Stop. Yammer time!

What is Yammer?

Yammer is an "enterprise social network" which was acquired by Microsoft in summer 2012 and now forms part of thier Office 365 offering. It's an internal social network for businesses - similar in audience and tone to LinkedIn, as a communications platform for professionals - but with the added security of being limited solely to members of staff.

A 'company social media network' would never take off, would it?

A few years ago I wouldn't have been convinced by the need for a company social media platform. On a personal level, the social media sphere was somewhere I interacted with friends and was ocaisionally (and hopefully not intrusively) marketed to by businesses. It definitely wasn't somewhere I would interact with senior colleagues and nor did it need to be - emails and the company intranet would suffice. Companies' awkward failed attemps to set up company Facebook groups were a thing of ridicule not lauded as a great example of internal comms.

What has changed then? Well, on a personal level I think social media has become more pervasive in our lives, and the line between social networking and professional activity has become less well defined. What used to be a flat-out ban on social media usage in the workplace has in some companies become more relaxed and in others even encouraged.

Ok, how can Yammer be used by businesses?

Yammer's website claims it is used by more than 200 companies worldwide, including Shell, Xerox, CapGemini and Westfield. Employees use it for:

• Posting what they’re working on into the social space, to see if others they don't know are working on it too, or working towards similar goals.
• Crowd sourcing answers to problems or issues by asking questions and posting polls
• Sharing insights they’ve come across elsewhere to act as inspiration.
• Share successes in the hope they make work well for others.

If you still can't quite picture this, it might help to think of a practical example. Take the Food Standards Authority - they have a central organisation with many, many field inspectors, who will need to keep in touch with central management on a regular basis. It would also be beneficial to share their experiences with other field workers. Using Yammer, they could all post any difficulties they may come across in certain areas, photographs of situations and advice on how to avoid them etc. alongside recieving updates from central office on the latest regulations.

It does sound quite useful, and also fun, but then obviously I'm quite a fan of social networks. Stop me before I start to Yammer on...(sorry!).

MeatPack 'Hijack' campaign - location-based win, or near miss?

So (as per tradition) I've resolved to blog more in 2013 - setting up Seeningreenwich last year meant Digilance has suffered a little!

First post of the 2013 is inspired by this article on Econsultancy, which spotted a location-based campaign by a Guatemalan shoe store Meat Pack. The idea behind it is that you download an add-on to its existing loyalty app called ‘Hijack’ which then rewards customers by giving them an innovative way to earn a discount.



As the Econsultacy write up puts it:

"Every time one of the ‘Sneakerheads’ entered competitor store the GPS function showed them a countdown timer and an offer for money off shoes.

The discount started at 99% off and reduced by 1% for every second that passed. The timer stopped when the user reached a Meat Pack store.

More than 600 shoppers were hijacked from the competitors within a week, with one of them getting 89% off his new trainers." 

Brilliant idea. Tempt customers away at the point of purchase, with a better offer from your rival store. The countdown timer not only means there's a sense of urgency, but introduces gamification, making the experience fun.

But there's one big problem. The app is an add-on for people who already have the loyalty app. This means they are already loyal shoppers and would have bought from Meat Pack anyway. What's to say that he die-hard "sneakerheads" have not got wind of this discount and gone to a rival store purely so they can then race back to meat pack and get a discount? (If you can't imagine this happening, just picture the scene if apple had run a similar promotion - half the offices in Old Street would be empty as employees raced between Currys and the Apple store, anxiously looking at thier iPhones...).

Ideally for maximum 'conversion', Meat Pack should instead try to target people who are not already loyal customers. There's not an obvious way to do this - even push notifications would require an app - but perhaps if they created an app that less obviously branded and just for the 'Sneaker Fan' it would be a way to get the all-important new customer. Check-ins are another opportunity and if they could somehow harness the Facebook or Foursquare check-in and run the promotion to target these, I think they'd be on to a winner. In conclusion - great idea but not quite there yet!

The Foursquare Special

Many predicted that the introduction of Facebook places would be the death knell for Foursquare, but the network is still going strong.

With 20 million users worldwide (although probably only a portion active), Foursquare is a popular geo-social  network, and brands look to make the most of this. When the network first became popular 'specials' were quite common. These offers were created and managed by brands and venue owners to try and attract custom, and were free to the promoter.

I have seen less of these offers in the last year or so - perhaps indicating that they weren't particularly effective in terms of RI - however this collaboration between Amex and EAT caught my eye.

Check in to Eat, pay £5 and you get £5 credit! Sounds good doesn't it?

Unfortunately I think it's another case of 'no such thing as a free lunch'. I think the offer is a bad idea, for both brand and customer, for two main reasons:

User Experience: The process requires you to 'synch' your Amex card. Forms (which will probably be filled in on a smartphone due to the nature of Foursquare meaning you are on the go), and handing over credit card details. Everyone knows this is a big turn off for the online customer, and will likely put off the majority of punters.

The process was also pretty clunky, having to synch, then check in to EAT, then use your amex to pay in EAT, then click load or something (I had lost interest by this point).

Proposition: Let's think about what the customer is actually doing here, and also take a look at the small print. You are paying for your lunch with a credit card. I personally don't usually do this. I will get out cash or pay with a debit card, but to me credit is something to be used in emergencies, or when I need protection guaranteed for a large online purchase. The small print says 'credit is usually issued 3-5 business days, may take up to two billing periods'.

So let's get this straight. We owe Amex £5 for up to 2 months, before our balance is restored. If just 1%  of Foursquare users took up this offer, that would be a credit card debt of £1,000,000. Perhaps I'm being too cautious about this, but considering how we got into the current economic climate should we really be encouraging the 'stick it on the credit card' culture? Why not just pay with a fiver from the cashpoint? I think Amex and EAT got this one wrong to be honest...

Social Media Case Study: Shell

EDIT: It turns out (thankfully) that this campaign is a hoax orchestrated by Yes Men. Very clever!

It's at times like these you might hear me say that social media just isn't for everyone. A company whose actions are generally quite contentious, would do well not to draw attention to them, no?

Not so for Shell, who thought it wise to open up one of their least popular ideas to the social sphere. 

They asked members of the public to design an advert for Arctic energy production, using beautiful pictures of Artic scenery and overlaying their own text. Here's what happened:

"Turn the power on, it's time to melt some ice"

"You can't run your SUV on 'cute'"

"Some say catastrophe, we say opportunity"

People wrote what they really thought on the posters. In an ironic twist the social voting system (usually employed to encourage users to filter out inappropriate content by voting it down) has meant that those who don't want to destroy the environment, are able to keep their views in the spotlight by others affirming their messages.  

It really couldn't have worked less in Shell's favour if Greenpeace had orchestrated the campaign.

I honestly don't know what Shell were thinking, and the PR department must be panicking now as the site is still currently showing these messages at the time of posting.

Where to go from here? I honestly don't know. They have a few options:

• Remove the website entirely - Not a very 'social' response and would lead to ridicule online and possibly from the press, but would blow over (relatively) quickly.

• Engage with the public, asking them to stick to the advert's intended messaging - although asking people politely to stop is the usual first response to trolling (and a good one) it doesn't really work here because what is being said isn't offensive, and the public have the moral highground.

• Remove the page and replace with a conciliatory message saying something like "we have listened to your concerns and are taking them on board. Please bear with us while we evaluate the best course of action" - Ha! Yeah right. Again, other companies may be able to make this approach fly, but when you're an oil company trying to drill the arctic we're not going to fall for it... 

Moral of the story? If your proposal is going to upset the majority of the general public then don't put it to them publicly via social media. Definitely don't give them a chance to respond. Oh and don't ever, ever, try to con them into creating an ad campaign for you and your morally dubious campaign! 

Rowse Honey Facebook Campaign

At first I was skeptical. To be honest, any time someone on my television screen directs me to their Facebook page I'm somewhat sceptical. It seems a little convoluted for businesses to advertise social campaigns  - paying money to direct people to another promotion.

In this case, however, I was pleasantly surprised, both by the quality of the campaign, and the amount of interaction.

The concept is that staff have made their own adverts and the public vote for a winner to be aired on national tv. Not an entirely original premise (I'm pretty sure I remember a few campaigns like this using YouTube as a platform) however it is well executed and with a couple of nice extra touches.

The videos are good - bit arty but still with a homemade feel so not pretentious - and have sparked a few hundred comments on each one. There are also nearly a thousand votes or 'likes' for each video too.

An appealing feature of the page is the box on the right hand side - people will be more inclined to do something if they know their actions will cause some good, however small. And everyone likes fluffy little bees! 

The next appealing feature is an offer of a free pot of honey. Freebies are always welcome. The only slight hitch is that it's not very obvious where on the page you can sign up for a free pot, unless you spot this bit in the menu under the 'save the bees' feature:

They may not want to give honey away to all and sundry (in fact, the page now says they have run out), but making it less obvious will frustrate the user, and may lead to comments like this:

However although Rowse haven't dealt with the comment above yet, there are some good official responses on the discussion pages. The first one is a nice example of how companies can emphasise their social goals and allay claims of pure commercialism:

And this one below is a good demonstration of how brands can instil trust by being truly knowledgeable  about their product and issues surrounding it, in this case nature:

In conclusion, the Rowse Facebook campaign is a good example of how to use social media to encourage interaction from the consumer, asking for their input on a decision, offering them freebies, and adding an element of charity. It does have usability flaws, yet the friendly transparent nature of the company communications goes some way to mitigate any frustrations.

Overall 7/10   

Digital Recruitment Confusions

Confession: I am a jobseeker. Otherwise known in recruitment as 'talent'.

Since leaving my previous job (end of 2010) it's been an interesting experience to say the least. The digital landscape is so new, and changes so rapidly, that it seems to be a confusing time for both the jobseeker and sometimes even the recruiter!

I'll give a couple of personal examples here and then a few thoughts on what could be causing all the confusion. The first example is a real conversation I had with a recruiter, X who rang me up after finding my CV on Monster.com :

X:   So, I see from your CV that you have worked in social media?

me: Yep, most of my roles have involved social media work, and it is definitely something that interests me.

X:   Great, so in these previous roles were you involved in structuring social media?

me: Uh, I was involved in developing the social media strategy, for the companies I worked for, yes.

X:   Yes but what about the structure? 

me: I implemented staff social media training, so I had a positive influence on the communications structure...

X: [long pause]

Me: Or do you mean the structure of the platforms? I'm not a developer so unfortunately I can't claim to have built or altered the structure of a social media platform...

At which point I was cut off. I'd be really interested to see what the brief for that job actually was! Was he talking about being a thought-leader, how I had shaped  and structured the social sphere itself? Was he trying to get me to describe myself as a social media 'guru' (I wouldn't, I hate the term)? Or had he just got the wrong end of the stick when my CV said I developed a strategy and thought I built a new Twitter? I guess i'll never know. He had called from an unknown number, and I didn't catch his name.  

Experience number two was with a recruitment company I sourced myself. I found their website (a bit flash heavy, but creative and professional) and sent them my CV. They called back for a chat and told me they'd email over a job description that suited what I was looking for. Less than 10 minutes later, someone else called from the same company, to ask if i'd be interested in a job 6k under my expected salary and for a fluent French speaker. He said he saw I had a French A-level and wondered if I'd be happy doing SEO in French??

I realise these two examples won't be indicative of digital recruitment as a whole, and I am also (of course) grateful that my CV is attracting calls at all, but it does seem a bit concerning. I think I may also know one of the problems: terminology. As I said at the beginning this is a very rapidly changing environment, and the English language is slow moving. Unsurprisingly there is a bit of disagreement about we call these people that do all these newfangled things! For example:

Content Manager - this is not necessarily a managerial level role. It could be executive or even entry level. What matters is that the individual is managing content i.e curating what copy and images are on the website. They could be writing the copy themselves or just co-ordinating and sub-editing it.

Web Editor - pre web 2.0 this used to mean the guy/girl that had built the website. This now more commonly means someone who edits the copy on the website, so needs much less technical experience. Of course the web editor should preferably know some HTML, and the principles of SEO but will nowadays be more likely to be editing text via a content management system (not to be confused with the content manager, above) than coding anything.

Q: What do you call the person hired to run the company Twitter, Facebook and Youtube presences? 

A: Social media Executive/Assistant,  Social Media Marketer,  Digital Marketer,  Online Marketer, Social Community Manager (again not managerial level), Community Moderator and many many more. If they also run the blog, this can extend to job titles including the aforementioned 'content' and 'editor' keywords as well.

I have held (and also applied for) many of these roles, but that doesn't necessarily mean I have a skillset to put a swiss army knife to shame! What it does mean is I have looked past the sometimes arbitrary titles, to what the role will actually involve on a day to day level, and seen whether my experience matches this. 

For the moment, until there is an established nomenclature for positions within digital, perhaps this is the best we - as individuals - can do. Recruiters can try to gain deeper knowledge of the digital sector, listening to their clients, and listening to the jobseekers and really trying to get what the person will be doing. This is no longer as simple as "agency side (check) , account manager (check), digital experience (check)" as that last term could me a whole lot of things, in a whole lot of contexts, with a bunch of different names! 

Of course I wouldn't tar all recruiters with the same brush. Some agencies specialise in digital, and others are just genuinely very good and take the time to get to know the client and the jobseeker. I have had the pleasure of meeting and dealing with both these types. I am just interested in the way recruitment has been affected by the myriad of changes in this developing sector, and what might be causing the communication difficulties which appear to be faced by jobseeker and recruiter alike. I'm interested, as always, to hear your thoughts.

Social Media Policy (or "how, when, where and what to tweet. Love from, your employer")

Social Media Guidelines, Social Media Rules, call them what you will, now large companies have wised up to social media, they have started making policies.

For any company with staff tweeting and blogging their way into public consciousness, what these staff are saying will be a concern. Even on their own time, an employee that comments on a competitors blog, or tweets a company secret is a huge liability. There are two camps on this one. Some people leave employees (within reason) to their own creative juices, in their own time and ask that they provide a "these opinions are my own" disclaimer. Other companies actively encourage employee social media activity on behalf of the company and set out regulations to guide their posts.

It's a tricky path that companies tread, between stifling micromanagement and potential PR disasters, and I personally don't think the balance has been found in a lot of cases. Social Media is about openness and sharing, and the more you restrict that, the less value it has to the individual. Who wants to speak when they're being told what to say? More importantly, who really wants to listen to someone who can't speak freely? It's a very hard task juggling transparency and professionalism on such new channels and it often requires whole new outlook.

Some businesses have decided to go public with their corporate social media policies which is great news for us as studying the social media strategies of the giants can be interesting reading.

I'll leave you with a positive example taken from IBM

BM Social Computing Guidelines

1. Know and follow IBM's Business Conduct Guidelines.
2. IBMers are personally responsible for the content they publish on-line, whether in a blog, social computing site or any other form of user-generated media. Be mindful that what you publish will be public for a long time—protect your privacy and take care to understand a site's terms of service.
3. Identify yourself—name and, when relevant, role at IBM—when you discuss IBM or IBM-related matters, such as IBM products or services. You must make it clear that you are speaking for yourself and not on behalf of IBM.
4. If you publish content online relevant to IBM in your personal capacity use a disclaimer such as this: "The postings on this site are my own and don't necessarily represent IBM's positions, strategies or opinions."
5. Respect copyright, fair use and financial disclosure laws.
6. Don't provide IBM's or another's confidential or other proprietary information and never discuss IBM business performance or other sensitive matters publicly.
7. Don't cite or reference clients, partners or suppliers without their approval. When you do make a reference, link back to the source. Don't publish anything that might allow inferences to be drawn which could embarrass or damage a client.
8. Respect your audience. Don't use ethnic slurs, personal insults, obscenity, or engage in any conduct that would not be acceptable in IBM's workplace. You should also show proper consideration for others' privacy and for topics that may be considered objectionable or inflammatory—such as politics and religion.
9. Be aware of your association with IBM in online social networks. If you identify yourself as an IBMer, ensure your profile and related content is consistent with how you wish to present yourself with colleagues and clients.
10. Don't pick fights, be the first to correct your own mistakes.
11. Try to add value. Provide worthwhile information and perspective. IBM's brand is best represented by its people and what you publish may reflect on IBM's brand.
12. Don't use use IBM logos or trademarks unless approved to do so.

This is only a small part of the full policy, although somehow the guidelines manage not to seem to restrictive, just professional. Maybe it's because i've already read this lovely paragraph:

BM is increasingly exploring how online discourse through social computing can empower IBMers as global professionals, innovators and citizens. These individual interactions represent a new model: not mass communications, but masses of communicators. Through these interactions, IBM's greatest asset--the expertise of its employees--can be shared with clients, shareholders, and the communities in which it operates.

It's got a nice feel to it, no? The final two lines are my favourite though:

Don't forget your day job. You should make sure that your online activities do not interfere with your job or commitments to customers.

Right, back to work then! ;)