Third Idea Consulting

If you’re wondering why the blog has been quiet for the past few days, it’s not a question of laziness—I’ve been working. Specifically, I was at CRM Evolution 2009 in NYC (co-located with SpeechTEK 2009), experiencing my first professional conference as an independent. It was fantastic, and before I write anything else, I have to express my gratitude to the people who made it possible. David Myron (editorial director of CRM and Speech Technology) and Paul Greenberg (conference chair and all-round great guy) outdid themselves from their positions at the top. Bill Spence and Paul Johnston kept the technical side of the show running smoothly. Josh Weinberger, Jessica Tsai, Lauren McKay, and Chris Musico (the staff of CRM); Len Klie, Adam Boretz, and Eric Barkin (the staff of Speech Technology); and all the support staff of Information Today should be proud. I’m sure the staff of the Marriott Marquis Hotel deserve thanks and credit as well. I just don’t like the place as a conference venue, so it’s hard for me to be as magnanimous with my praise.

The reason you’re hearing about CRM Evolution ‘09 now, instead of during the show itself (except for my tweets, hashtag #CRMe09) is because I am not used to doing it all myself. I’ve always had access to a laptop, but I don’t own one—there was no need, and I prefer desktops for personal use. While I knew I’d need to buy one before the conferences started in mid-September, I figured that for late August I’d be able to write my reports from home after hours. Little did I realize that there would be no “after hours” for me. I was getting home so late I only had time to sleep, shower, and go back. Lesson learned.

Paul kicked the show off right with his opening keynote, “The Social Customer: Listen, Then Act.” Not surprisingly, he made an apparently bulletproof case for the power and relevance of social networking technology as applied to CRM. Some highlights:

• The most trusted source of info for customers today is other customers.
• Customers want to do business with companies that are transparent, and that understand and cater to their needs.
• Social CRM humanizes the company in the customer’s eyes, and gives the company insight into its customers.

Of course there’s much more to it than that, and I expect the transcripts and recordings of Paul’s presentation and the many conference sessions will be available before too long.

——————-

It’s been said that trade shows and their ilk are more about meeting and greeting than about learning anything. I have sometimes felt this was true. This conference was both for me. I learned what Sage North America’s next ACT! product will be like (more about that next time), and also got a sense of what SugarCRM is planning in the near future, but most of the learning wasn’t about specific pieces of software.

• I learned how speech analytics can be leveraged in social CRM, courtesy of Steve Graff, vice president of technology and chief architect for Autonomy/eTalk.
• Bruce Temkin of Forrester Research gave a great talk on the CRM journey, teaching more about what it takes for a company to fully embrace customer experience as its chief mission.
• Michael Krigsman, ZDNet blogger, extended his coverage of IT failures to include failures in traditional and social CRM efforts, yielding a lively discussion.
• Brent Leary (CRM Essentials, CRM Playaz, biscuit fiend) unloaded tons of great info in his talk on CRM and the Socially Empowered Customer. Next to Paul’s keynote, it may have been the most eloquent discussions of the power of social CRM I’ve heard.
• Casey Coleman from the government’s General Services Administration and Bob Greenberg (CEO of consultancy G&H International Services) amazed me with examples of how government agencies are using social technology to improve information flow, especially in times of crisis.

That’s just some of what came out of this show; I missed a lot of sessions I’d otherwise have attended due to scheduling conflicts. I also learned more about my own position as a consultant and analyst in the CRM world—there were too many sharp minds around, so I couldn’t help but improve myself by talking to them. Meeting and greeting them—old friends and new, including some I’ve known for some time but never encountered face to face—gave me a serious case of the warm fuzzies.

Maybe it’s because I was working for myself instead of providing coverage for an employer, but this felt like the best trade show I’ve been to in a decade. And that’s just for a relatively small event. My head might explode at Dreamforce.

Businesses, you may be surprised to learn, exist to earn money. So it’s really not hard to understand why many of them are reluctant to embark on any new project—especially one that costs money to implement—before they have a solid idea of how it will affect their earnings. Beyond the company’s products/services, this has been the case with every new technology, every new management principle, and every business process. It’s one of the things that puts money in the pockets of analysts and consultants like me.

Social CRM, and social media awareness in general, is passing from the wowgottahaveit buzzword phase of its existence and entering the cost-benefit analysis phase. There are lots of discussions (or one big discussion, in a way) being had about how one measures the return on investment—ROI—of social CRM. You can see the Wordpress blogs that have touched on it here; I can’t say I’ve read them all yet, and likely never will. A guy’s gotta get out of the home office from time to time.

Forrester analyst Natalie Petouhoff (Dr. Nat to her friends and pretty much anybody else) has a report on The ROI of online customer service communities. Sometime in the near future, Ryan Zuk will be publishing an article on social media monitoring for the PRSA newsletter. I may or may not be quoted in it, depending on how the piece shapes up and what his word count ends up at. (I’m not trying to add pressure for my inclusion, Ryan, just using you as a lead-in to my point.)

If I’m in there, I may come off seeming like I don’t think ROI should be a consideration for businesses implementing social CRM. That’s not the case. It’s the foolish (and often failed) business that doesn’t consider the consequences of potential actions. What I do think is that sometimes “hard” ROI, expressed in dollars and cents, is tricky to estimate and sometimes utterly beside the point.

You can see a few cases where social CRM has made a big difference for small businesses in this New York Times article. Beautiful examples of clear, identifiable ROI—even though most of the social tools mentioned don’t cost anything. These business are reaching out directly to customers, using simple applications as a marketing engine first and a means of receiving feedback or participating in a conversation second.

I’ve developed a habit, when discussing ROI on social CRM for larger companies, of putting things in terms of fear. Next to greed, fear is the prime motivator in business. “Your customers are having conversations about you that you’re not party to,” I’ll say. “They’re also having conversations about your competitors, but some of your competitors are participating. If somebody starts a rumor about your products or your practices, your customers might perpetuate it, and your competitors aren’t going to do anything to stop it, if it’s bad. Can you afford not to listen?”

Of course it’s not all about fear. One of the best anecdotes of social CRM in action is owned by blogger, consultant, and CRM Rock Star Brent Leary. Ask him about biscuits (the American kind), and how a single tweet got him to eat at Popeye’s after a multi-year absence. More than just the $6 revenue Popeye’s got, though, is the tremendous positive word-of-mouth the restaurant chain got by making one response to one person—the right person—at the right time. Brent will be able to tell this story about how Popeye’s “gets it” for years to come—and if he doesn’t, then I will.

My advice to businesses, in brief: Study social CRM as much as you can, see what others are doing and what works best for your particular business. If you can figure out a way to make it pay, then by all means do that. But get in the game regardless. It may cost you nothing, but the rewards—monetary or otherwise—only come when you get involved.

Okay, there are far more reasons to pay close attention to customer opinions than what I’m about to present, but this one’s as good a reason as any. According to a joint study (PDF) by LinkedIn Research Network/Harris Interactive, there’s a pretty wide gap between what marketing professionals and customers think are effective advertisements. (See coverage by AdWeek here.)

The Harris poll explores two main questions: general effectiveness of advertising type, and ads addressing the economic crisis. It’s never explicitly stated, but the poll appears to be focused on TV advertising. Whether or not that’s true, the results can likely be extrapolated to other advertising media.

In terms of general effectiveness, the three biggest gaps are for ads that make the viewer stop and think, that provide new information, and that are integrated into the look and feel of the show they appear with.

• More than half of marketers (53 percent) think ads that make the viewer stop and think are very effective, but just 30 percent of viewers feel that way. That’s a 23 percent margin, for those of you scoring at home.
• Ads that provide new information are only slightly close to the mark: 51 percent of marketers versus 29 percent of viewers feel they’re very effective, a 22 percent gap.
• Ads that are integrated into the feel of a program (The MythBusters build team and their Diesel Diaries commercials for Volkswagen are the best example I can think of) fare particularly poorly, in my opinion. While the gap is “only” 19 percent (26 percent of marketers vs. 7 percent of viewers), it’s a ratio of 3.7:1 which tells me money and effort is being wasted. Informative ads, according to Harris, have 37 percent of marketers and 30 percent of viewers saying they’re very effective, so for every $37 spent you could say that $30 is going to the right place. With integrated-feel ads, every $37 spent equates to $10 spent well. This is not the mathematics of success.

I must say I am shocked—shocked—to discover that marketers don’t have their fingers firmly on the pulse of the people they’re trying to attract.

No, actually I’m not shocked at all.

Let’s be fair to marketers, though. They (as a profession) have had to adjust in recent years to a demand from the C-level for measurability and accountability. (Excellent article from 2007 here;  fresher commentary here.) It’s not an easy thing to have to make wholesale changes to the way you ply your craft, but the marketing department has done so. Now they’re being asked to adjust again, using not only new techniques but new media as well.

“Tough,” you say. “Change is part of growth, so why should anybody get to make excuses?” (I hope somebody said that, otherwise I look like a jerk.) When you’re learning new things while still expected to deliver something useful, you tend to fall back on old habits, good or otherwise. For too long, marketing’s job was to create markets for products—conjuring demand for new products, rather than answering existing demand. This led members of the profession to sometimes value their own opinions over those of the public. This happens when ANY group of insiders/experts becomes too insulated, but marketers have been singled out in recent years as the prime example.

The disconnect between marketers and the marketed-to is just one more reason why social media needs to be integrated into any smart CRM practice. Rather than spending advertising and marketing money on extended campaigns only to find out months later that they’re a failure, the CMO and her team can find out within hours or days whether their efforts have gone awry. Sure, you don’t pull a campaign because of negative initial reactions alone—sometimes a spot needs to grow on people—but in the long run companies will save precious budget and deliver what customers want to see far more effectively.

There are plenty of things I could be writing about today, but there’s only one that I think everybody who’s interested in modern customer-facing business stuff should see. It will probably change the nature of discussion in the CRM biz.

Paul Greenberg (friend, mentor, author of CRM at the Speed of Light) has thrown his weight behind a definition of social CRM, and decided that it shall in fact be called social CRM. We can now get on with our lives.

That last paragraph isn’t intended to be quite as sarcastic as it reads. The fact is, we’ve all been struggling and arguing with the problem of what to call what we do for a long time now, and it has gotten in the way. It has muddled the conversation, confused people who needed clarity, slowed adoption, and even caused minor rifts among us practitioners. Paul commands a lot of respect (and earns a lot of love) for his clarity of thought, his sometimes-brutal honesty, and the obviousness of how much he cares about CRM and social media. He’s been trying for as long as I’ve known him—which is not long enough—to solidify all the terms and concepts we’re dealing with into a more unified body of knowledge, but it’s been slow going because of the lack of consensus. With his so-called “stake in the ground,” we can get beyond arguing about what we do and start helping businesses and their customers meet on common and mutually advantageous ground.

For whatever it’s worth, I am adding my wholehearted support to Paul’s label and definition of social CRM. Not only do I think he’s got it right (especially points 3 and 4), but I’m bloody tired of listing all the synonyms when I try to explain what I’m on about.