One of the most common hesitations I see with businesses wishing to deploy more social techniques of engagement is their hang-up about making a video. This example from Google strikes me as the perfect example of a "social business" video i.e. the "casual" video for social engagement with an invisible professional touch.
I see this reticence whether the discussion is about making videos for internal use (for enterprise social networks) or for external consumption somewhere on the social web. The argument is usually polarised and runs like this:
"We need to professionally present our business and have it professionally made and that will cost us $3,000 per video, I know that because I have just spoken to the video people we usually use".
"No, everybody is used to Youtube and they even use those types of amateur videos on the daily news and even business programs - these days we are all able to get the content without fussing about the quality".
I actually favour the second view, just make it with your iPhone and do the best you can to hold things steady and get some good lighting and sound. People just want to hear what your customers or other employees are saying and if that is in their noisy office or factory that is ok.
OK I'll admit that my leaning towards the more casual approach does not usually solve the problem. Mostly I just think that in time those in the "professional" camp will become more relaxed, and until then they just miss out on the opportunity.
But there is a middle ground, and the Google Deep Learning video shows it. Here's what struck me about this video (aside from the astounding content):
The setting is extremely casual;
The framing, angles, and lighting are professional.
It's extremely "business social".
I think that this is a perfect model for those companies concerned about conveying a professional image in a "social" video. I doubt very much that this cost $3,000 to make, but on the other hand it was carefully planned.
Through my observations and interactions in social media I have developed a high respect for Neal Schaffer, a true Linkedin expert. So when his latest book came out I pestered him for the Kindle release, and here is my review of Maximizing LinkedIn for Sales and Social Media Marketing: An Unofficial, Practical Guide to Selling & Developing B2B Business on LinkedIn.
My review is quite short, and segmented into Positive, Negative, and Interesting.
Summary
Overall I rate the book very highly. There is a mountain of practical advice, and work if you follow-up on all that advice. I'm in the process of touching up my Linkedin profile and making more time for Linkedin again as a result of reading it. But I've deducted one star because of the Negatives. Those Negatives could have been easily avoided, so I assume that they are a conscious choice, and so I'm expressing a difference in opinion rather than fact.
Positive
The book reflects the author's deep knowledge of Linkedin and his own business results from using it in the way he describes. So this is a very practical guide for B2B.
It's segmented and easy to read - I read it in 2 hours - and includes specific Case Studies to illustrate the advice. It clearly explains how to get over the typical stumbling blocks, such as how people and their companies should be represented and interact, and reminds us about the value of the functions of Linkedin that we may have neglected, such as Questions and Answers, and Polls, for example.
Furthemore, by its practical nature it generates a big workload of audits and review and rethinking content and priorities and activies on Linkedin. That meaning that this book can deliver a big outcome if you take up its challenges.
I have developed myself a workload as a result of reading this book. That's a great outcome. If you want to brush up or learn about how to maximise your Linkedin presence value then I recommend this book.
Negative
There were a couple of aspects of the book which disappointed me. The least disappointing was the clear message by the author in the opening remarks, and then from time to time later, that this book is clearly intended to be a companion to his first book. I've never read Neal's first book, and I assumed that given his experience since then that the new one would be a superset. Actually it doesn't even matter what I think, but what I think does matter is that this point is not made clear in any of the product description on Amazon for example. I would not have been disappointed if this had been transparent when I bought the book.
The bigger disappointment was the constant repetition of basic points. The chapters all seem to have published as stand-alone pieces at some point in their life-cycle. They repeat the same things many times, up to 4 or 5, I lost count. They don't repeat them in a pedagogical way, rather, each seems completely blind to the existence of the previous occurrences. This was obviously a chosen format, but I found it distracting and disappointing, almost like things were begin padded out.
Interesting
Neal has strong views about managing your onlinepersonas, along the lines of "Linkedin for business, Facebook for personal". He explains this thoughtfully - at least it made me contemplate my point of view. And he provides a set of filters to run your posts through to ensure that you maintain your professional persona on Linkedin.
It's interesting because personally I don't really subscribe to this theory. What I do agree with is that linking your Twitter to your Linkedin is not a good idea, and that there are things which you need to think twice about before posting on Linkedin. But ultimately everything will be exposed, so I'd rather put effort into working Linkedin to the max rather than worrying whether I should be saying something in Linkedin or my blog or Facebook or Twitter or Posterous etc etc. I think that you just be yourself but don't dance naked on the dinner table at a business meeting, or with friends that you've just met.
On Neal's side he has some compelling evidence to support what he says - and that is the business which he has built from following his own guidelines on Linkedin. That's irrefutable. You might be best to take his advice!
I was going to write a more meaty post today but checking my email this morning I found one from Klout offering me a SIM card from Red Bull Mobile Australia as a Klout Perk. I was intrigued, and seems it is new in Australia.
Red Bull MOBILE is giving key Australian influencers a Ticket to the World of Red Bull.
You are receiving the perk because you are influential and have authority on topics related to the perk. You are welcome to tell the world you love the perk, you dislike the perk or say nothing at all.
So I'm surprised to find I am an influencer. Klout looks for "influencers" on topics related to the offer. I'm not sure what my relevant topic is as I only come up under "social media", "business", "consulting", and "cloud computing". Or maybe there were so few members in Australia they just sent to everyone above a certain level - say Klout of 50?
It seems that Klout Perks have been around for more than a year, but not in Australia. It's a logical idea.
The key to success for Klout is to attract the advertisers and also to have confidence that the Klout "topics" are in fact able to meaningfully segregate. For example I've seen many people with topics like "Australia" or "Japan" - they seem a bit broad. For example, by looking at the Red Bull Mobile website I'm not sure I am really in their demographic - me being a baby boomer? But OK it worked at least I'm talking about them!
It's also interesting to ponder why Red Bull choose this Klout Perks path, as it's little known and I wonder how many people are "Klout active" in Australia. Based on my recent observations it seems that people ARE becoming more active on Klout - I'm not sure why this is happening.
The Klout offers come with "best practice" guidelines for touting the offer to your social web friends - the Influencer Code Of Ethics, which include this:
If you decide to talk about the perk, we will ask you to disclose that you received a sample.
Please check out the Red Bull Mobile offer, and I did receive a sample - well actually I have not received it yet, I have applied for it.
To be honest I don't really need a calling SIM card, I need an iPad data SIM card! But I signed up hoping that they may have been really out-of-the-box thinkers and would give me that option - which they did not! I was also curious about how Red Bull Mobile is going about their launch in Australia.
By using Klout they are showing some innovation, so what else are they doing in social media?
If you know what else Red Bull Mobile are doing in social media please comment below.
By accident I came across a promotion for Vaseline's "140th birthday". It's a product owned by Unilever - a company which boasts 1H2010 sales of €21.9 billion, "underlying volume growth 6.6%, underlying sales growth 3.8% and underlying price growth (2.6)%, underlying operating margin up 30bps with continuing strong gross margins offset by significant investment in advertising and promotional expenditure, up 180bps and a net cash flow from operating activities €2.2 billion, up €0.2 billion".
It's big outfit, with massive resources - more than 13,000 people across North America alone – generating nearly $10 billion in sales in 2009.
As the promotion byline Vaseline asks “How Do You Flip for Vaseline Petroleum Jelly?” and "to celebrate the wonder jelly’s 140th anniversary, Vaseline is compiling the ultimate list of uses by inviting fans to share how they flip for Vaseline Petroleum Jelly".
The campaign centres on social media, and in particular their Facebook page:
...where loyalists can share their favorite uses. The 140 ways Vaseline likes best will be showcased in a video montage highlighting the wonder jelly’s versatility. Everyone who submits a tip will be entered for a chance to win1 a limited edition jar of Vaseline Petroleum Jelly which has been bedazzled with Swarovski crystals.
Nice :)
Where it gets a bit sticky is that the Facebook Page isn't there?!!!
Well, it is there, but empty!
The promo urges you to log on to the Vaseline page and share your tips and usage. And the Wall breathlessly urges:
The Official Vaseline Facebook PageHave you seen all of the new, exciting things happening on our page? Check out the "What's New" tab for a chance to win some cool prizes!
When you click on the What's New Tab, which has also been set as the landing page for facebook.com/vaseline, then you see COMING SOON.
Fair enough. These things happen, but I was a bit taken aback that a massive concern like Unilever doesn't care to coordinate it's PR and "buzz" with the ability to capture that buzz at the destination. It's a bit sloppy, maybe the rollout logistics got stuck in the Vaseline jelly?
Just as another thought about the campaign, although they did manage to get their Twitter page up and running, there is no link or integration to the campaign as a whole. The Twitter URL goes to a generic product page, which again has no connections or links to the Facebook page and campaign. Yet the PR builds this expection of a cross-linked event:
For 140 years, people have been talking about their favorite ways to use Vaseline Petroleum Jelly and now Vaseline is crowd sourcing some of the best tips from fans. The campaign will engage consumers via a newly launched Vaseline Facebook Community (www.facebook.com/vaseline) and Twitter page (www.twitter.com/vaselinebrand) where loyalists can share their favorite uses. The 140 ways Vaseline likes best will be showcased etc etc
I just wonder if anyone thought about the implementation of this linkage as the Twitter page is a dead-end, and from there I'm unsure how anyone would battle back to find the Facebook page.
I also wonder if it struck Unilever that there is a great coincidence gone begging - that the 140th anniversary and the 140 ideas they wish to select and promote coincide with the 140 characters of a tweet? To me this would have provided a vehicle to make some buzz, and to also provide more links between Twitter and the Facebook "community". I don't know what, I'm not that creative, but perhaps they could have used the 140-140-140 to be a really special focus on Twitter as the centrepiece of the promotion - as a hub to spoke out to Facebook?
When you sit back and look at these various aspects of the campaign and how it's been executed so far, it looks a little half-baked don't you think? I'm sure that Unilever can do better, but unfortunately in this case a whole lot of wheels have come unstuck (or got stuck depending on your perspective!).
But you know I amactually curious about the best 140 uses of Vaseline, I think that we could be amazed, so I've liked their empty Page.
How do you think this effort became unstuck in the corporate labyrinth?
How should have Unilever verified the rollout better?
How did their social media team break down?
Do you agree with me that their Twitter connection appears to be a dead-end in terms of this promotion?
Would you agree that the 140 years and 140 ideas could have been "buzzed up" with a connection to the 140 characters of Twitter?
ASB Bank's Facebranch, said to be "the first 'Virtual Branch' application of its kind to be launched by a bank on Facebook", isn't especially interesting to me for its Facebook functionality but rather for its fronting up to the usual corporate fears of social media.
The three most common themes among business executives hesitant about social media are still:
How do we "protect" the brand?
What control do we have over people saying bad things about us?
How do we control what our staff can say?
Bad Banks recently nominated ASB Bank for the 2009 Roger Award, given annually to the "Worst Transnational Corporation Operating in Aotearoa/New Zealand". Bad Banks also has ASB prominent on their Bad Banks Facebook Page. So in the face of the flaming in social media and on the streetagainst the ASB Bank you'd think that their executives would be reluctant to open up for more.
But not so, and good on them.
Even more surprising since they are wholly owned by the Commonwealth Bank, one of the big four Australian bank oligopolists (Commbank, ANZ, NAB and Westpac) where service innovation is an oxymoron - in the main comprising waves of PR campaigns masquerading as consumer service and information. (Through I have to admit the ANZ's Barbara the Banker campaign and ASB's Goldstein are cute PR.)
There's a good review of ASB's Facebranch on Christophe Langlois' Visible Banking blog, where he calls labels it Facebook Branch 1.0 because of its shortcomings, while giving it couple of stars for effort.
I'd think ASB is well aware of the basic state of the current initiative, but it still serves them well, and it opens a channel and a challenge for them to now get to more fully understand. There's quite a lot of design thought gone into this effort and it all hangs together quite well, including the avatars.
Let's face it, if more businesses took this first step of getting Facebook integrated into their customer service in a well thought through way, as ASB has done (they're running a dedicated team of 8 staff in FaceBranch) then it would a huge step forward.
"We believe this is the first 'Virtual Branch' application of its kind to be launched by a bank on Facebook, anywhere in the world," says Anna Curzon, ASB’s general manager of internet banking. "It's really exciting for us to be able to run this application on Facebook and we're working closely with our customers to understand more about what they want from us in social media."
Just as a quick comparison to other banks and their social media efforts, Citi and 1st Mariner and USAA® (USAA Federal Savings Bank) and Mechanics Bank are among those recently quoted as having advanced digital and social media efforts here are some factoids:
ASB Bank's FaceBranch has nearly 5,000 fans now, a few weeks after its launch;
Citi, for all its marketing might and global presence has 3,500 fans of its Facebook Page, which is just a Wall and with only 2 entries since March 2009;
1st Mariner, "proudly located in Baltimore" home of The Wire, has a much more active Facebook Page than Citi and provides more content - such as branch locations complete with FourSquare links (neat!) and videos from the managers - but has only managed to attract about 1100 fans;
The USAA Federal Savings Bank prides itself on being innovative, and according to it's Facebook Page was just named the was named Best in Class for mobile banking "for the second year in a row". There is no doubt that their FB page is far more advanced than ASB. Its My USAA tab/app is the whole box and dice of Internet banking integrated into Facebook. There's lots of activity, with the exception of Discussions which seem to have fallen through the cracks, and there are over 100,000 fans of this bank! Impressive. But in any case let's take ASB's FaceBranch claim at face value, there is room for everyone in these innovations.
Mechanics Bank is a little off the Facebook scene, as I found them hard to find and that they have not even taken advantage of their potential short name facebook.com/mechbank (as in www.mechbank.com) but they do have a Facebook Page with 28 fans. It has 3 posts for this February and none since. I would think that a business like Mechanics Bank would really be able to capitalize on their community connections and make their FB Page a real source of connection and business. They have plenty of content on their website.
As far as other Australia NZ banks go, just as a quick comparison, I couldn't find any Facebook Page for ASB's owner the Commonwealth Bank; Westpac has 74 fans; the ANZ doesn't appear to have a Page although their "Barbara the Banker" PR campaign has a user page with 166 fans; the NAB doesn't appear to have a Page but it's wholly-owned U-Bank has nearly 5,500 fans - U-Bank has a strong social media presence since it is an Internet-only bank. In New Zealand none of the ANZ National Bank, the Westpac NZ or the Bank of New Zealand appear to have any official Facebook activity, at least none that appeared in my searches.
So the ASB Bank stacks up very well considering their FaceBranch is only a few weeks old.
Hat's off to ASB, I like the effort and it's part of a shift which is important for business.
Rather than inventing a whole lot of "Facebook Branch 2.0" ASB is going to listen to their customers, from the perfect vantage point of their Facebook Branch 1.0, and develop what customer's feel is most useful.
To me, businesses are severely underestimating the power of Facebook as an adjunct to their digital engagement, especially services businesses, and I can only say again that if they got their minds around the step that ASB has taken then they'd see potential for themselves. I'm especially interested in how small and medium businesses can use Facebook for eCommerce and migrate that aspect from their current websites.
Which bank have you seen with the best Facebook presence?
What is the best use of Facebook for SMB and eCommerce/Customer Service?
Connie Burke, Communications Manager of Social Media at GM, gave a good interview in CIO Zone and explained something of GM's commitment to social media and the impact it's having on staff and customers.
In a nutshell my take was that there were two main themes, one about monitoring, and one about reaching out to help people and place GM in a favourable front-of-mind when it came to a purchasing decision. That "meeting people" aspect wasn't focused on just those interested in an immediate transaction but in building the relationship in advance. Social media is allowing an "amazing exponential growth of meeting people," said Connie.
Regarding social media at GM other than sales & marketing Connie said that "some months ago", their customer service dept began scouring Twitter, Facebook and some targeted blogs to look for questions, concerns, etc.
In fact, we have at least 6 reps dedicated to doing just that (you can follow them on Twitter: @GMCustomerSvc).
While not every issue can be solved, I believe they are moving the needle and making every effort to ensure that our customers are in the GM family for life.
She described this social media activity as "most certainly a new day and a 'new GM' in many respects, and the power of social media is recognized by senior leaders".
For example you can follow the president of North America, Mark Reuss, on Twitter: @GMDudeinNA
Connie also said that their various brand Facebook fan pages are also another good source to go to with common issues or questions since "We monitor that very closely".
Probably nothing earth-shattering here but a good example of grass roots and also deep corporate engagement with social business.
By the way Connie describes herself in her Twitter bio as "Proud GMer, Part-time Chicagoan, Mom of two fabulous chefs, Travel junkie, Fitness expert, Just kidding, I'm lazy and full of excuses." That's giving things a human face!
Over a really pleasant discussion with Jamie Pappas today I learnt a lot about social media and EMC Corp - one of the corporate leaders and believers in the business benefits of social media.
We covered a lot, and one little snippet that jumped out at me was EMC's very positive attitude towards Facebook. I mean even today if you search on Linkedin I'm sure that you'll find a whole bunch of discussions around not only "why would B2B use social media" but also "Tell me why Facebook would work for business and in particular B2B". If you google those themes you'll be overwhelmed by the results, and I would suggest underwhelmed by the same old last decade hackneyed opinions of the naysayers.
EMC, like Cisco and Intel and Microsoft, are a light-year ahead of the Facebook-for-business-naysayers. In fact Huffington Post's Fortune 100 Companies' Social Media Savvy (STATS) says that 82 of the Fortune 100 tweet on a weekly basis, posting an average of 27 tweets a week. So big business is well out there in social media (including Facebook).
EMC keep a list of all "their" Facebook pages (about 35), meaning their corporate pages, and those set up by staff, and by others. It's not 100% complete, because they have to discover any "non-EMC" pages, and it's not always clear who the administrators of those pages are. It's also not 100% complete because of their open attitude towards their staff starting a page, with a voluntary code of practice.
The 3 Asks
Jamie said that EMC really only have 3 Asks of their staff if they wish to set up a Facebook page:
Check that something doesn't already exist which would suit your purpose;
Share the URL, and the admin details (i.e. let Corp Social Media know);
Keep it active, or close it down.
I was impressed with all these, as it isn't about hard and fast rules, and what you can't do, but about what you can do to exercise your personal responsibility, and what EMC simply asks of you in return.
But I was really most impressed with the last Ask because in that very simple request EMC is getting to the heart of social media and the reason to be there. You need to be alive, communicating, conversing, and maintaining the presence - it's not a one-off exercise. That latter point is also why EMC don't recommend that staff set up a Facebook page for a product spec nor a single event. For that type of "campaign" purpose they can use one of the many socialised Event options within EMC's existing presences e.g. Events in a corporate FB page.
There's also a bit of brand protection, since a dead page can be a turn off to customers, and that's to be avoided.
Keep it Active
So what's it mean - "keep it active"? Again no rules but the EMC suggestion is:
3 to 5 relevant posts a week, excluding raw links to articles, press releases etc
active monitoring
responding
administering - remove anything that shouldn't be there, don't let anything escalate without warning.
If you're not able to tend to these tasks, then it's recommended that you consider shutting it down.
Is that really it?
OK, I hear you ask, is that really it for a company of EMC's size (43,000 employees), reputation, brand value, and shareholder obligations? Anyone can just launch on Facebook?
Well no, of course there is a milieu - an environment or setting. Key is leadership, from all levels about the wealth-generating power of social business, there is desire to have employees engaged and participating in all things "company" and social media is one fabric for this, and there is a desire to be open with customers, despite in some ways still being a conservative company within.
And there is social media training, and a Social Media Club, and a Social Media Advisory Council. And of course there is a social media Policy, which I place last as a necessary but totally insufficient part of embracing social media yet which often dominates management's attention elsewhere.
Are there any downsides to such a liberal open-minded approach. Sure, there is some cleaning up to do from time to time, some duplication, some fails, and some lessons. The lessons are what the Social Media Advisory Council think about, and make any continuous improvements.
While some firms regard the possibility of negative comments as "risks", EMC sees them as opportunities to engage and to learn. As Jamie says, customers will often not tell you something face to face but will put it out in the social media andexpect that it will be discovered. It's an opportunity to be proactive.
Business benefits outweigh the risks
Overall, in EMC's judgement, the business benefits of tapping into to enthusiasm of employees wishing to communicate outweighs the risks of the lightweight "approvals" process for staff wanting to set up on Facebook.
What do you think of EMC's approach?
Would it work in your firm?
Would it work in firms you advise, and why or why not?
I read recently an admonition in a comment to a post that social media/business "only works well for companies who already deliver a competitively superior product".
I don't agree with that comment, especially since by definition the majority of companies don't deliver a "competitively superior product" - the majority deliver a fit-for-purpose product which satisfies a value equation in the mind of the buyer.
It's the old salesman's lament - we're having trouble selling it because we don't have any competitive advantage. Sure, so how many companies are selling the next Walkman or iPad? A minuscule fraction of a percentage point. Most are selling pizzas and Chevrolets and doing ok, some very well. Go get another job!
Fast Company just reported on how JetBlue has redefined the airline category and now has the 4th greatest "social currency" of all US brands, headed by BMW, Mercedes and Lexus - Apple #5.
Here's the amazing truth, in a comment by Erich Joachimsthaler, CEO of Vivaldi Partners and author of the study. He thinks JetBlue's blue chips, visual identity, terminal, TVs, and amenities are distinctive but not breakthrough different.
"Every aspect has been copied or exists with another airline. As a brand that follows this logic of distinctiveness, social media and technologies are the absolute godsend communications tool. A distinctive brand disproportionately benefits from social tools."
Aha. The sum of the parts is greater than the whole, and amplified through social media. This is the business of incremental or continuous improvement, leveraged through social media, as opposed to "creativity" "brainstorming" and "innovation departments". And since social media is the lever of WOM just as steam powered the lever to create the Industrial Revolution then social media powers WOM to create tremendous shareholder wealth.
JetBlue's greatest distinction is that it ensures satisfaction in an industry where it's competitors don't seem to care. (My mind flashes to banks, there's an opportunity!). So what happened to the poster child Southwest Airlines in all this - perhaps they just missed the social media oomph of JetBlue?
So the message is to let the little bits add up, sweat the details, make sure it all integrates, including the social media strategy, and then let WOM do it's job.
I'm also thinking that JetBlue have mastered that tremendously illusive quality of brand depth. We're pounded by brand promises, and the airlines are masters at the smooth ad, but not only does the promise rarely align with reality, but when something goes just slightly wrong you find yourself dealing with a hell on earth i.e. there is zero brand depth.
What's your take on Jet Blue's success and the role of social media, and where did Southwest fall off the map?
Reporting on other surveys of social media trends I said that "The only thing certain about surveys of the business use of social media is that the trend is UP."
Adoption and awareness continue to trend upward, with 91% of firms using at least one social media tool in 2009 and three-quarters describing themselves as “very familiar” with social networking.
Companies were also monitoring mentions of their brands in the social media space, at 68% this year. That figure was climbing steadily, up from 60% in 2008 and 50% in 2007, reports eMarketer.com.
According to the Center the INC 500 are outpacing the Fortune 500 in the use of social media, a trend continuing into 2009.
I wonder if this is really correct in 2009?
According to the Center - in 2007, the Center’s first study of this group and their use of social media was released and revealed that the Inc. 500 was outpacing the more traditional and larger Fortune 500 companies in their use of social media. For example, at that time, some research showed that 8% of the Fortune 500 companies were blogging compared to 19% of the Inc. 500. This difference continued in 2008 with 16% of the Fortune 500 blogging vs. 39% of the Inc. 500. And it appears the Inc. 500’s lead in blogging will continue in 2009 with the Inc. 500 now blogging at a rate of 45%.
For example the Social Media Academy, in a recent survey, found that 70% of the Fortune 500 are engaged in social media. The difference between this 70% and the CMR's 80% may only be statistical or errors from the survey questions. For example in the CMR survey only 148 out of the Inc 500 responded.
Other findings
The CMR study had a few other interesting findings which were not generally reported on or picked up from the press release.
1. For the first time in this series of studies on the Inc. 500, executives were asked if their company uses social media tools to communicate with other companies like vendors, suppliers or partners. Again, social networking is the most widely used with 34% reporting they employed these tools. Twitter is being used by 26% of the Inc. 500 for this purpose. It is interesting to note that 1 in 4 Inc. 500 companies consider Twitter an appropriate vehicle for B2B communications.
2. Another question added to the 2009 study focused on the company’s use of search engine and/or social networking tools to recruit and evaluate potential employees. With the ease of access to information on people, it is no surprise that over half of the Inc. 500 are using search engines to assist in the recruitment and evaluation process. Google was the most popular search engine cited by executives. Forty-eight percent indicated using social networking sites such as Facebook, Linkedin and Twitter.
3. When queried on the importance of social media, 26% of respondents in 2007 felt that social media is "very important" to their business and marketing strategy. That figure rose to 44%in approximately one year. It remains virtually the same in 2009. It is clear that this group of fast-growing companies considers the use of social media as a central part of their strategic plans.
Excuse my disparaging language but how did they think that bringing in a PR hack to a nightly current affairs show posing as a former disgruntled customer was ever going to work in this day and age?
You can see from the comments on the article exposing this that it has really just pulled the rug out of Telstra's efforts to convince people that My Telstra Experience was anything but yet another PR stunt. That bit is not being derogatory that's just stating the facts as revealed in the comments - universally negative.
If we think about some of the tenets of not just social media, but also customer relations, we think of openness, transparency, disclosure, and perhaps even honesty!
In posing their PR hack as a customer Telstra failed transparency, failed openness, failed to be honest, and of course failed in disclosure. I mean this was utter contempt for the public and and a complete and utter FAIL. It's hard to go on because it is just such a complete exposure of the potentially PR-based thinking behind the whole My Telstra Experience.
Time will tell whether this IS a fatal blow, right out of the gate. The campaign was less than one week old!
As for my own "Telstra Experience", since I am interested and also a mobile phone and a landline customer, I went to sign up. My experience hit a brick wall at the first step as my browser choked on the very first page. I have all the latest Flash etc, just updated them the other day, but it couldn't break the registration system. That's just a small UI hiccup as thousands have registered, but it stopped me.
In related news Perth Nowpublished a "Memo to David Thodey: here's what your Telstra customers want fixed" after asking for comments from its readers.
...since Telstra put out the call yesterday for customers to tell the struggling telco how to fix its woeful customer service, our readers have scrambled to join the queue. Perthnow.com.au readers ripped into Australia's big telco, slamming it for a complete lack of care, having staff who can't speak English, and of being "too far gone to fix". Instead of getting answers, Telstra got brickbats. Only a few readers gave helpful advice. Rex wasn't one of them, emailing us with: "Their prices - even with their new ones - are between 'not competitive' to 'an outright ripoff'," he said. Telstra this week admitted it didn't know how to fix its woeful service standards, so it called on customers to tell it how to do it.
There's no shortage of people with a willingness to comment. The question remains open - how willing Telstra to listen and to act and to be seen to be acting in good faith?
Recent Comments