It's a good article.  And on the surface of it there really isn't much to disagree with.
 
Do I think the scenario he describes regarding the "making" of a social media executive occurs? Certainly.  I have no argument with that whatsoever.  Where I begin to disagree is when he attempts to lay out a litmus test for how one should go about exposing these charlatans (or rather, how to choose a non-charlatan smartly).  I think the example criteria *sound* good, I also they think are presumptuous (the criteria, not Olivier).  We were having a friendly debate on the topic, but on twitter that becomes not only cumbersome but also floods everyone around us with our inane rantings.  So I thought I'd drop my thoughts here instead.  Let me explain by simply addressing each of the criteria that were laid out:
 
  1. EVERY person worthy of occupying a Director or VP level position in the Social Media, Social Business or Social Communications space has been involved in some sort of social/digital publishing for 3-5+ years - You really shouldn't use words like "every", much less put them in all caps, unless you really and truly believe such a sweeping statement is fact and not generalization.  Where does the need for 3-5 years of social/digital publishing come from? Why does publishing something (which to me has zero characteristics of "social") create expertise in leading a large team of people focused on social media?  One of the examples used is Seth Godin, yet Seth is one of the least "social" people I know (not personally, Hi Seth!, simply in the context of social media), when is the last time you saw him personally engaged in social *activity*?  Isn't interaction the hallmark of "social"?  Publishing connotates a one-way process, it is only interactive comments, responses, and dialogs that would make publishing in any way "social".  But to my point Seth is also one of the more insightful, highly strategic, people who "get it" that I know. 
  2. Read their blog. What do you find? Crap content just to fill a page 3x per week and provide search engines with carefully chosen keywords, or is the content actually helpful, well researched, shrewdly analyzed and intelligently presented? - So again, a personal blog is a prerequisite?  A blog is now "social" by default?  I'll reiterate my view that it is not blogging that is "social", it is the interaction (if there is any) that occurs in the sidelines.  I feel reasonably certain that I would be much more impressed by someone giving me real examples, of real work, that they had been responsible for than I would by knowing that this person had a blog.  Do I care that the newspaper editor cannot write a story as well as their columnist?  No.  Do I care that the editor is there to make the columnists work *better* and insure that they hit their deadlines? Yes
  3. Blogging isn’t everything. Lots of people have been blogging for 5+ years but couldn’t manage a Social Media practice if their lives depended on it. Who have they worked with? What have they done? What is their background? What relevant mix of experience do they bring into the role? - Finally, now we're starting to make some sense.  So blogging doesn't make a good social media executive by default.  I certainly agree there.  Hmm, the rest of those criteria look pretty much like the way I would measure *any* role when doing my due diligence.  Certainly nothing in there that says I need to be tweeterific or blogalicious.  I'm cool with that.  Wait, there's more to #3, so let's continue: Note: Though there is no clear path to Social Media management savvy, the individual’s story has to make sense. - This is by far the most salient takeaway.  Even though we've been using words like "EVERY" and "EVERYONE" it's now stated that "there is no clear path to Social Media management savvy".  I couldn't agree more.  But if that's true then why are we trying to assign a litmus test to these folks?
  4. How do they handle themselves on Social Channels? - The question is whether they need to be handling *themselves* at all.  Isn't this about how they handle *clients*? How fluent are they with dos and don’ts of various Social communications platforms? - That's a great question to ask, I'm not sure how you would know the right answers if you are hiring someone to tell you in the first place, but it's still a great question. Have they demonstrated on these channels the ease and fluency that you would expect from someone with real experience under their belt, or are they merely “there,” kind of floundering? - If the question is "have they demonstrated this via client work" then that's fine, if it's whether they as an individual demonstrate it? Who gives a shit.  Truly.
  5. Who outside of the organization and its clients can vouch for them? - I guess the first part of this question is ok, but seems a little crazy to me (when have you tried to track down external references of a *person* within a specific agency you were looking to hire?). I have no idea why the "clients" part is included, to me a client reference of any kind is gold.  If you think clients will "cover" for someone they really don't think very highly of you need to think again.  That said, you will generally only be handed client references that the agency believes will be positive.  But at least you know there *are* positive references of work.  Regardless, isn't this also just standard due diligence work that we all do anyway, for any type of function?
  6. In their initial meetings with you, do they speak more than they listen? - I'm not sure how this differs from evaluating any other type of meeting with any other type of supplier?
  7. Do they care? This is a simple gut check. If they’re into it, if they are passionate about the space and what you might do together, you’re probably on the right track. - Maybe it's just me, but I have to believe that 99% of those in these roles will have (or at least seem to have) passion...particularly those who jumped over several (possibly important) rungs in the ladder to get their job.  Not sure how much stake I'd put in this as a test of ability.

For me, having worked in enterprises and large agencies the problem I have with most of these tests is that they presume these are the most important things to insuring that you will receive quality work.  Outside of the ability to generate winning *ideas* do you want to know what's really important in many large agencies?  Stuff that is absolutely boring and hidden behind the scenes.  Ability to *lead* a team of people and make them better than they'd be without you.  Vision, the ability to take a holistic big picture view of not just today but of a predictive nature so that your agency stays ahead of the curve and invests its time in the right shiny objects.  A thorough understanding of the various media and tools, however you obtained it.  Communication, you must be able to communicate complex concepts and sell them to clients and you must be able to communicate between creative, tech, and business types easily.  

You don't have to be a mechanic to be a great race car driver, I personally think it adds a greater depth to the person, but I also know people who don't engage (as a personality) whatsoever in social media but are some of the most insightful people I know.  I suppose there is an argument that could be made that too much direct engagement could limit your vision.  My point here is that a social media executive at a large agency has a very different set of responsibilities from an independent "expert", many of those responsibilities have little to do with their actual expertise in a particular topic.  Most of these tests seemed far more suited to hiring an individual expert to do work for you than they did an agency.  I suppose it's no coincidence that the "requirements" tended to look very much like the authors (and most of our own) paths which is why we relate to them.  Our world views tend to be defined by our direct experiences, including my own.

There is one litmus test that always works though.  Success.  Has this person made other clients successful and/or do I believe they will make me successful.  That litmus test insures that charlatans who cannot deliver will not last long.  You know what they call "charlatans" who *can* deliver? Experts.  It's the same reason winners always get to write the history books.  A *lot* of the folks that we now consider experts and influencers in the social media space have manufactured backgrounds to some degree.  Take a random list of these folks and ask to see the specifics of the actual work they've done in social media for clients and over what period of time.  Ask to see their work history, their portfolio and past job titles and try and follow them back in time to see if *their* story makes sense for someone who is going to be advising you in a critical component of your business.  It rarely does.  In my experience there are far more individuals doing the manufacturing than there are large agencies.  So does it occur? I'll assume that it does.  Is it something so common that you need to worry about digging up external personal references instead of looking at their work and their ideas?  I say no.

Matt Ridings - @techguerilla

Filed under  //   agency   consulting   social media   techguerilla original  
05
Jul 2010

A Measured Approach To Social Media - Sell The Burger Not The Beef

 

                I’m obviously a believer in social media and its possibilities for businesses.  However, I’m also extremely conflicted about consultants who solely focus on social media.  Many of them, who I personally know and like, are extremely talented individuals and any business should feel confident to use them.  There is also a large group of ‘others’ out there but there have been plenty of articles bashing the “snake oil salesmen” of the industry that I don’t need to rehash that discussion.  And I should clarify here, the problem I'm defining isn't that all they sell is social media solutions/consulting, it's that they don't do so in a holistic way that takes into account other aspects of the business.  

 

             

 

                Businesses need to see social media plans that have taken into account their other needs, ones which have accounted for and justified against the other ways those dollars could have been used, and shown how you can cleanly integrate and compliment their other efforts. Otherwise you’re selling ground beef.  It might be awesome ground beef, but without a grill, a bun and condiments you’ll never be able to compete with my hamburger.

 

Matt Ridings - @techguerilla