Third Idea Consulting

The embargo is up, so I can report on a little piece of news I got last week from Oracle. No less a personage than Anthony Lye (with the aid of Susie Penner, one of the best media/analyst relations people I’ve ever met) laid out the details of a partnership with InQuira to deliver an on-demand knowledge management system for customer service. It’s available now.

Oracle and Lye need no introduction. InQuira is a name I’ve encountered before, though the company’s claimed strength is in Web self-service. The partnership itself is not new, either—the two companies announced something similar last year at Oracle OpenWorld, but for on-premises deployments. Today’s announcement extends their work to SaaS.

To quote Oracle’s statement: “The integrated, on demand service solution enables customers to go seamlessly from self-service to live agent-assisted service. Service agents receive overall view of customer issues and actions taken, providing a consistent experience across Web, phone and community-based channels. … With InQuira knowledge management available on demand and embedded in the Oracle CRM On Demand desktop, customer service agents have access to knowledge across the enterprise, enabling them to seamlessly access answers right from within their normal service flow.” Thus, customers who are looking for help or other information encounter fewer bumps on the way up the support chain, while agents can respond more quickly and definitively to customer inquiries. There’s greater likelihood that answers will be consistent across all access points, and the user base’s expertise becomes part of the support mix.

I can’t say that this is a totally unique product—it’s an extension of an existing partnership to provide something similar, and service automation vendors have been working at solutions like this for a few years now—but it does have the stamp of two respected corporate names as well as the addition of SaaS. In my experience, it’s easier to create integrated service environments with smaller businesses, simply because there’s less knowledge to manage and less demand on the delivery channels. Oracle and InQuira working together have a fair chance of extending service integration to really large companies, where customers have previously found it very easy to get lost or confused. The reduced tech footprint of the SaaS option doesn’t hurt either, so companies who are willing and able to go this route should be well served.

Sounds good, right? I think so too, but to be honest I had a little trouble envisioning the structure of the partnership in terms of who brings what to the table and when it comes into play during a service engagement. I’ll be taking a follow-up briefing later today to see how it all works, and maybe get InQuira’s point of view on the partnership. Should anything new and awesome emerge from that call, I’ll update. For now, though, I like what I’ve heard.

I’ve been quiet most of this week because I have been busy preparing for CRM Evolution 2009 next week. There have been some pre-show activities, some reading up on speakers and sessions, and some planning of my own schedule. It should be a good, focused conference, and I say that not just because I used to work for CRM magazine and am friends with most of the people involved.

As a sign of my commitment to the goals of the show, I’ll be hosting two informal “Sunrise Sessions,” one each on Tuesday and Wednesday at 8:00 A.M. (Anybody who knows me will understand that it takes a lot to get me to make an 8:00 appointment–I’m not generally a morning person.) Tuesday’s session will be a discussion of CRM in high-tech; Wednesday’s will be dedicated to social media. I’m looking forward to both, and hope to learn a lot and maybe teach a little. As I said, though, it’s an informal session, not a lecture. Come prepared to have a conversation.

Here are some (but not all) of the other sessions I plan to attend:

MONDAY

• Paul Greenberg’s opening keynote, of course
• A103 Customer Experience: The Facts, the Fiction, and the Journey

TUESDAY

• B203 CRM and the Socially Empowered Customer
• CRM Playaz podcast session — possibly the event of the show, even if it’s only scheduled for 15 minutes

WEDNESDAY

• C301 Social CRM Panel
• Closing Panel: Web 2.0 Meets CRM. What Happened?

I’ll do my best to keep up with Twitter updates, both making them and reading them. The hashtag for the event is #CRMe09 if you care to follow.

I had some other topics lined up for today—my thoughts on what applications like Scanaroo are doing for social CRM, for one—but it looks like there’s some breaking news on broken social tools that must take precedence.

Today saw a massive denial-of-service (DOS) attack against popular social networking sites, most notably Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn. I won’t link to them directly right now—they’re the Big Three so you know how to find them, and they also have enough traffic trouble at the moment—but I’ll cheap out and give you the New York Times coverage here.

Social media like these have quickly changed the way we go about our daily lives, so it’s all the more painful when we info addicts get cut off at the source. I was really looking forward to seeing what was happening in my personal Twitosphere today, not to mention driving some traffic to my site and those of my allies. Twitter has been hit hardest, and despite claims that the problems have been fixed, many users (myself included) still have no access. Facebook has been unreliable as well, so my Mafia Wars conquests are on hold for now. LinkedIn is more of a tactical asset for me—I use it when I need it, but don’t stay connected for long—so I haven’t seen the extent of the damage there, but you can be sure that some important business connections didn’t get made today.

The optimist in me says that when irresponsible scriptkiddies with a surplus of free time and a dearth of creativity launch attacks like this, it ultimately strengthens the sites they attack. But the inner optimist is very small, and not nearly as vocal as the rage-filled monster who wants to make an example of these jackholes with a blowtorch and a pair of pliers, Marcellus Wallace-style. I suppose I’ll have to settle for the criminal justice system, but that will do.

This moment of Ahab-vs.-Moby-Fail also reminds us that social networking and customer engagement aren’t new phenomena. We still have phones, and the ability to go to bricks-and-mortar establishments. Most of the Internet still works, too, so it’s not like the engines of enterprise have shut down altogether. Social CRM is a strategy, and the online component is not the only component.

/rant

In other news, I’ll be guest-blogging for my friends Paul Greenberg and Brent Leary, the CRM Playaz. My piece isn’t live yet, but when it is I’ll have the honor of being their first post. Along with that, I’ll also be chatting with them on their next podcast, recording tomorrow. I can’t get enough of these guys—they combine insight with humor, whether separately or working together. They also show exceptional taste in guests.

The call for corporate transparency is one of the loudest in social media, and one could argue that social CRM has taken flight because customers demanded a way to get past the false front of advertising. That’s why the recent case of Lifestyle Lift drives me up the wall.

Background info: Lifestyle Lift is a cosmetic surgery company that engaged in a marketing practice known as Astroturfing—using false testimonials to give the impression of customer satisfaction. The fraud was discovered, and the New York State Attorney General fined the company $300,000 as part of a settlement. You can see coverage here (via Ars Technica).

Deceptive practices like this are nothing new, and neither is my outrage—I first heard about the Lifestyle Lift situation a couple of weeks ago, in a local newspaper article handed to me by my girlfriend—but I wanted to see how it turned out before venting on my blog. I’m angry for a number of reasons. The company president directed employees to create false online personae and write glowing reviews of Lifestyle Lift procedures, without identifying themselves as employees. They were also to argue with and discredit legitimate critics, since obviously the honest opinions of real people were bad for business. I can’t believe it came from a failure to understand how social media works, so the only alternative is an active desire to commit fraud, coupled with complete disregard and contempt for the public and the law.

What really galls me is that, rather than destroy the company, the AG allowed it to settle for a small fine and a promise to stop their deceptive practices. While $300,000 may seem like a lot of money to an individual, it’s likely a drop in the bucket for a business that offers cosmetic surgery. Their reputation will certainly take a hit, assuming anybody hears about this case, but it doesn’t seem likely. The closest the Lifestyle Lift site comes to admitting wrongdoing is the following bit of fluff, at the bottom of its main page:

The Lifestyle Lift Code of Internet Conduct and Assurance

Lifestyle Lift® pledges that all Internet communications accompanied by the trademarked Lifestyle Lift® logo are fair and accurately represent the latest in medical information about facial firming procedures. The comments and photographs are from actual patients and fairly represent the results and opinions of thousands of our patients. Lifestyle Lift® is proud to take a leadership role in establishing new standards of Internet conduct and communications. We promise that any Internet communication accompanied by our logo can be relied upon as true and accurate; and all communications originating from our practice will be clearly identified with the Lifestyle Lift® logo. If you have any questions or concerns about the authenticity of any internet content or postings, please contact Lifestyle Lift®.

Note the part about taking a leadership role (emphasis mine). They get caught in an institutionalized program of lying to the public and discrediting real people, and rather than admit to wrongdoing they claim to be leading the charge for open and honest communication? That’s chutzpah. Plus, there’s no clear way to enforce the claim, so all Lifestyle Lift has to do in order to keep Astroturfing is to be a little more careful about it. That just ain’t cool.

We have a responsibility, in this increasingly social and connected world, to fight against this sort of thing. To demand honesty and decry fraud. It’s bad enough to see sockpuppets on message boards where it’s all just talk—this is people’s money and appearance at stake. Don’t let Lifestyle Lift get away with it. Don’t let anybody get away with it. Do your part to make sure everybody knows about this bold dishonesty and the wrist-slap punishment it incurred. When you suspect Astroturf marketing is in play, make noise about it. If you’re in business, don’t do it. It’s up to us to create and maintain the honest dialogue we demand, and to make sure those who try to cheat are held accountable.

It might not have been an “eventful” period since my last entry, but there are definitely a lot of things going on in the social media world—enough that I’ve been having some trouble narrowing down my thoughts to one topic. As such, I’ll touch on a number of different things, part-linkdump, part commentary.

More social media guidelines. I’m glad to see that Intel isn’t the only big company getting serious enough about social media engagement to codify its approach (see my previous post here). A recent post on FastForward Blog notes similar efforts by IBM, Sun, and RightNow. Thing 1: The FastForward writer says he was told RightNow’s guidelines were partly shaped by what Intel, IBM, and Sun had set down. Does this mean there’s already a second (or third, or 12th) generation of such corporate policies floating around for the public to see? I hope so. Thing 2: Oracle acquired Sun in April, after failing to reach terms with IBM. I wonder how the acquisition will affect Sun’s social policy, or for that matter Oracle’s.

A man and his brand. Last month (sorry, didn’t see it until a few days ago) filmmaker/author/Jersey boy Kevin Smith did some heavy Q&A for readers of Decider before a live appearance. You can read it here. (NSFW if you’re not allowed to read profanity, or if a guy who answers questions while smoked up is against company policy. I pity those who fit this description.) Say what you want about Kevin Smith (I dig him), this is a guy who really understands himself, his audience, and his industry. He understands it better than major studios who think viral marketing can be made to order and posted to the MySpace and put into the YouTubes. This is a successful creator who knows where he’s from, and what created his fan following, and stays in touch with it without pandering to it. His answer to the third question sums it up well:

Many celebrities seem to guard every shed of privacy they can get their hands on, yet you have always been a very accessible public figure. With a SModcast, a blog, your Evenings With series, and a Twitter, your life seems to be an open book. What drives you to let people into your life in such an intimate way?

I don’t know any other way to be, really. Once media was created that allowed a dialogue to open between filmmakers and audience, there was no way I couldn’t embrace it. This is a communications medium, film. We do this to get a reaction and hear what people have to say about our work. It’s enormously flattering when someone (or lots of someones) are interested in you enough as an artist to wanna know about your life and opinions beyond the actual work that brought you to their attention in the first place. [...]

Kevin Smith is his own successful brand, and he got that way by never trying to be a brand, or be anything other than what he is: a comic-book fan, a regular guy, a sarcastic observer of what he grew up around. I’m not saying that a manufacturer of backed abrasives can have the same ease in relating to its customers, but it’s an ideal to consider whenever social CRM is on the table.

A duel of trust. As our online relationships become broader and more diffuse, we’re starting to ask who we can trust. It’s not surprising that surveys are being conducted on just that topic, nor is it surprising that different sources are getting different answers. The Nielsen Global Online Consumer Survey (via Adweek) says trust of consumer reviews and opinions—other than those of personally-known individuals—is at 70 percent. The Razorfish Social Influence Marketing Report, however, says there is “strong to complete distrust” of anonymous consumer reviews, and only about 33 percent trust of online friends’ recommendations. That’s an awfully wide chasm to bridge. To be fair, though, in the Razorfish report 86 percent of respondents say that “whom they trust is dependent on the type of product.” I don’t imagine a war between these opposing points of view, but trust is an important issue that we need to make sure stays current. I’d say it’s more important to figure out what creates trust than to identify its strongest locii, but that route opens the possibility of manipulating trust—something businesses are often all too willing to try. See this New York Times column by Bob Herbert for an idea of what I mean.

Update 1: Shortly after writing this, I came across the 2009 Edelman Trust Barometer. (PDF link.) It’s a bit more general than the two above, but still quite valuable. Thanks to Prem Kumar Aparanji (@prem_k) and Josh Weinberger (@kitson) for the tip.

Update 2: Also shortly after writing this, I realized I’d left out my take on the United Airlines broken guitar saga. I’ll save that for my next post.

That’s all for now. Keep an ear open for the next podcast of Paul Greenberg and Brent Leary as the CRM Playaz. It’s coming soon, and these two are always on point and entertaining. No link yet, but Paul’s pretty reliable about putting linkage on his ZDNet blog.

Thanks to Metafilter (by way of my girlfriend), I found out about a case involving the apparent power of social media. I would have missed it entirely because of the other recent social media event surrounding Michael Jackson’s death. It involves another celebrity, Adam Savage of MythBusters.

Briefly, the situation as reported in the Vancouver Sun is this: Savage got hit with $11,000 in connectivity charges from AT&T for what amounted to a few hours of use over a period of five days. The company shut off his phone as a result. Savage turned an assistant loose on the provider to try and straighten out the charges, but it appears that the real work was accomplished with a few tweets. (No disrespect intended to the assistant, of course.)

Your first reaction to this story might be, “Aha, the power of social media in action!” (It was my second, right after, “Those guys have the best job ever, and I love that show.”) But if you look deeper—not just in the MeFi comments but read Adam’s own words—you’ll see another thing at work: the power of celebrity.

“A lot of people on Twitter are saying, ‘Well it’s great that it worked for you, because you’ve got 50,000 followers, but what about the rest of us?’ ” Savage said. “And I totally agree with them.”

The fact is that the power of massed customer voices is mostly a sea-change thing for the moment. One tweet, one blog, or one Facebook group typically has little power of its own; as they accumulate, they exert pressure on businesses that want to maintain good public opinion. It’s like emailing your senator or congressperson to ask them to put their weight behind a certain bill—no matter how awesome and right I think I am, my note is almost useless by itself. It’s going to take a lot of constituents to shift a legislator’s opinion, or get one to make it a pet project instead of just something to vote on.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and Adam Savage is capable of a much louder squeak than most of us. Kudos to him for acknowledging this.  The typical customer would have spent days or weeks sorting this mess out, or might just eat the charge if it was small enough. You’d better believe that if AT&T hit me with $11-grand in charges I’d become an instant sensation on Cursebird (NSFW).

The change we’re all hoping for is that businesses don’t just use social media as an alarm system directing them to fires which must be put out. If somebody goes to the trouble of starting a social networking group founded on the premise that your company is run by thieves and/or morons, or makes a public-message complaint that is echoed by others, it doesn’t just mean some customers are unhappy—it means you’re doing something wrong. Fix the damage first, put out the fire, but if your next step isn’t taking a hard look at the policies that caused the fire, you’re missing the point of listening and are a fire hazard.

Also, congratulations to MythBusters cohost Kari Byron (no, she doesn’t know me) on successfully completing her pregnancy internship. Good luck in your new role as Doctor of Momology.

OK, first a disclaimer and personal note: I don’t intend to minimize, ensnarkify, or otherwise make bones on the death of Michael Jackson. It will probably happen anyway, because I have the self control of a cracked-out hummingbird. Let me just say that, while I’d never have described myself as a fan, and Michael’s public image drifted past mockable and into pitiable a long time ago, he was a powerful force in music and entertainment. Starting with the Jackson 5, he brought some great music to the world. Thriller is still the top-selling album of all time. Oh, and could he dance—Sammy Davis Jr. and Fred Astaire (among a great many others) seriously admired Michael’s moves. Admit it, you used to try to Moonwalk because Michael did it. There’s more to Michael Jackson than I’ll ever know, and while parts of his life were unfortunate, ugly, and even self-destructive, I respect a great entertainer when I see one, and Michael qualifies.

The Internet nearly broke on June 25, 2009. It wasn’t hackers, EMP, sunspots, or an earthquake at a critical server farm. No, it was far, far worse.

A celebrity had died.

The first I heard of the situation was from good friend and former office-mate Josh Weinberger (or @kitson to you Twitter addicts), who linked me celebrity gossip site TMZ’s report that Michael Jackson had died suddenly. The journalist in me expressed doubt, and I looked for confirmation; early reports from sources I considered more trustworthy said the 50-year-old pop icon had collapsed, been revived, and taken to a hospital, but the granular truth never became clear to me. Whatever the specifics, the King of Pop was dead, and bloggers and tweeters beat the major news sources to the story.

I’m not going to get into a fight over why a famous person’s death should become world news, especially when there’s so much else going on that could have a material effect on our lives. I’ll let Datamonitor analyst Ryan Joe’s Facebook status update sing that song.

There had already been two other celeb passings that week, but they didn’t make as big an impact. EdMcMahon was 86 and clearly slowing down (is it too soon to resume calling him Old McMan?), and Farrah Fawcett had terminal cancer, so to be blunt their passings were a matter of time.

Michael was a true surprise, and he seems to have had a much bigger and more vocal fan base. The sudden traffic spike brought browsers to a screeching halt; sources at Google said the surge in queries seemed like an attack.

Not Jacko's EKG, Google's.

As with any news of this sort, it gets worse. On the heels of the news of Michael’s death, rumors began to spread that Jeff Goldblum had fallen to his death while on a location shoot in New Zealand. Similar stories concerning Harrison Ford started circulating, then a number of other stars got the R.I.P. treatment.

Goldblum answered back with the only force more powerful than a twitterstorm: the Colbert Report.

Whenever a famous person of any magnitude is reported dead and there’s no reason to expect it, one will always be well-served to check the rumor to make sure it isn’t complete bullshit. The fact that the (confirmed) deaths of pitchman Billy Mays and impressionist-comic Fred Travalena barely made a ripple can be attributed as much to the sudden skepticism caused by the hoaxes as to the relative dimness of their stars. (Sorry guys, but anybody who thinks either of these fellows is on the same tier as those I’ve just mentioned has been watching way too many infomercials and ’70s reruns.)

Twitter is a powerful force because of its immediacy, but also because the 140-character limit means that details are lost or ignored—only the headline gets picked up, and lies can spread as fast as truth. On the one hand, I’m glad that somebody (an asshole, but somebody) decided to inject a little perspective into the rumor mill, and remind us that crowdsourced =/= accurate. On the other hand, such a demonstration could weaken or slow the adoption of social media, and that would be something else to mourn.