A quick peek into some research (and some “mythbusting”) on a post by Christopher Null on Yahoo News titled “Facebook and business don’t necessarily mix.” Great, catchy headline. But does it really reflect the underlying research from MIT? 
I don’t think so. I will also share some comments posted on the PDMA blog from a study by Kalypso that don’t sync up with the commentary. And, I will provide an opportunity for you to speak your mind by participating in a current research study on social media and product innovation.
Commentary and Reactions
I don’t know the author of the post, but when I read it something didn’t sit right with me. For the most part, maybe it was that the title of the post didn’t match the underlying premise. To be fair, I know that some editorial gets “help” with their titles to grab attention (which this one certainly did, at least to me). But here are my thoughts (and feel free to “bust” them yourself, I realize I don’t own all the right answers).
Facebook and Business Don’t Necessarily Mix (Busted) – OK, I know I am picking on the title. But let’s own up to two realities:
1. You don’t have a choice. People on social networks are going to talk about your products. Whether you initiate the conversations or someone else does (customers or competitors), it is going to happen. As the post in PDMA “Do you use social media in innovation?” points out, Social media on your terms is a much better idea than letting others take control of it for you. You MUST get ahead of this.
2. This isn’t what the MIT research says. The post Mr. Null references, “Pitch may fail on Facebook – Study: Social media don’t always create good buzz“, is much more aptly titled. What is says is that buzz can be positive or negative, and that it can actually hurt sales. According to the Boston Herald blog, the research (which I haven’t read, and is not published yet as far as I know) quotes the author as saying that “found that online buzz only helps when new products are at least half as good as consumers expected.” Now that is interesting! The author, P.J. Lamberson, an MIT Sloan School of Management visiting assistant professor, is said to use math to study large networks.
“Conventional Wisdom” (Plausible) – Mr. Null starts his article with “conventional wisdom now holds that if you want to have a successful product launch, you need to exploit Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace to get the word out about your product.” Is this really conventional wisdom? Are most companies using social media today? My experience says no, but I could be wrong. I will admit, my focus is more on social computing for product innovation, product development, and engineering (PLM) and not product launch. But my experience says that companies are experimenting with the use of social media, but it is far from standard operating procedure. The only evidence I have is from some preliminary results from the study being run by Kalypso (Disclosure: I am helping them run the study) that indicates that the use of social networking and social computing in product launches is still not fully developed. In fact, only about 1/2 of companies are using social media for product launch. Further, companies that are using social media are only using it on a small percentage of their initiatives. In other words, we are very early in the use of social media, and it is far from conventional wisdom. On the other hand, the preliminary results show that about 90% of companies that are using social media for innovation are planning to increase usage next year, with none indicating they were reducing it. Why is this Plausible and not Busted? The research is not done – please participate in the survey and I will share results back with you via the blog.
Bottom Line (Busted) – After being generous with the last mark, I was fully planning to Confirm the post’s bottom line. Then I read it again to copy it here, and I disagree. “The bottom line is simple: Viral marketing, in which a conversation about a product is actively encouraged, can turn good or bad in ways that traditional marketing and advertising typically cannot. Unless a business pays careful attention to the tone of that conversation, the company could find itself shelling out millions on a viral ad campaign, only to have the unwanted effect of decreasing sales instead of increasing them.” I copied the whole comment over, because I agree with the first part. Yes, viral marketing can turn bad. But then it says business need to pay attention to the tone of the conversation. The underlying study (from what I can see) doesn’t say that. It says that your products have to meet expectations. In other words, it’s saying you can’t just manage the tone because it is out of your control.
Implications for Manufacturers
So what should manufacturers do? Learn from the study. What I hear is don’t over-hype your products, and don’t try to push a bad product through social media. It seems to me the harder you push how great a product is, the more likely you are to get dissenting view from customers. The study doesn’t say your product has to be good, it just has to meet expectations at least half-way.
Continue to experiment and learn. Social media is changing the way we interact with products. Be a part of the change and experiment. The last bit or preliminary data I will share from the Kalypso study is that those that are doing it are seeing business benefits (revenue, time to market, reduced cost). This is real, get on it.
So that was a quick peek into some recent research on social networking and business, I hope you found it interesting. Does the research reflect your experiences? Do you see it differently? Let us know what it looks like from your perspective. Please feel free to review free research and white papers about product innovation and product development from Tech-Clarity.
What he seems to completely miss is the fact you are not in control of social media. How does he propose to stop/control the positive/negative discussion about your good/bad product? And since when does a social media campaign cost millions of dollars? If you are paying millions of dollars for this then it is not very authentic, nor social.
Chris,
I guess the idea is to not start a campaign if you don’t want to live with the outcome? But if you aren’t in front of this process, it is likely to happen “to” you instead of “by” you. If you have a bad product, it is going to be much more visibile than it used to. Good for consumers, good for people with good products.
Agreed on the millions of dollars, not sure where that figure came from.
Thanks,
Jim
PS – I replied earlier, not sure if you saw it. Disqus is playing tricks on me.
Jim, one of the unfortunate outcomes from this Yahoo piece is that most decision makers will read the Null article and use it as a reference in future decisions rather than actually read and understand the MIT research. I had to laugh at the quote stating viral marketing can turn good/bad in ways traditional marketing cannot. While there may be different avenues in terms of customer discontent, both forms of marketing have the potential to turn good/bad. Remember the “new Coke” fiasco? I don’t recall Twitter, Youtube, FB, etc being commonplace back then. It was via TV and print… aka “traditional marketing”.
Scott,
Not sure if you saw my earlier response, DISQUS has been doing something odd recently.
Thanks for the reminder about the “New Coke” disaster. I wonder how that would have been different? I am sure Coca-Cola had a lot of pull with the TV stations, etc. in how they reported the story. I remember the stories of “stockpiling” the old Coke. I bet that was a big boon to sales!
But I also wonder if they would have gotten the message sooner had they had access to feedback via social computing? Would be interesting to see a similar scenario today to see the differences.
Good one to ponder, thanks!
Jim
What he seems to completely miss is the fact you are not in control of social media. How does he propose to stop/control the positive/negative discussion about your good/bad product? And since when does a social media campaign cost millions of dollars? If you are paying millions of dollars for this then it is not very authentic, nor social.
Chris, to me you either do social media / buzz, or have it done to you. I would want to be in front of it and not fighting fires. Although even companies that are proactive now have to publicly deal with unsatisfied customers. Of course as we discussed at COFES, if they can publicly help those people they can turn it into a win.
Thanks,
Jim
Chris,
I guess the idea is to not start a campaign if you don't want to live with the outcome? But if you aren't in front of this process, it is likely to happen “to” you instead of “by” you. If you have a bad product, it is going to be much more visibile than it used to. Good for consumers, good for people with good products.
Agreed on the millions of dollars, not sure where that figure came from.
Thanks,
Jim
PS – I replied earlier, not sure if you saw it. Disqus is playing tricks on me.
Jim, one of the unfortunate outcomes from this Yahoo piece is that most decision makers will read the Null article and use it as a reference in future decisions rather than actually read and understand the MIT research. I had to laugh at the quote stating viral marketing can turn good/bad in ways traditional marketing cannot. While there may be different avenues in terms of customer discontent, both forms of marketing have the potential to turn good/bad. Remember the “new Coke” fiasco? I don't recall Twitter, Youtube, FB, etc being commonplace back then. It was via TV and print… aka “traditional marketing”.
Scott,
I had entirely forgotten about New Coke, what a disaster. That is a great example. I wonder if there was more social media / transparency at the time if it would have gotten so far out of control? Would they have figured it out sooner and reversed course? I also think that the “stockpiling old Coke” stories that hit the TV station might have been as much company spin to give them an out, but I have never seen a case study (I am sure there are many in the B schools). I think with Twitter, Facebook, and even blogs that they would have had zero opportunity to control the negative backlash, but at least they might have known sooner.
Point well taken, they managed to shoot themselves in the foot without any help from social computing. 🙂
As for people just reading headlines, headlines written for attention versus accuracy, and quick articles that don’t really reflect the facts – I think we are seeing the impact of the fact that anybody can now be a journalist and have a voice. There is a lot of good that can come from that, but people really need to know their sources and pay attention. Unfortunately, that is not always the case.
Thanks
Scott,
Not sure if you saw my earlier response, DISQUS has been doing something odd recently.
Thanks for the reminder about the “New Coke” disaster. I wonder how that would have been different? I am sure Coca-Cola had a lot of pull with the TV stations, etc. in how they reported the story. I remember the stories of “stockpiling” the old Coke. I bet that was a big boon to sales!
But I also wonder if they would have gotten the message sooner had they had access to feedback via social computing? Would be interesting to see a similar scenario today to see the differences.
Good one to ponder, thanks!
Jim
Interesting take Jim. The sensational headlines we see in social media crack me up. I read one the other day on Why You Should Forget About Twitter. In the end it was quite pro microblogging and social media, just saying to forget about the tool and think more about the connections and conversations you create through it.
I laughed at the quote you referenced about “exploiting” social media channels to get the word out. Folks who think that way will not see success or last long in social media channels. The channel enables a relationship and you have to respect that relationship.
While I agree you can’t manage the tone of conversations, I think companies have to be listening and when needed participating in those conversations. So often the negativity happens when they’re not part of the conversation. When they’ve just tried to “exploit” the channels.
I think when it comes to product launches, it’s tough for manufacturers to both adapt to the cultural change required and to find the bandwidth to truly support a social launch when they still need traditional tactics for segments of their audience.
I look forward to seeing what your survey reveals.
Great perspective Dora, thanks. The survey seems to say that there will be some additional focus on post-launch and support in addition to product launch. I think that supports what you are saying, that it is a relationship (and includes listening to participants, not just talking at them).
From what we have seen so far, bandwidth is an issue. But the bigger issue seems to be that manufacturers don’t know what works and what doesn’t. We are in very early times.
Thanks for your contribution, I know you are spending a lot of time learning and exploring in this area.
Thanks,
Jim
Interesting take Jim. The sensational headlines we see in social media crack me up. I read one the other day on Why You Should Forget About Twitter. In the end it was quite pro microblogging and social media, just saying to forget about the tool and think more about the connections and conversations you create through it.
I laughed at the quote you referenced about “exploiting” social media channels to get the word out. Folks who think that way will not see success or last long in social media channels. The channel enables a relationship and you have to respect that relationship.
While I agree you can't manage the tone of conversations, I think companies have to be listening and when needed participating in those conversations. So often the negativity happens when they're not part of the conversation. When they've just tried to “exploit” the channels.
I think when it comes to product launches, it's tough for manufacturers to both adapt to the cultural change required and to find the bandwidth to truly support a social launch when they still need traditional tactics for segments of their audience.
I look forward to seeing what your survey reveals.
Great perspective Dora, thanks. The survey seems to say that there will be some additional focus on post-launch and support in addition to product launch. I think that supports what you are saying, that it is a relationship (and includes listening to participants, not just talking at them).
From what we have seen so far, bandwidth is an issue. But the bigger issue seems to be that manufacturers don't know what works and what doesn't. We are in very early times.
Thanks for your contribution, I know you are spending a lot of time learning and exploring in this area.
Thanks,
Jim
Nice post, as usual Jim.
One of the issues with social media is that volume of buzz can = good buzz, warranted or not. And vice versa, of course, which is the problem. As you noted in your post, sizzle sells or, in this case, gets linked to, retweeted, or relayed in as many ways as they can put buttons on a Web page.
With the SHORT attention span prevalent in the US today, people see the headline repeated and repeated, until IT becomes the truth. (There are some that argue that social media of all types are CAUSING that short attention span. What did I just say? ;-{)>)
We need some type of “real-time Snopes” to help us not only sift the wheat from the chaff, but to know if what we are left with is worth eating.
Stan,
Thanks. I wonder if the old adage “any press is good press” still stands true. In traditional media, getting mentioned in either a positive or negative way tends to promote brand awareness, and people forget what they heard. They just remember the name.
Is that true in a social context? With people posting negative reviews so easily (with #fail, etc.) isn’t it pretty easy to sniff out bad products? Before, there were a limited number of expert reviewers that could be managed. No, we are all critics. If I don’t like a product, I can add my voice to the mix.
I wonder if the research from MIT is saying that social media is different, because negative buzz hurts sales? If that is true, then it sounds like the old adage no longer applies.
Thanks as always for your thoughtful comments! I totally agree on attention span. Scary.
Jim
Nice post, as usual Jim.
One of the issues with social media is that volume of buzz can = good buzz, warranted or not. And vice versa, of course, which is the problem. As you noted in your post, sizzle sells or, in this case, gets linked to, retweeted, or relayed in as many ways as they can put buttons on a Web page.
With the SHORT attention span prevalent in the US today, people see the headline repeated and repeated, until IT becomes the truth. (There are some that argue that social media of all types are CAUSING that short attention span. What did I just say? ;-{)>)
We need some type of “real-time Snopes” to help us not only sift the wheat from the chaff, but to know if what we are left with is worth eating.
Stan,
Thanks. I wonder if the old adage “any press is good press” still stands true. In traditional media, getting mentioned in either a positive or negative way tends to promote brand awareness, and people forget what they heard. They just remember the name.
Is that true in a social context? With people posting negative reviews so easily (with #fail, etc.) isn't it pretty easy to sniff out bad products? Before, there were a limited number of expert reviewers that could be managed. No, we are all critics. If I don't like a product, I can add my voice to the mix.
I wonder if the research from MIT is saying that social media is different, because negative buzz hurts sales? If that is true, then it sounds like the old adage no longer applies.
Thanks as always for your thoughtful comments! I totally agree on attention span. Scary.
Jim
Jim, I think, most of the “social tools/media/networks” innovation is too focused on how to “push” products to market. However, the second side of coin is also required discussion. As Chris mentioned, we are not controlling social networks, and they provide a very important source of information about product usage. So, in my view, we need to think also about “pull” side of information from social networks. There are some of my thoughts on that — http://plmtwine.com/2010/04/19/can-plm-use-twitter-to-predict-the-future-of-products/. Best, Oleg
Oleg,
I think there are three sides to the coin (as poor as that makes the metaphor).
1 – Listening to what people want (requirements)
2 – Telling them what you have (or could have, as concepts)
3 – Listening to their feedback (for support, as well as providing this as new requirements)
Thanks,
Jim
Jim, Completely agree. For me, it means to have an open social communication channel. My last blog post covers 1 and 3 from your list. http://plmtwine.com/2010/04/27/plm-product-development-and-social-search/
However, the same mechanism can be used to push information to the social space. Best, Oleg
Jim, I think, most of the “social tools/media/networks” innovation is too focused on how to “push” products to market. However, the second side of coin is also required discussion. As Chris mentioned, we are not controlling social networks, and they provide a very important source of information about product usage. So, in my view, we need to think also about “pull” side of information from social networks. There are some of my thoughts on that — http://plmtwine.com/2010/04/19/can-plm-use-twit…. Best, Oleg
Oleg,
I think there are three sides to the coin (as poor as that makes the metaphor).
1 – Listening to what people want (requirements)
2 – Telling them what you have (or could have, as concepts)
3 – Listening to their feedback (for support, as well as providing this as new requirements)
Thanks,
Jim
Jim, Completely agree. For me, it means to have an open social communication channel. My last blog post covers 1 and 3 from your list. http://plmtwine.com/2010/04/27/plm-product-deve…
However, the same mechanism can be used to push information to the social space. Best, Oleg
“Don’t mix business with pleasure” – Is that true anymore? I guess the real question is, do you really believe in your product, or are you just a hired marketing arm looking to push your employer’s agenda. Social media gives people a great accessibility to corporations that they might not otherwise have, but it can also expose their flaws. One minute a company’s fans are singing its praises, and the next minute they are doling out the pitchforks and lighting the torches.
Facebook and twitter allow a crack into a company (or individual)’s carefully crafted façade, and if you are going to be out there people will see behind the curtain. If you are comfortable with what’s back there, it will show.
Christine,
Great comments, thanks. I had an old boss that used to say “imagine the Internet creating a glass wall in your factory so your customers can see inside, would you want them to see how it looks?” That was early on in the supply chain visibility days, let alone now where not just your company but your customers’ experience with your products in the field are now open for all to see. For many, I am sure that is an uncomfortable position to be in. For others, it is free marketing from their satisfied customers.
I can say firsthand how it impacted me. I was a long-time Palm customer – an advocate and a fan. I had several devices, including the Palm VII which was the first Internet-capable one. Very cool stuff at the time. But my second Treo never worked right. I tried to get it fixed and couldn’t. I would have believed I just got a “lemon” and been unhappy that they wouldn’t replace it, but instead I read their support boards. Customer after customer said the same thing. “I am a long time Palm customer, and this is the last Palm I will ever own. Palm put out a faulty product and they aren’t fixing it.” Knowing that I wasn’t alone helped me understand that Palm had really changed how they supported customers (they stopped). They went downhill quickly from there, I am sure in no small part based on the product failure that didn’t make mainstream media but was all over the Internet. They lost their support base, because the most vocal fans became the most vocal detractors because of poor product / poor support.
OK, sorry for the long story. Thanks for your comment and welcome to the blog!
Jim
“Don’t mix business with pleasure” – Is that true anymore? I guess the real question is, do you really believe in your product, or are you just a hired marketing arm looking to push your employer’s agenda. Social media gives people a great accessibility to corporations that they might not otherwise have, but it can also expose their flaws. One minute a company’s fans are singing its praises, and the next minute they are doling out the pitchforks and lighting the torches.
Facebook and twitter allow a crack into a company (or individual)’s carefully crafted façade, and if you are going to be out there people will see behind the curtain. If you are comfortable with what’s back there, it will show.
Christine,
Great comments, thanks. I had an old boss that used to say “imagine the Internet creating a glass wall in your factory so your customers can see inside, would you want them to see how it looks?” That was early on in the supply chain visibility days, let alone now where not just your company but your customers' experience with your products in the field are now open for all to see. For many, I am sure that is an uncomfortable position to be in. For others, it is free marketing from their satisfied customers.
I can say firsthand how it impacted me. I was a long-time Palm customer – an advocate and a fan. I had several devices, including the Palm VII which was the first Internet-capable one. Very cool stuff at the time. But my second Treo never worked right. I tried to get it fixed and couldn't. I would have believed I just got a “lemon” and been unhappy that they wouldn't replace it, but instead I read their support boards. Customer after customer said the same thing. “I am a long time Palm customer, and this is the last Palm I will ever own. Palm put out a faulty product and they aren't fixing it.” Knowing that I wasn't alone helped me understand that Palm had really changed how they supported customers (they stopped). They went downhill quickly from there, I am sure in no small part based on the product failure that didn't make mainstream media but was all over the Internet. They lost their support base, because the most vocal fans became the most vocal detractors because of poor product / poor support.
OK, sorry for the long story. Thanks for your comment and welcome to the blog!
Jim
Chris,rnI guess the idea is to not start a campaign if you don’t want to live with the outcome? But if you aren’t in front of this process, it is likely to happen “to” you instead of “by” you. If you have a bad product, it is going to be much more visibile than it used to. Good for consumers, good for people with good products. rnrnAgreed on the millions of dollars, not sure where that figure came from.rnrnThanks,rnJimrnrnPS – I replied earlier, not sure if you saw it. Disqus is playing tricks on me.
Chris,rnI guess the idea is to not start a campaign if you don’t want to live with the outcome? But if you aren’t in front of this process, it is likely to happen “to” you instead of “by” you. If you have a bad product, it is going to be much more visibile than it used to. Good for consumers, good for people with good products. rnrnAgreed on the millions of dollars, not sure where that figure came from.rnrnThanks,rnJimrnrnPS – I replied earlier, not sure if you saw it. Disqus is playing tricks on me.
Scott,rnNot sure if you saw my earlier response, DISQUS has been doing something odd recently.rnrnThanks for the reminder about the “New Coke” disaster. I wonder how that would have been different? I am sure Coca-Cola had a lot of pull with the TV stations, etc. in how they reported the story. I remember the stories of “stockpiling” the old Coke. I bet that was a big boon to sales!rnrnBut I also wonder if they would have gotten the message sooner had they had access to feedback via social computing? Would be interesting to see a similar scenario today to see the differences.rnrnGood one to ponder, thanks!rnJim
Scott,rnNot sure if you saw my earlier response, DISQUS has been doing something odd recently.rnrnThanks for the reminder about the “New Coke” disaster. I wonder how that would have been different? I am sure Coca-Cola had a lot of pull with the TV stations, etc. in how they reported the story. I remember the stories of “stockpiling” the old Coke. I bet that was a big boon to sales!rnrnBut I also wonder if they would have gotten the message sooner had they had access to feedback via social computing? Would be interesting to see a similar scenario today to see the differences.rnrnGood one to ponder, thanks!rnJim
Great perspective Dora, thanks. The survey seems to say that there will be some additional focus on post-launch and support in addition to product launch. I think that supports what you are saying, that it is a relationship (and includes listening to participants, not just talking at them).rnrnFrom what we have seen so far, bandwidth is an issue. But the bigger issue seems to be that manufacturers don’t know what works and what doesn’t. We are in very early times. rnrnThanks for your contribution, I know you are spending a lot of time learning and exploring in this area.rnrnThanks,rnJim
Great perspective Dora, thanks. The survey seems to say that there will be some additional focus on post-launch and support in addition to product launch. I think that supports what you are saying, that it is a relationship (and includes listening to participants, not just talking at them).rnrnFrom what we have seen so far, bandwidth is an issue. But the bigger issue seems to be that manufacturers don’t know what works and what doesn’t. We are in very early times. rnrnThanks for your contribution, I know you are spending a lot of time learning and exploring in this area.rnrnThanks,rnJim
Stan,rnThanks. I wonder if the old adage “any press is good press” still stands true. In traditional media, getting mentioned in either a positive or negative way tends to promote brand awareness, and people forget what they heard. They just remember the name.rnrnIs that true in a social context? With people posting negative reviews so easily (with #fail, etc.) isn’t it pretty easy to sniff out bad products? Before, there were a limited number of expert reviewers that could be managed. No, we are all critics. If I don’t like a product, I can add my voice to the mix.rnrnI wonder if the research from MIT is saying that social media is different, because negative buzz hurts sales? If that is true, then it sounds like the old adage no longer applies.rnrnThanks as always for your thoughtful comments! I totally agree on attention span. Scary.rnrnJim
Stan,rnThanks. I wonder if the old adage “any press is good press” still stands true. In traditional media, getting mentioned in either a positive or negative way tends to promote brand awareness, and people forget what they heard. They just remember the name.rnrnIs that true in a social context? With people posting negative reviews so easily (with #fail, etc.) isn’t it pretty easy to sniff out bad products? Before, there were a limited number of expert reviewers that could be managed. No, we are all critics. If I don’t like a product, I can add my voice to the mix.rnrnI wonder if the research from MIT is saying that social media is different, because negative buzz hurts sales? If that is true, then it sounds like the old adage no longer applies.rnrnThanks as always for your thoughtful comments! I totally agree on attention span. Scary.rnrnJim
Oleg,rnI think there are three sides to the coin (as poor as that makes the metaphor).rn1 – Listening to what people want (requirements)rn2 – Telling them what you have (or could have, as concepts)rn3 – Listening to their feedback (for support, as well as providing this as new requirements)rnrnThanks,rnJim
Oleg,rnI think there are three sides to the coin (as poor as that makes the metaphor).rn1 – Listening to what people want (requirements)rn2 – Telling them what you have (or could have, as concepts)rn3 – Listening to their feedback (for support, as well as providing this as new requirements)rnrnThanks,rnJim
Christine,rnGreat comments, thanks. I had an old boss that used to say “imagine the Internet creating a glass wall in your factory so your customers can see inside, would you want them to see how it looks?” That was early on in the supply chain visibility days, let alone now where not just your company but your customers’ experience with your products in the field are now open for all to see. For many, I am sure that is an uncomfortable position to be in. For others, it is free marketing from their satisfied customers. rnrnI can say firsthand how it impacted me. I was a long-time Palm customer – an advocate and a fan. I had several devices, including the Palm VII which was the first Internet-capable one. Very cool stuff at the time. But my second Treo never worked right. I tried to get it fixed and couldn’t. I would have believed I just got a “lemon” and been unhappy that they wouldn’t replace it, but instead I read their support boards. Customer after customer said the same thing. “I am a long time Palm customer, and this is the last Palm I will ever own. Palm put out a faulty product and they aren’t fixing it.” Knowing that I wasn’t alone helped me understand that Palm had really changed how they supported customers (they stopped). They went downhill quickly from there, I am sure in no small part based on the product failure that didn’t make mainstream media but was all over the Internet. They lost their support base, because the most vocal fans became the most vocal detractors because of poor product / poor support.rnrnOK, sorry for the long story. Thanks for your comment and welcome to the blog!rnrnJim
Christine,rnGreat comments, thanks. I had an old boss that used to say “imagine the Internet creating a glass wall in your factory so your customers can see inside, would you want them to see how it looks?” That was early on in the supply chain visibility days, let alone now where not just your company but your customers’ experience with your products in the field are now open for all to see. For many, I am sure that is an uncomfortable position to be in. For others, it is free marketing from their satisfied customers. rnrnI can say firsthand how it impacted me. I was a long-time Palm customer – an advocate and a fan. I had several devices, including the Palm VII which was the first Internet-capable one. Very cool stuff at the time. But my second Treo never worked right. I tried to get it fixed and couldn’t. I would have believed I just got a “lemon” and been unhappy that they wouldn’t replace it, but instead I read their support boards. Customer after customer said the same thing. “I am a long time Palm customer, and this is the last Palm I will ever own. Palm put out a faulty product and they aren’t fixing it.” Knowing that I wasn’t alone helped me understand that Palm had really changed how they supported customers (they stopped). They went downhill quickly from there, I am sure in no small part based on the product failure that didn’t make mainstream media but was all over the Internet. They lost their support base, because the most vocal fans became the most vocal detractors because of poor product / poor support.rnrnOK, sorry for the long story. Thanks for your comment and welcome to the blog!rnrnJim
Jim, Completely agree. For me, it means to have an open social communication channel. My last blog post covers 1 and 3 from your list. http://plmtwine.com/2010/04/27/plm-product-development-and-social-search/nHowever, the same mechanism can be used to push information to the social space. Best, Oleg
Jim, Completely agree. For me, it means to have an open social communication channel. My last blog post covers 1 and 3 from your list. http://plmtwine.com/2010/04/27/plm-product-development-and-social-search/nHowever, the same mechanism can be used to push information to the social space. Best, Oleg
From the perspective of an ex-purchasing professional, I had so many people pitching to me their “latest” product that I tended to think that the more “marketing-like” the pitch, the worse the product. I’m not particularly surprised that on-line buzz only works when the product is half as good as people expect.
In the automotive industry, the most satisfied customers were the ones who had one problem, took it to the dealer, who fixed it right the first time. They were more satisfied than the customers with no problems.
I think the above concept probably applies to social media and companies. While you can’t control people who are talking, if you show that you both listen and respond to most concerns, that should be a positive for the company.
From the perspective of an ex-purchasing professional, I had so many people pitching to me their “latest” product that I tended to think that the more “marketing-like” the pitch, the worse the product. I’m not particularly surprised that on-line buzz only works when the product is half as good as people expect. rnrnIn the automotive industry, the most satisfied customers were the ones who had one problem, took it to the dealer, who fixed it right the first time. They were more satisfied than the customers with no problems. rnrnI think the above concept probably applies to social media and companies. While you can’t control people who are talking, if you show that you both listen and respond to most concerns, that should be a positive for the company.
From the perspective of an ex-purchasing professional, I had so many people pitching to me their “latest” product that I tended to think that the more “marketing-like” the pitch, the worse the product. I’m not particularly surprised that on-line buzz only works when the product is half as good as people expect. rnrnIn the automotive industry, the most satisfied customers were the ones who had one problem, took it to the dealer, who fixed it right the first time. They were more satisfied than the customers with no problems. rnrnI think the above concept probably applies to social media and companies. While you can’t control people who are talking, if you show that you both listen and respond to most concerns, that should be a positive for the company.
From the perspective of an ex-purchasing professional, I had so many people pitching to me their “latest” product that I tended to think that the more “marketing-like” the pitch, the worse the product. I'm not particularly surprised that on-line buzz only works when the product is half as good as people expect.
In the automotive industry, the most satisfied customers were the ones who had one problem, took it to the dealer, who fixed it right the first time. They were more satisfied than the customers with no problems.
I think the above concept probably applies to social media and companies. While you can't control people who are talking, if you show that you both listen and respond to most concerns, that should be a positive for the company.