Member Since: 10th Jun 2002
Managing Director White Waves Ltd
19th Aug 2011
Yes, indeed, Francesca - that is what we mean by co-creating value. Social CRM is a concept that has a different business philisophy, to the concept of mass marketing (and direct marketing).
Mass marketing/direct marketing/transactional selling was about the philisophy and economics of delivering value. Produce, sell, service.
Social CRM is about the philisophy and economcis of co-creating value. Here is a platform for a specific purpose, let's use it to build profitable networks eg Amazon.
CRM should have been a forerunner to Social CRM philisophy, but in practice was as an adjunct to mass marketing/transactional selling philisophy- that is why all the disappointment set in in early 2001. With the advent of social media, we are watching the same story. Social media can be:
1. a bolt on channel for mass marketing/transactional sales business philisophy
2. used with other CRM technology for supporting the 'co-creating of value' (this is where service dominant logic comes in)
Gartner's SCRM MQ encourages type 1 thinking (eg "vendors will have to show how social data is used in core business processes) rather than type 2 thinking. Although, to be fair to them, they do note what SCRM is about recriprocol benefits, and customer managed relationships. There are, for example, some technology vendors whom I consider support the the philisophy of social CRM very well, but they are not on Gartner's SCRM MQ.
15th Aug 2011
Good article Esteban, and a very worthwhile comment from Vladmir - I agree with you both.
Looking at this from the business management perspective, the issue is that social media is seen as another set of 'bolt on' customer communication channels to fulful strategies that are still economically mass marketing with a customer twist. What are business managers calling 'Social CRM'? Digital Marketing !!! Where digital = electronic, and marketing is still too often marketing communication.
What both digital marketing and social CRM are trying to do is support the idea of 'customer engagement' (ongoing listen converse, engage). However, customer engagement is not just two way marketing communications, it is a very distinct business philisophy, rooted in different economics to mass marketing. Mass marketing, suited the economies of the twentieth century which was looking for welfare growth, to avoid the 1930's depression, and use the production capacity of the second world war machine. But, economic needs are changing (just incase no-one had noticed) and we are now moving to an era where 'scaling up the values of the local store', is more suitable to economic and social times. Technology does have a very big part to play in this, but it cannot play it until the business philisophy is understood, and the strategy and tactics employed.
I also agree with Esteban, that the business philisophy needed in these new economic times is about co-creating value: but, I will go further and say it is also about understanding that you are offering services to customers (even if you sell products, those produces provide a service) and it is the economics of those services that is the rethink required. Companies need to offer a proposition to be of service to customers 'tribes' and act as a platform for that service delivery - some of the delivery will come from the company, some will come from other customers. The company must understand itself to be the centre of a network (relationship network), and its competitive advantage lies in the skilled capabilites (of which technology is one), its influence, its customer relationships and strength of network.
Business economics have changed, and businesses are still struggling with how. The only real emergent support to this is the one that has started to link itself with relationship marekting (or CRM) and is called by the very un-sexy name of service dominant logic S-DL. The issue with S-DL, is that, for now, it is still too academic and not linked to the world of socialCRM/digital marketing. But, if taken and made useful, then it offers the philisophic hook on which tactical digital marketing (together with more personal forms), can link with social CRM (the technology).
12th Aug 2010
Thank you Neil for your endorsement. The action research programme I run continuously, is based on assimilating 'real-life' into concepts that others can then use to improve their own techniques. So, It is good to hear this hits the mark.
In return, can I say that I really do agree with you about finding value through service. I have talked a lot in the past on mycustomer about sales through service. I firmly believe that social media will only be a success when it is primarly approached as a service. After all, our friends are those who help us and whom we help in return. We found this out a long time ago with customer communities, and nothing has changed.
3rd Apr 2007
Brands exist in customers heads (also know as their expectations), how do they get there? Based on the actions and communications of that company in the past, and word of mouth. So how do you make sure that the actions and communications are what you, as a company, want to be known for? You train/coach the staff - you sell the company to them. If you don't then you will get a mish mash of image, and too many people do just that. I don't think anyone has said that brand is just what the marketers or the ad agencies says - but it is the responsiblity of the company and marketers to make sure the brand says something, and delivers what it says. It is the latter that puts the brand in peoples heads.
19th Jan 2006
Great comment Ian and one put by others. I do believe though that the point is for Business and Government (and Society) to work for the same ends, and not oppose each other. Of course strong, healthy, competitive business is crucial for a healthy society. I would also add another benefit of business, innovation. But there are those who would heap the ills of society onto big business and we are not helping with clumsy attempts at customer management. We all need a rethink, if not an image change!
18th Oct 2005
Thank you for your update. I will research this further as you suggest. I would like to know how this is built into process a little more - so few people seem to measure these things to any degree of depth or accuracy. Of maybe the point is that people should be doing it, but are not at the moment.
23rd Jul 2005
Thank you for the compliment.
You are quite right, the use is the most important, and I have touched on that here because I am very aware of it as an issue. However, I wanted in this article to alert people to the fact feedback is everywhere, and in places many do not realize. That it costs money and needs to be co-ordinated and planned.
I intend to go on to look at use in another article.
18th Mar 2005
The most profitable companies are not the most profit-oriented. Good evidence for this is in Economist John Kay's article Forget How the Crow Flies. http://www.insightexec.com/cgi-bin/library.cgi?action=detail&id=4905
17th Mar 2005
Absolutly right Graham. Under Continuously Improve the Value Delivered - I will add constantly work with the Finance Director.
PS Small point. Profit is an excellent word for most but don't forget some organizations who are implementing CRM are 'not for profit' and others Government. Value for them is different.
20th Feb 2005
Thank you to everyone who has contributed to the poll so far. Here are some of the most favoured additional nominations for the jargon hit list:-
Solution - sounds good in practice but cynically overused.Esp in the service industry
Optimization - avoid! Something which is optim cannot be further improved... If it is a relative optimum, then a change of the situation (worse) has to occur before reaching another optimum (wave-shaped curve)
Customer Equity -use by many but few either have either the data or the understand to calculate it and then track it over time - adjusting value propositions and communication approaches based on changes in the value of customer equity.
Feel Good Factor
Customer Lifetime Value - Usually poorly thought through and improperly calculated. Often used to justify inappropriate decisions by customer managers
and one I've never come across
SQLable - looks like you might have to be careful how you say it !!