Better known as the old 80/20 rule.  In the web world this still applies.  Read up on Italian economist Vilfred Pareto to get some of the history.  I haven’t directly discussed this principle here yet and how it applies to Community insights and research, but I thought it was about time.  This principle is often used in quality assurance or quality control planning and is a fundamental tool in Six Sigma.  Below is a sample Pareto Chart that looks at the hypothetical data relative to frequency of reasons for arriving late at work (thank you wikipedia for the exhibit).

So, why am I talking about Pareto Principle?  I thought this a timely follow up to my post on Community Segmentation.  I don’t want anyone following my blog or thinking about Web 2.0 to think of it as a replacement for market research, user acceptance testing, focus groups, or anything else you may do today to aid in the decision making process.  Your communities can massively augment and improve your customer/user intelligence, but make no mistake it can’t be your only source.  Your community participants may represent a selection bias in your research.  Your elites are a selection bias.  If only a few % of your total users are active in your communities, is it a statistically significant sample? (I did NOT just say that the feedback/insights from these segments is NOT SIGNIFICANT!!!  It most certainly is.  It just isn’t the whole picture).   The largest source of "listening" for many companies is their call centers.  How do your # of callers and your # of community participants compare - are the insights gathered from these two sources different?  In what ways and what might that tell you?  This isn’t an either/or - it’s about building a strong story through all your insight sources.

Consider these questions as part of how you think this through?

• How will your online community investment inform your market and product research processes?
• Do the users in your communities represent your broader set of users?
• What user segments are not well represented?  Why not? How will you understand them?
• Is your community insight capture focused only on "power users"?  If the BBQ company I love only listened to users like me, they would build an amazing BBQ for high end users, but may price or feature themselves right out of the market for the masses.  Who do you want to be?
• When your elite contributors give you feedback, are they representing themselves or the users they are helping?  Ask them.  Generally they know the difference.

I worry about those talking about web 2.0 as the dream "listening system."  If you are doing this right, you need to Pareto and consider all of it.  Most common sources of defects, types of defects, causes of complaints, recommended features, etc. against all your segments and your audience all up.  Then decide based on your goals how you prioritize.  Where Web 2.0 then circles back again is on the need for corporate transparency…sharing how and why you made these decisions.  This is where a bit of courage will be necessary as not all your users will agree with you and in particular, some of your most valuable users won’t agree - but you owe it to them to be open on your process.

Sean

Popularity: 4% [?]

I almost couldn’t have a better example of what I’m talking about on the virtual and viral nature of community.  If you read my initial post on Convincing the unconverted, I talked about the power of the analogy by using my own personal story of BBQing…well, a few days later, the following email showed up in my inbox (names changed for privacy).

Good morning, Sean,

I’m Joe BBQ, the Marketing Coordinator for Cookshack, Inc. I came upon your blog post (http://communitygrouptherapy.com/2007/02/13/convincing-the-unconverted-on-communities/), in which you mention the Cookshack Barbecue Forum. Thank you for the kind words about the forum, it was great to read. I hope that you are still visiting the forum often.

March is the 6 year anniversary of the Barbecue Forum, I would love to quote from, and link to, your blog post about the Cookshack Barbecue Forum in our e-mail newsletter The Backyard Barbecue News. Would that be alright with you?

Thanks,

Joe

Marketing Coordinator

Cookshack, Inc.

www.cookshack.com

1-800-423-0698

I couldn’t have scripted this better if I tried.  I love my Cookshack BBQ and the fact that someone at Cookshack somehow got my post and took this action is a really cool acknowledgement of their commitment to realizing the value of communities to their user base.  Bravo Cookshack…you got me again!!  See you in "Q-ing" forums!

Sean

Popularity: 14% [?]

[digg=http://digg.com/software/An_online_Community_apology_from_Jetblue]

I don’t know if anyone who reads my blog was directly effected by the events at Jetblue, but I think it’s interesting and commendable to see them reaching out personally (and via community - or else I wouldn’t blog about it) to apologize and re-position with a personal face on what is a business and customer service dissaster.  At their site you can read their new customer bill of rights (not ground breaking in terms of a reaction) and more importantly see the YouTube apology from their Founder and CEO.

What I like about the video is that it feels personal, humble and not overly scripted/polished - which to me is what makes it pretty effective.  Unlike corporate apology letters that never sound quite right.  Take for example the recent hoax in Boston and follow up apology letter from Turner Broadcasting.  Now, who is to say which company and executive is truly more sincere…but which one do you believe is more sincere based not of the issue, but their respective responses?

Digg it if you like it!

Sean

Popularity: 8% [?]

[digg=http://digg.com/software/The_Enthusiasts_are_coming]

The most critical step in developing strong and engaged communities is remembering that it’s your core enthusiasts that enable that community to thrive. Without an active and engaged core, most communities slowly, but surely fall away. Now, this is an area I have a HUGE bias for admittedly as this is my full time job to think about. But I wanted to use this example as part of talking about community development.

If interested, you can read about my day job here: www.microsoft.com/mvp. But the point of this post isn’t about the MVP Award program. It is about the phenomena we call the MVP Summit. Approximately once per year, Microsoft invites this active community core to Redmond. This year, the event will be held March 12^th-15^th and about 2000 (of 3500) MVPs have told us they are coming. Bill Gates will kick off the event, but ultimately, this is a relationship building event. It’s designed to develop lasting relationships between MVPs and their peers in the product teams and equally importantly, between MVPs and their fellow MVPs. Something special happens when those who almost solely know each other online are suddenly thrust face to face. It’s an amazing experience. I always look forward to this event and will share pictures here following the event to give you a flavor of the festivities. I know several MVPs are reading my blog now, so perhaps they’ll add their perspective as well.

While much of the attention of this blog will be about online communities and social networking, it’s important to consider as you think about your community the kind of relationship you want to have both with the masses of participants and the most active core.

Sean

Popularity: 7% [?]

[digg=http://digg.com/software/Convincing_the_unconverted_on_communities_Part_4]

Now for my favorite approach to convincing the unconverted on the importance of community. I call it the assumptive close.

#4 The Assumptive Close

I have to admit, I really like this one. It’s almost a version of guilt combined with the already mentioned techniques. It essentially goes like this: "You are going to do it anyway. Why do you want to be last?" Users are going to talk about your products, policies, licensing, people, everything! You really don’t get to decide this. The only decision you get to make is whether or not to participate in that conversation. You must also accept the fact that you CANNOT control the conversation. In fact, the harder you try the more impossible it is. So, what I’m saying is that you (your company) are eventually going to get involved in community (it’s not some fad). Stop selling the company on whether or not to engage and tell them that it is a foregone conclusion that they will. You are here to discuss not the "if," but the when and the how. Got it? Good luck.

Sean

Popularity: 14% [?]

[digg=http://digg.com/software/Convincing_the_unconverted_on_communities_Part_3]

Convincing the unconverted, part 3

For technique #3 of “convincing the unconverted on communities,” I thought I’d talk a little about:  The Data/Evidence driven approach.

#3:  The Data/Evidence approach

Unfortunately this might be the toughest, but at the same time the one with highest likelihood to succeed within a corporation.  What data/evidence to use depends a lot on the following:  

• What industry you are in

• What organization you roll up to (Marketing? Product development? Support? Sales?)

• What communities you have today (is there any baseline data?)

The truth is, there is a community today for almost everything; it’s just that you might not host it.  That might constrain how easily you can collect data from it, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t very valuable to your users. 

Risk:  Don’t let measurement define your strategy…let your strategy define your measurement.  Sounds obvious, but too often it is not.

The following are some thoughts on Data and Evidence that help build the story for communities.  I’m not saying all this is easily measured or completely measurable at all, but these are some of the areas I’ve thought about.

1. Satisfaction and likelihood to recommend – Every company I know does something to measure these indicators (satisfaction being rear-view and recommend being forward looking).  How do your community users opinions differ from non-community users?

2. Product insights – Are you collecting product insight through the community conversations?  Can you compare that to other mechanisms?

3. Outreach – Are your communities extending your brand or helping you reach users (potential users) you never reached before?

4. Credibility – Mastercard model – the independent community voice compared to your “corporate voice” is “priceless”

5. Image/”humanization” – Your chance to demystify your company.  You can “put a face” on your company through bloggers and/or content that is just downright unexpected, and GREAT.  Example:  Check the ReadMe.txt on Channel 9: http://channel9.msdn.com/about.aspx.  My favorite is #8:)

6. Community “Health” – Unique users, return rate, average days active, answer rate, rss feeds, etc 

That’s a good start, I’m sure I’ve missed some good ideas I hope others will add.  I guess I would note that every metric is inherently limited and taken in isolation could really lead you down the wrong path…so check your assumptions regularly (ask your users!).

Next up:  “The Assumptive Close” – a personal favorite

Sean

Popularity: 6% [?]

[digg=http://digg.com/software/Convincing_the_unconverted_on_communities_Part_2]

Convincing the unconverted, Part 2

In my last post, I introduced the topic of “convincing the unconverted on communities.”  I started with technique #1:  The Analogy.

Today, I thought I’d talk about: “Fear by Example.”

#2  Fear by Example

Anyone trying to win this debate in their organization should read the book Wikinomics (www.wikinomics.com).  I think the authors do a great job articulating this approach. 

Wikinomics quote:

“…2006 was the year when the programmable web eclipsed the static web every time:  flickr beat webshots; Wikipedia bead Britannica; Blogger bean CNN; Epinions beat Consumer-reports; Upcoming beat evite; Google Maps beat MapQuest; MySpace beat friendster; and craigslist beat Monster.”

“What was different?  The losers launched web sites, the winners launched vibrant communities.  The losers built walled gardens.  The winners build public squares.  The losers innovated internally.  The winners innovated with their users.  The losers jealously guarded their data and software interfaces.  The winners shared them with everyone.”

While I’m not totally in agreement with all the examples raised by the authors, I think the overall point is right.  Those who engage their users will be rewarded and those who don’t will fail.  So, it’s not about the opportunity presented by communities, but creating fear of failure if you don’t join “the social.”  The world, your users and your competitors will move on without you.

No industry is immune.  Take the following recent press release from Nike:  http://www.nike.com/nikebiz/news/pressrelease.jhtml?year=2007&month=02&letter=a

Quotes from CEO Mark Parker:

“As the market leader, we have the ability and the responsibility to take the industry and our partners to a new and better place,” said Nike Inc. President and CEO Mark Parker. “The ability to connect with consumers is the single most important competitive advantage in our industry today. Nobody does this better than Nike. Our vision is clear. I’ve never been more excited about our opportunities.”

“In today’s world, power has shifted away from traditional brand growth models to growth driven by the power of consumers,” Parker said. “No one is better positioned than Nike to take advantage of this. We will drive growth and build shareholder value by embracing the power of the consumer and creating a new marketplace.”

The story goes on to say:

“The Internet will get more attention for building a community for consumer to make them feel more connected to the company and the sports it supplies,” … “You’ll see that move from a bit of a hobby for Nike to a massive commitment.”

This is a good time in our group therapy for you to share your fears or related stories.

Next Technique:  “The Data/Evidence approach”

Sean

Popularity: 6% [?]

[digg=http://digg.com/software/Convincing_the_unconverted_on_communities]

Convincing the unconverted on communities

One of the issues that has challenged community enthusiasts inside traditional corporate structures is over-coming the lack of understanding of the implications of the shift from the publish/browse web to a participation web.  Let’s face it, most of those that control prioritization decisions, investment decisions, risk management decisions and strategy decisions are at this point inexperienced in the “social.”  A colleague of mine even suggested they were “too old” to even get it…and by too old I think he meant over 25!!  Ok, I’m 37 (very soon) so maybe I should take some offense, but at the same time, I’ve made a big effort to understand it…the exaggeration might not be that far off. 

So, given that we can’t roll back their clocks, a common challenge is how to make it visceral for them.  You have to accept that this is not their problem, but your problem.  Realistically, no single approach is always successful, but I thought I’d share some of mine in hopes you might share some of yours – all can be effective, the edge is in knowing how and when to use each based on your audience or the type of resistance you are experiencing. 

There are several approaches I use and over the next several days, I’ll try to explain them here.  I’ll start with what I call “The Analogy.”

#1:  The Analogy:  I use this one A LOT, especially in scenarios where I know the gap is really pure understanding.  Nearly everyone has benefited from community, but we often try to talk about it so specific to our area of business interest, that it just doesn’t resonate.  I have 3 examples I use a lot.  They are each specifically designed to appeal in different ways (hobby, personal transactions, and a non-standard selection).

·          BBQing (hobby) – This was really the first example I ever used.  One of my hobbies (obsessions according to my wife) is BBQing.  I won’t get into the passions that surround debate on this subject here, but be assured they are as strong and deep as any topic I’ve ever seen.  So, here’s the story – and yes, it is 100% true (these must be for it to work).  A few years ago, my wife bought me a BBQ for Christmas, technically a smoker (www.cookshack.com).  One of the first things I did was go online to register the product.  I immediately discovered an online community hosted at the site.  By the end of the day, I was reading post after post from a guy named “smokin’ okie.”  I was lurking like crazy all the time (and slowly starting to post).  As the months went by, I didn’t really give this a lot of thought relative to my day job on communities at Microsoft.  But, one day it hit me.  I was using this BBQ WAY more frequently than the average person uses a BBQ.  I was buying accessories for it.  I was recommending it to others (I can name 5 people I recommended it to who now own one).  I was using it in non-standard ways – things you won’t read in the manual (by the way, this really builds loyalty as you’re not sure you could do it with a competitor.)  It also dawned on me that my motivations for being in that community were very diverse.  I sought recipes, trouble shooting, tips and tricks, product recommendations, social connections, and on and on – I was really forming relationships.  Since then, that cookshack has become a center piece of a full outdoor kitchen (see flickr photos in sidebar) I had built to extend my addiction to bbqing.  So, how did this relate to Microsoft for me?  Well, let me tell you, software and computers are not a lot different than BBQing.  What does every company want?  They want you to use their products more.  They want you to use a richer set of its features and capabilities.  They want you to add onto it.  They want you to recommend it and they want it to become a focal point in your life.  It’s really the dream scenario – if communities could do that for me with BBQ, couldn’t we do the same with software – another topic with massive passions!!  Now, don’t use BBQing (unless it’s true for you), but do figure out what your “bbq story” is.  What you are trying to do is create a vivid story that helps others discover their own story – then you’ve got them.

·          Buying a camera (personal transaction) – This one is simpler, but I think equally effective as most people can relate to the process.  Here’s the story.  10 years ago most people bought cameras the same way.  They went to the camera shop and the person behind the counter was an “expert” (relative to you the shopper) and that sales person held massive influence over what you bought.  Actually, many manufacturers spent lots of money on channel training, shelf placement, spiffs, etc to help move their products.  Yes, we had consumer reports, but on the whole, I think the approach above is true for the masses.  Today, how do we buy a camera?  Well, if we go into a store at all, we likely know as much or more as the person behind the counter (high quality/specialty stores not withstanding).  We already went to www.amazon.com or www.cnet.com or … and we read user reviews.  We’ve been to communities to read and listen to others.  We trust the voice of other users far more than the mfg or channel – other users are like us after all and they are unbiased (we assume).  Often time, we better understand our peers as well.  What did I hate about my last digital camera?  When I pushed the button to get the picture, the delay often meant I missed the shot.  Do I even know about shutter speed?  If I go to the camera web site, I just see performance data – no context really that I can understand.  Nothing like reading posts from other users who hated the same thing with their prior camera and now are happy with <insert product>.  In fact, it’s in this scenario where I wonder why we go to a manufacturer web site at all?  Don’t I know what it says without going (easy to use, low cost, flexible, powerful, fast, great support, etc, etc, etc)?  Isn’t that roughly what all web sites say?  What’s useful for me is the conversations with other users.  In fact, “why would anyone build a website without hosting user to user conversations” would be my close to this example? 

·          American Idol (non-standard) – I admit, I’m sucked into this show a little.  I also admit it is the first several weeks when everyone is terrible that I really like it – especially the ones who actually think they are good and are really brutal.  But, isn’t AI just another type of “community” delivered through network television (definitely managed – but none the less true I think).  It is all about user generated content and participation in the voting.  Imagine the relative cost of producing a 1 hr episode of AI vs a 1 hr episode of 24 or Lost?  What a great idea!  Not to mention, they just monetized what was once an immensely expensive process – talent discovery.

What are your favorite analogies??

Next technique: "Fear by example"

Sean

Popularity: 9% [?]