The standard advice on social media is to listen first, and if you read this blog, you've noticed that I pay a lot of attention to the companies who can help with listening. Despite the articles that group them all together, it's important to note some distinctions. The most obvious is between service- and software-oriented approaches, which differ in emphasis even in companies that offer both.
This is a topic I've been working on for a while (and have a report to finish), but a Friday comment from Joseph Fiore (of the software-oriented RepuMetrix) moved it up the line:
Further to your comments, we have learned over the years that social media reporting is most effective when it functions dynamically. Whether that be for sales automation, or leveraged as a PR device."It depends"For agencies, the advantage with online reporting tools means that any postponed meetings with clients won't require placing a second order for our custom reports, or showing them a week-old report absent of incidents which may have happened in-between rescheduling.
The same applies with our experience in sales automation - the "freshness" factor is where the aforementioned client found the real value of using SM as a sales tool. Again, this may appear to be going above and beyond, but there was one incident where a rep had won an account when he passed his tablet around the meeting room, revealing a timely blog incident that the prospect knew nothing about.
In the decision between tools and services, everyone's least-favorite consultant answer applies. As Joseph points out, software used by the client has the advantage of near-real-time insight. You can look at what's happening in the very recent past (minutes), and you can explore the data interactively, versus waiting for an outside analyst to answer your questions.
On the other hand, the professional services approach offloads the learning curve and resource requirements that can be an obstacle. You gain the experience and insight of the specialist, in exchange for some loss in response time and flexibility, and the cost structure is different. If your company doesn't have information producers ready to do the analysis internally, you can still benefit from listening strategies with outside help.
The right tool for the job
It's a tradeoff—both approaches have benefits and costs. The question (as always) is, what are you trying to accomplish?
Nathan, great job articulating this topic!
There is an historical point of reference with my previous posts at software firms which had a heavy services (almost SAP-like) software deployment model. I'm at the opposite end of the deployment continuum now, with no services required, and the only requirements being a Web browser.
I also acknowledge that I'm a technology guy who works at coming up with media solutions for business. I'm leading up with these as points of reference because I believe that part of trying to understand what business needs to accomplish with regard to listening tools/services must acknowledge that corporate mandates aren't always aligned with corporate culture.
A commenter (Josh) from your original post expanded on uses across the enterprise (which I agree can benefit from SM listening), however this too requires an aspect of convergence which isn't always a given. I expanded on the need for enterprise convergence in a previous post, but I thought I'd describe this a little more clearly with an example from the previously mentioned SM for sales project.
When we rolled out our SM for sales system, we immediately identified issues with reps who weren't using the system to its true potential. Just prior to handing-out blackberrys to all reps, there were a handful that clearly didn't understand the need to check email on more regular intervals, with some not checking alerts for days (these were insights requiring immediate action to assist in lead generation).
Notes were not logged in the sales automation tool, which hampered trigger-based rules for follow-up, and when the role of qualifying leads devolved to business development, the PC's of the BD folks were restricted through IT's access control measures, seriously hampering the "freshness" and response time aspect because they weren't able to view links from facebook, youtube, myspace, etc.
We discovered a few other false starts, and plenty of barriers. Nothing too difficult to overcome, but the kind of issues we might have been able to handle a little more smoothly. And part of this was not because we got a misread on the corporate mandate, but rather because the project parameters and focus were not as readily dialed-in on the corporate culture.
If we are talking about honing the hooks of readiness for companies interested in exploring SM listening and buy-in, then I would have to emphasize the need to address historically proven patterns of selective listening, and stagnant workforce discipline that could render the "freshness" and response time aspects fruitless.
I don't mean to sound contrarian or negative on this final point, but I believe the success of a system must be just as dilligent in "handing-off" the analysis portion, eliminate "spoon-feeding" practices, and this may also mean treading cautiously when it comes to balancing analysis portion through information producers (ie. outside help).
A model of readiness should also be prepared to address and even anticipate potential barriers, and utlimately the winning formula must procure some methodologies that are able to resolve them out of the gate. And to tie-in on convergence point, the more units of the enterprise that could be included in buy-in, the easier it becomes to developing business case, cost/benefit, and purpose.
Thanks for advancing this discussion!
Joseph