Co-blogging Goodness Round 2: Eric and Jamie Tackle Scaling Community Online and Offline

Co-bloggin’ goodness, round 2: One is a seasoned corporate marketer working for Best Buy. The other is a small-agency young-gun in a constant quest for his spurs. Both are passionate about making positive change in the industry, and they want to share their thoughts with you. Jamie Plesser and Eric Dodds bring you the second post in a monthly co-blogging series that tackles tasty marketing topics from both sides of the line. Meet the crew:

Eric: I was raised in Upstate South Carolina and roped in by a small, big-hearted agency called Brains on Fire. I’ve had my hand in qualitative research, account management, community management, and even a little bit of strategy. You can usually find me hiking outdoors, tinkering with a bicycle, or tackling the next improvement project at my house. (Oh yeah, I just started using Twitter again, too.)

Jamie: I’m a native Kansas Citian but call Minneapolis home. The Twin Cities rock on many levels…except for the length of the winter. Work-wise, my gig is in the consumer marketing space at the corporate HQ for Best Buy. I dig live music. I wish I was better than a novice guitar player. I love Kansas Jayhawk basketball. And I am a Royals fan in hibernation. (If you’re into the Twitter thing, you can find chatting or ranting with friends and colleagues over there.)

This month’s menu: “Scaling community online and offline: is online easier to scale than offline? If so, how? What are the main barriers to scaling offline?”

————————

Dodds

Ah, the online versus offline community discussion. I’m passionate about figuring out what role each plays for companies, so thinking through this month’s topic with Jamie has been really great.

In the past two years I’ve actually had the privilege of being involved in both types of projects – one with a gigantic offline component, and one whose goal was online growth. For the offline project, my job was to beat the bricks to grow a grassroots community of both employees and customers. (Good times working with Jamie.) The other project focused on helping a company grow their online fan base, primarily through Facebook.

When I think about both of those experiences, the simple answer to the question, “is scaling community online easier than offline,” is, absolutely. Why? For starters, it’s easier for both the companies and the customers – especially the customers. Click, click, done. Almost nonexistent barriers of entry.

Looking past simple answers, though, that this question about scaling begs an even bigger question: what is the purpose of scaling?

Answering the purpose question is critical because online and offline are a [hack saw and a razor blade - come up with a different example?]: they both cut things, but they work best in very different situations, and produce very different outcomes.

Here’s are some of the differences I learned working on those projects:

Offline

Without question, the work I did offline, which was for a relatively short time period compared to the year I put into Facebook for the other client, the connections that people made through the program were extremely strong. Far stronger than anything that developed online in the same project. I remember single offline events where meeting and working with people produced hours and hours of unsolicited investment in the community by members, hard-working promotion of the program by members, and actual friendships that lasted long after the program ended.

I remember getting emails about the program from members 6 months after I’d met them, asking how I was doing me and updating me on their life / their involvement with the brand. That kind of strong-tie connection, though, doesn’t come without blood sweat and tears:

Barriers to scaling offline:

  • Time: Building things offline is much, much slower. It’s a long-term investment that needs time to build and grow. From my experience, face-to-face relationships mature much more slowly than online relationships, and forging those bonds takes time. (How many ‘friends’ can you make online in a day?)
  • Money: Building community offline is much, much more expensive. Offline events and programs can drain budgets with surprising speed. Traveling is expensive. Offline collateral is expensive. Coordination is expensive. Personnel are expensive.
  • Manpower: Executing awesome offline programs takes a lot of manpower, and a lot of man hours, and in my case, sleeping on the floor of a band’s touring van for a few weeks. Depending on the type of event, you’re looking at setup, tear-down, staffing, support, and more. It’s a handful, and it can take a lot of hands to do it well.

Beating the bricks offline: some connections I made on the road.

Online (social media)

The social media team that did the work of building an online fan base was only two people: me and someone from the brand. We had tons of amazing support from our managers and internal teams, but as I look back, the amount of growth that the two of us achieved by being the brand’s voice on Facebook is pretty amazing. Using content alone, we were able to almost triple the number of fans in less than a year.

We fostered as deep of relationships as we could through that content and online conversation, but here’s what really struck me: the deepest relationships and strongest word of mouth that developed were a small number of instances where an initial online conversation led to an offline surprise and delight for the fan.

Through some rather sticky situations, we also figured out that for this brand, social media was a really good way to disseminate important information about events at lightening speed, or keep people up to date on play-by-play happenings they might be interested in. It’s amazing how quickly information can move on the Internet.

Lastly, we determined that for certain types of customer service, Facebook was simply more convenient and effective for both us and the customer.

Like offline, though, all of the progress we made didn’t come without lots of hard work, but there were also some barriers that are unique to the medium:

Problems with online scaling:

  • Measurement: Proving return on investment for social media is just plain hard. Not that it’s easy for other mediums, but since online is a different tool, it requires different reporting, which can be hard to sell.
  • Ease of coming and going: Since social media relationships are heavily weak-tie, your fans can leave at a moment’s notice, and they do. Or they just ignore you. In my experience, few brands ever ‘earn the right’ to be a regular part of a customer’s social media landscape, mostly because the real goal is selling something to them.
  • Monetization: It varies by industry and company, but in my experience, sustainably monetizing social media beyond coupons, giveaways, and short-term promotions is very difficult.
  • Customer service investment: Online customer service is still takes an incredible amount of investment – it was the most laborious aspect of anything we did on Facebook – and in some ways, it wasn’t ever as good as human-to-human offline service.

Why are you scaling?

I come back to the purpose for scaling: everyone wants a huge audience, but to what end? What type of scaling makes sense for your brand? What type of investment makes most sense for your long term growth?

Successful scaling of either online or offline grows out of solid, measurable goals, and my guess is that many companies will use a smart combination of both.

————————

Jamie

The idea of brands building communities always brings a wry smile to my face.  Why?  First off, I believe that the majority of people within companies don’t have a good understanding of how brands should think about consumer communities and how they can help solve marketing challenges.  I’ve been in more meetings that I can count where the idea of building a community was suggested as a solution to a business or marketing challenge.  When in these meetings, I ask questions and seek to understand why there is a need to do something community oriented.  I usually get an answer that has to do with “connecting with the influencer” or “getting to the mommy bloggers.”  I’ve found that if I hear these rote explanations it’s pretty much a red flag that the people aren’t really sure of what they are talking about.

The second reason why I’m fond of this topic is that I’ve worked on the front lines of trying to bring together a group of kindred spirits and I know how hard it is.  It is not easy work but when done well it can be rewarding.

On the surface, today’s co-blogging question is pretty easy to answer from a national brand perspective.  Online approaches to scaling a community are easier than offline.

But the important question is why is that such as easy answer?  Really, it gets back to one word in the original question: scale.  National brands are built on the premise of trying to leverage economies of scale.  When it comes to trying to either connect with communities or trying to develop one, digital and online platforms represent the opportunity to build scale quickly while being able to manage costs and maintain efficiencies.

What’s the cost for a brand to establish a Facebook page? Zero.  A Twitter account? Zero.  A Google+ page.  Zero.  A Tumblr page? Zero.  An Instagram account?  Zero.

Now I’ll admit that I’m being a bit facetious here.  I know that brands do spend legitimate money on developing digital experiences, spend media dollars on platforms like Twitter and Facebook, and invest resources on teams of community managers.  But my point is that it costs roughly the same amount of investment to build a digital community presence for one person as it does for 100,000 people.

While digital tools represent the ability to get to scale cheaper and easier, my perspective is that automatically going with this approach may overlook what I think is a very important component to communities: the power of personal connectedness.  If you look at data from Keller Fay, you know that far and away the majority of word-of-mouth conversations happen offline.  If you look at data from Nielsen, you know that active social media users are even more social offline.

To me, this signals that there are benefits for brands to build offline connections with consumers that may not translate automatically to communities in the digital space.  This doesn’t mean that it cannot happen within an online environment; rather, it may not have the same depth as it does offline.

For brands to be well served in community efforts, I believe they require groups of kindred spirits to come together and connect.  Certain brands have this happen innately in their consumer base and those folks aggregate together naturally – both offline and online.  For these brands, it’s easier to go with a strict digital approach and let the offline connections foster on their own.

For other brands where this connection with consumers is not quite as organic, then honest discussions need to take place about what the brand is looking to achieve through the creation of a community, what the expectations are, and whether those expectations are achievable through a strictly digital approach to the program.

(Photos courtesy of creative commons license: Jeremy Brooks.)

3 Responses to “Co-blogging Goodness Round 2: Eric and Jamie Tackle Scaling Community Online and Offline”

  1. January 25, 2012 at 4:13 pm, carolross said:

    Great post!  Thanks for reinforcing the underlying questions that often get overlooked in community-building, including “for what purpose?”  I also love the points both of you make about the importance of having interactions take place both offline and online, because they each have different strengths.

    Eric–thanks for pointing out where social media really excels: “to disseminate important information about events at lightening speed,
    or keep people up to date on play-by-play happenings they might be
    interested in.” I’m helping my husband put together a social media strategy for a chorale group that he is the executive director for and your observation will be useful. I’m also taking note of your “easy come, easy go” observation.

    Jamie–thanks for the pointer to data about word of mouth conversations as well as offline behavior of active social media users.  Both have large implications.

    Question:  With the increased use and functionality of FB and Google+ to share rich information and foster conversation, what is role of blogs in nurturing a community?  In the past, I thought of a social media eco-system as one that had places for “thought leadership” and also had places for distribution/engagement/conversation around that thought leadership.  Now, I’m not so sure.  I’m wondering if blogs are now places for people to sample a “body of work” (Pam Slim has been using that phrase a lot these days and I resonate with it).  

    Reply

    • January 25, 2012 at 5:16 pm, Eric Dodds said:

      Carol, thank you so much for the kind words. This was a really fun post to work on with Jamie. 

      Great question about the nature of content on different networks. I think the answer can be a little bit slippery because networks of people consuming content online vary so greatly. 

      To start, though, I think we have to look beyond functionality. Just because a network gives you the ability to distribute rich information and foster conversation doesn’t mean that users want to consume it there. 

      From there some great questions come up: why do people use Facebook and Google+? Does content you want to create or consume even make sense in the context of why people use the network? Does putting content on a network only members can access make sense? Will changes in the network beyond my control jeopardize content and conversation in the future (a good example of this is an article I wrote about Google Reader)? 

      People use these networks for sharing anything and everything, but my guess would be that very few are looking for rich, long-form content like, say, the blog post above. 

      Some people like to make broad generalizations about massive shifts in technological tools. I’m sure there are arcticles titled “The Blog is Dead.” 

      I’m not sold. Blogs (and forums) are still extremely robust tools for sharing and talking about information, and in certain situations they’ll make more sense than other networks. 

      Instead of trying to chase changes in technology, we always start by asking, “what is our goal,” and then figuring out which tool is the best one to use to reach it. 

      Again, thanks for sharing your thoughts!

      Reply

  2. March 11, 2014 at 11:29 am, Willy said:

    Love your idea. Great post. http://socialmediagrow.com

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>