Reprinted from “Bright Ideas,” an online newsletter by The Woolbright Group.

Using Social Media to Engage Your Alumni and Donors – Part I
Interview with
Mary Ann Cicala
Associate Director of Alumni Relations, Emerson College, Boston, MA

Jennifer Conboy
Associate Director, Electronic Communications
Office of University Advancement
Boston College

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org) defines “social media” as: “Media designed to be disseminated through social interaction, created using highly accessible and scalable publishing techniques. Social media uses Internet and web-based technologies to transform broadcast media monologues (one to many) into social media dialogues (many to many). It supports the democratization of knowledge and information, transforming people from content consumers into content producers.”

To find out how colleges and universities are harnessing the power of social media as an element of a broad-based communications strategy, we turned to two forward thinking advancement professionals for their perspectives.

WG: Let’s start with the basics: please define “social media” –and why do you think it has become such a phenomenon?

Mary Ann: I believe that social media is a catch phrase for all online venues that have become the modern day “Third Places.” Urban Sociologist, Ray Oldenburg, describes the concept of Third Places in his book, The Great Good Place. It’s a place where anyone can socialize or hang out. Cafes, coffee shops, bars, and other centers of the community are instrumental in the culture of our country. Like these civic venues, virtual communities provide a sense of place and become informal gathering places where people feel at home.

There are three essential ingredients to a well functioning third place: they must be inexpensive, highly accessible to neighborhoods or a regular part of one’s routine, and should be a place where large numbers of people gather regularly to feel welcome and comfortable. The varieties of social media platforms online provide synchronous and asynchronous social interaction between media and consumers—in other words, the audience can easily be both producers and consumers. This ability to engage in dialogue in a public forum enriches public life because it invokes a sense of civic pride while providing opportunities for companionship and relaxations after a long day of work or school.

I believe that “social media” has become a phenomenon because one no longer has to leave the home (first place) or the office (second place) to interact socially because these virtual environments have the potential to function as new (albeit digitally mediated) third places similar to pubs, coffee shops, and other hangouts. The irony is that it is not uncommon to see consumers engaging in third places provided by popular social media platforms while actually sitting in, say, a coffee shop!

WG: Which platforms are you currently using, and please give us some specific examples of how you are using them.

Jen: At BC we have created a presence on Twitter (@BCAlumni), Facebook, YouTube, and LinkedIn. Twitter has been our focus recently since we started “Tweagle (as in twittering eagle) Tuesday.” Every Tuesday we ask a question relating to something on campus. Once responses come in, we re-tweet them, and the re-tweet spawns more comment. On Facebook we have a fan page dedicated to graduates of the last decade and we try to provide event updates and other content relevant to this group on the page. Our YouTube presence isn’t something we promote directly, but more that we use it to store all the videos we create. When we want to drive traffic to a specific video, we generally point alumni to our web pages where the video is embedded. Lastly, LinkedIn isn’t something that we officially manage from BC, but we work closely with the volunteer that created the general Boston College Alumni group.

Mary Ann: The alumni relations team at Emerson College incorporates online platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Flickr. My favorite example for how Emerson is using social media is through Facebook groups and “fan pages.” The Emerson College Alumni Association has a Facebook fan page that links all of the official clubs, groups and other fan pages. For example, volunteers built a fan page for the class of 1999 as they planned their 10 year reunion. The Facebook fan page enabled the volunteers to encourage classmates to post updates similar to class notes, share and comment on photos that encouraged nostalgic conversations, and send personalized notifications to specific regions. Building on the momentum of the “25 Random Things” fad, one reunion committee volunteer posted a note entitled “Top 10 Favorite Things About Being A Class of 1999 Emersonian,” then “tagged” all of her classmates and encouraged them to repost their own list. This became viral and soon classmates all over the country began posting and commenting on each other’s notes and lists.

Emerson recently had a tough month with some bad press. But what’s interesting is we have alumni engaging in this conversation. Someone might post a negative comment, but then others will post a counter-point. So there is opportunity in a crisis situation! You want it to be organic, you don’t want to stop the conversation.

WG: What do you consider to be the greatest benefits of using social media?

Jen: One of the major benefits that I’ve seen is that we can immediately tell how interested alumni feel about the messages we post by their interactions. Using http://bit.ly links we can track how many clicks we are getting on our posts to Twitter or Facebook. Facebook also has a feature to “like” posts that alumni find interesting. Our goal is to continue to provide content that alumni are interested in getting so that they feel that BC has helped them in some way. Also, if they feel this content is interesting, they will be more likely to pass it on to other BC friends in their networks.

Mary Ann: Social Media provides multiple touch points. It’s viral when friends are invited to download items, newsfeeds share updates with friends and contacts; and the third party platform [can be used to] send emails and reminders–thus making it a softer touch point for the institution.

In our presentation [Jen and I] talk about your “three places:” home/work/where you socialize. I think that what the phenomenon is – social media is replacing the traditional third place.

Another of my favorite examples is one alum’s use of the Emerson College Alumni Association discussion group on LinkedIn. While many alumni successfully take advantage of this networking platform to post job openings, brand themselves, and seek insight in their career paths, this alumnus posted the question, “Who was your favorite professor?” To date, this is the most popular discussion with 130 responses in the form of “comments.”

WG: Do you consider social media to be an integral facet of your communications strategy?

Both: Without a doubt! It’s part of the discussion in everything we do now.

WG: Do you have a formalized social media strategy? If yes, what are its components?

Mary Ann: Emerson College is currently formalizing a social media strategy. In June, the College formed a “Social Media” working group. To date we have published white papers on Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. The group meets monthly and reports to the Vice Presidents for Communication and Marketing, Institutional Advancement, and Admission. The goal is to have a unified and branded image and to advise the institution as we work towards a formalized media strategy.

Jen: We don’t have a formal strategy yet. We are spending more time strategizing about the messages we are sending out in general and how those are communicated via our website. From there, we will use social media sites to drive people back to the web site. To help with this process, we have added another position to the Advancement Communications and Marketing team; there are now three positions dedicated to the web: Web Specialist (technical), Electronic Communications Specialist (manages all emails), and Associate Director of Electronic Communication (pulls it altogether).

WG: Do you use these tools differently in relation to your various target audiences, ie, alumni, donors, prospective donors?

Jen: We do not differentiate between donors and prospective donors when targeting social media sites. We did, however, reach out to donors specifically during our Neenan Challenge last fiscal year. During the challenge we asked donors to help us share our email messages across their BC networks. We included a “share” button (by addthis.com) on every message so that our donors that offered to help out could easily pass along our email messages.

Mary Ann: In the beginning, Emerson College used the various online tools differently to
target our audiences. For example, LinkedIn, was originally the best choice to engage more experienced alumni (15 years and out) while Facebook and Twitter were the best platforms to engage younger alumni. However, this is no longer the case. Alumni of all ages and backgrounds can be found on the many social media platforms.

It is important, however, to note that print communication should still be factored in with marketing and communications. While the majority of alumni can be reached through social media platforms, and while these platforms provide much more cost efficient means of communication—there is still a large enough population who are resistant to social media. At Emerson College, we will sometimes limit our mailings to alumni who are not registered on our online communities, or for whom we do not have working emails.

WG: Do you find that your audience segments tend to self-segregate, ie, gravitate to one version of social media vs the others?

Mary Ann: In the beginning Facebook tended to be for a younger audience. Now we’re finding that [alum from the] mid 70s – 80s are participating. LinkedIn is a more mature audience. Twitter started out young, but the alum who are on Twitter are very savvy social media users.

Jen: Because our Facebook presence is geared toward alumni 10 years out, we don’t know if an older audience might participate otherwise. Twitter seems to be used by a broad range of class years and I would agree with Mary Ann that they are usually more savvy social media users.

WG: Who implements, monitors, and maintains your blogs, and/or Facebook, LinkedIn, or other platforms?

Mary Ann: The alumni relations team at Emerson College delegates the day to day operations of electronic communications to one member of the staff. However, the entire team is fully engaged in monitoring and maintaining the various platforms. Many of these platforms are also managed by an army of volunteers.

WG: Do you twitter? If yes, please explain what role it plays as part of the mix.

Both: You bet!

Mary Ann: Emerson College is, in fact, “Twitterpated.” Twitter allows the alumni association to use a mix of formal and conversational communication styles when posting news about the college, its current students and student groups, and celebrate the successes of individual alumni.

We have found that Twitter is not only a tool for broadcasting information: it is a powerful way to monitor the Emerson College brand. Twitter allows users to search for keywords or phrases that appear in other tweets. Searching can be achieved on Twitter’s website or through third-party websites that expand searching options, like Monitter (http://monitter.com/), and Tweetdeck (http://tweetdeck.com/beta/).

For example, a search for “Emerson College” on Twitter on September 2, 2009 yielded a tweet from a user stating, “Emerson College & others using social media for student orientation; ‘same message, new delivery’ http://tinyurl.com/kwnwoo.” The link provided in the tweet directs to a Boston Globe Higher Education story about how area colleges and universities are tapping social media to welcome incoming freshmen and orient them to their campuses and Boston

Monitoring Twitter not only gives Emerson the opportunity to view tweets about the college, but also provides an immediate way to respond to individual concerns or complaints. Twitter allows users to publicly reply to another user’s tweet by posting the ”@” symbol and the username. For example, if a user named ”TheMACDoodle” posted a negative experience about Emerson, we could quickly reply by posting a tweet saying, “@TheMACDoodle, if you’d like to provide suggestions on how we can improve, we’d love to hear them.” Emerson can instantly connect to the needs and wants of other Twitter users, as long as we are monitoring information posted there. Another benefit of monitoring Twitter is the ability to foster real-time conversations with followers, humanizing the institution’s online presence.

End Part I. Look for Part II of this interview in the February issue of Bright Ideas.

In ‘The Church of Facebook:  How the Wireless Generation is Redefining Community’ Jesse Rice (writer, musician and worship arts director) presents the issue of our basic human need to ’connect.’

Delving deep into this issue of how Social Networking reflects this need is the focus of this book.  The information is informative, educational, and often inspiring and humorous; a great formula for discussing any issue or idea.

His illustrations match well to the area of connectivity he discusses in these six chapters, almost provoking one to research the illustrations themselves.

What is spontaneous order?  How did Facebook become the phenomena of Social Networking?  Is there really power in your online profile? How Social Networking consumes us almost unintentionally? What is the nature of a relationship; must it be geographically bound?  In this new Social Networking World, what are some prudent limitations?

This book is well researched engaging the reader not only to consider the dynamic of the Facebook and Social Networking in general but the underlying human need it addresses offering not only wise options to manage you online presence but opportunities to reach vast numbers of people.  This is central focus of the book.

Facebook is a tool and an opportunity to reconnect lost relationships and share our lives with others we may never physically meet.  In the final chapter of the book, several good tools are mentioned and some great strategies are given such as practicing intentional, mindful, and authentic interaction

In preparing this review, I visited the author’s website and found some very funny material. I would urge you also to visit. My favorite portion was on the author’s FAQ page.  You will find some very interesting comments here.  It is a must read for humor value alone. For instance, his response to the question ”Who is Jesse Rice?” The answer given:

“Jesse Rice (who is not a recognized cult leader, at least not of any
cults particularly large or bovine in nature) is the author of this blog
and the entertaining and informative book, ‘The Church of Facebook.”

About the author:
Jesse Rice is a writer and musician who served for eight years as a worship arts director at Menlo Park Presbyterian Church in Menlo Park, CA.  Jesse has a Master’s degree in counseling psychology from Santa Clara University and is a sought-after worship leader and speaker with more than fifteen years experience in church ministry. Jesse and his wife, Katie who is also a musician, have been married for three years.

The Church of Facebook: How the Hyperconnected Are Redefining Community   By Jesse Rice / David C. Cook

# Paperback: 240 pages
# Publisher: David C. Cook; New edition (October 1, 2009)
# Language: English
# ISBN-10: 1434765342
# ISBN-13: 978-1434765345

Disclaimer:
The review copy of this book was provided free of charge by the author’s representative and was donated to the Westwood Baptist Church.

THANKSGIVING JUST GOT A BIT MORE SOCIAL

Making the Tasty Treats

The first year my mother tried to make a turkey, she apparently over-stuffed the bird and a turkey powder keg blew a hole through the oven door exploding precious white meat all over the wall of our kitchen. Being that I had heard this story on numerous occasions, my first attempt at bird making was very well planned.

Here are a few sites to help get you started using language even the most beginner chef can understand. As an added bonus, after several years of trial-and-error, the Marauder kitchen recommends sage butter (and lots of it) underneath the skin. Also, when attempting to brine, soaking a bird in the crisper overnight is probably not the best idea…

How-Tos:

Videos to impress the giblets out of your friends:

Amazing recipes itemized by course:

Wine Pairing

Gary Vaynerchuk from Wine Library TV offers 12 wine selections to pair with the bird, a somewhat more difficult wine-pairing item.

Giving Thanks

Tweetsgiving

Last year, Epic Change launched Tweetsgiving raising $11,000 for charity in 48 hours. Those donations were used to build a classroom in Tanzania. How’s that for giving thanks? This year, the bar has been raised to $100,000. While many are returning for their third plate of stuffing, Tweetsgiving will be raising awareness across social networks from YouTube to Twitter asking users what they are thankful for. Follow @tweetsgiving on Twitter and tweet about what you’re thankful for from now until the 27^th using the hashtag “#tweetsgiving” at the end of your tweet.

Socialvibe

Socialvibe donates to charity by marketing brands such as Kraft, Timberland, and Powerbar. Every time a brand is successfully marketed, charity benefits. At first, I thought this sounded a little sleazy. But really, marketers scream for your attention on a daily basis. At least in this case, charities benefit somewhere along the line.

Download the Thanksgiving Feast App to play. Every time you add a meal to the table, a real meal is provided through the UN World Food Programme.

Setting the Mood: Best Thanksgiving Song

Sure, this song is old but no has yet to top Adam Sandler on the joys of Thanksgiving.

Talking Tryptophan

Yet again this year, you can get your thanks on via many of your favorite social networks.

Get real-time cooking advice from the Butterball team either on their Twitter feed or Facebook page.

What to do when mom locks herself in the bathroom because your 35-year old brother insists on making fart noises at the table? Butterball may not have the answer for that one…

Get your spirit on with 23,000 of your other friends on the Thanksgiving fan page.

Mobile App Fun

iHost: Thanksgiving

Developed by a Rhode Islander (big-ups to my home state), iHost helps you get organized from menu, shopping list to budget. Their most recent update supposedly added recipes from local Newport, RI chefs. A little Rhode Island flavor has come to southern California. Very nice.

Chef’s Timer

If you’ve cooked with your iPhone in tow, as I always do, you know the device only has one timer. In most situations, that works just fine. But, what about situations where you have three side dishes and a turkey crammed into your tiny NYC oven while your friends stare at your assortment of tiny snacks in disdain? Yup…there’s an app for that.

Thanksgiving = Football

For those of you who know me, you understand why this comes last in the list. I know next to nothing about football. I do know that the grunting emanating from living rooms countrywide leads me to believe that you all care. This year, the NFL is offering a central portal for all 3 Thanksgiving games.

From Marauder’s home to yours, have a wonderful Thanksgiving.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The TwitterKids of Tanzania (epicchangeblog.org)
• Thanksgiving Wine Picks: A Trainwreck of Love (dirtysouthwine.com)
• How To Cook A Turkey: 7 Tips From Butterball University (huffingtonpost.com)
• Turkey tips from experts at Butterball University (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Brine Your Thanksgiving Turkey for Juicier Results [Food] (lifehacker.com)
• Recipes for a Vegan Thanksgiving (well.blogs.nytimes.com)
• How To Carve a Turkey (howcast.com)

Yes I have finally succumbed, no the girls haven’t sent me stir crazy although the request from the 4 year old for highlights in black and pink nearly came close or the 5 year old asking for an iPhone cos all her mates have one… or the 14 year old deciding what tattoo she would like for Christmas.

No, it’s the other Funny Farm, the Facebook one.

Farmville

We meet up with the main players in the courier world at the weekend after a small detour around Stratford. All the couriers are talking about making money on Facebook, and I felt a pang of envy…. I want to make money on Facebook. Imagine the stamping of feet here and all the toys being thrown from the pram. So one of my friends take me aside and even though he had 200 pints and slurred a little, I hung on his every word which I have faithfully reproduced here

“Get a farm on facebook and plant crops, Alison has 37 levels and I am just behind her.“

Plant! OMG, does he have no idea of my track record with plants? and now I need to be doing crops!

The whole place, hundreds of couriers all talking about their farms on Facebook and I didnt have one. Bah. Then another of my friends decided to join Facebook just for the Farm. I thought no, I will not have one of these stupid games. It’s business as usual for me.

All Sunday and most of Monday I avoid Facebook .

Monday evening I find I have a farm, a viking clan and a mafia wars thing. Where did they come from? The Hubby. Apparently I have left my login on his PC and when he needs a boost in one of these games, he adds me. Thanks love.

So I now have a farm, and I can’t just have a basic farm and uninstall it, I have to plant a few of the trees that Andrea Sitler has kindly sent me, and a few haystacks that John Kenworthy has sent me… and my own daughter won’t add me as a neighbour.. yet.

I have no idea what I am doing either, I water plants and clear leaves and am given money. My farm is very small and everyone else has acres and some even have fun fairs on them. I hate it already

If you want me, I am no longer on twitter I am in the Funny Farm on Facebook

Sarah

So i am trying to make some money online and try out those cool websites that claim that you can do a couple different things and earn points to get cool prizes and such. Well. The first I tried was/is Lockerz. That’s kinda interesting. I am still trying to figure it out, but one of my friends has had alot of success with it. He’s about to redeem his points and get a wii, flip camera, and something else… or a psp and some games! What a choice! You can get points on Lockerz by signing in daily, by answering daily questions, and by inviting friends. It’s a pretty cool website and there are alot of cool things you redeem your points on. Go to the Lockerz website to join!

Swagbucks is another story. I still haven’t quite figured that one out either. Apparently you can get points whenever you buy stuff online, when you search for stuff online, or invite other people to join! This one seems to be a little more popular than Lockerz. If you would like to join, Click here!

Xomba is my newest. I just joined today! It seems like a website where you can write about and read other websites and pages and get points for doing that! Which works great for me since I have a ton of pages between squidoo and everything else. You also get points for joining! Click here to join Xomba!

From The Sipa Online Publishing and Marketing Summit. I had meant to blog live, but the sound of my keyboard was distrubing the delegates! Anyway the first post from the event tries to summarise the excellent David Cushmans powerful insight into why media companies are struggling.

The opening keynote is from David Cushman of the ninety10group.com which specialises in social technologies. Grounded in consumer publishing as a senior exec at Bauer he should be well placed to see the world of the new with a good understanding of the world of the old. His premise is that long tail demand may have been a disaster for traditional broad based media companies, but it creates exciting opportunities for specialists.

This is a structural change. There may be a bounce back but lets not forget this is the biggest structural change in media since the invention of the press. In the early days of the press, control of the means of production was the key to the power of information.

The future if digital is what people do together and how they self organise themelves. What used to be in the control of the publishers but is now in the control of us all.

Framentation means you can,target all the niches. but although the impact of the long tail is a disaster for traditional mass media models it is a huge opportunity for specialists. In a world where no one wants to pay for content and no one clicks on ads we have to think about media as a “social object” and this can reveal where the roi might come from. Cushman goes on to argue that everyone is apublisher now as the media world moves from the one to the many. With over 300m blogs and 50m twitter users peer to peer interaction is the most important behaviour change you can imagine.

He claims that 70% of pruchase recommendations are peer recommended which undermines the power of mass media to be influential in the purchase process. The user is the destination, not the media company. There is no point in waiting for users to come to us.

Buuilding lots of hits for the sake of it is a pointless strategy. Cushman argues that the majority is now made of people who don’t want the thing that the largest single group want – the power of the long tail. In a world where there is only “broadcast” or mass media, the audience for the broadcast is the largest group. In a social media world, the largest group is the world of one to one communciations. The implications of this are important. In the broadcast world the value was where the hits were. In the narrow cast world all the tiny niches are collectively bigger and more important and valuable than the largest of the lowest common denominator single group. Therefore, if you want to be a business of scale you must pursue the niches.

There are three key disruptions for media companies. Whow creates content? Any and everyone. Who gets to distribute the content? Any and everyone. Who controls the user experience? The user.

Cushman users a theatre analogy to make his point. In the old media world we were on the stage, broadcasting our message and the audience was looking quietly up at us and hanging on our every word. A big audience gave us scale and influence. If an adveriser wanted to speak tot he audience they would have to join us on the stage. The audience would not talk to each other. In the networked world the message from the stage doesn’t reach the audience. They are not even looking at the stage they are looking at each other and building there own networks of interest in niches and communities of purpose. They share messages anongst their groups – ther groups that they decide to belong to.

Media companies have to understand that we don’t own or contril these groups. Communication is not done to them but by them.

So what should media companies do?
Make it easy for users to connect and interact.
Encourage users to act – people who care act so find the social objects that they care about.
The actions of users attract more people by amplyfying and sustaining the converstion,.
Whatever your pay model is (eg click to buy) it has to be portable so users can take it with them into their own networks.

So finding the right social object is key. Get this right and users will care enought about it to tell their friends about it.

Cushman says we are just at the beginning of the disruption. By implication he is saying that the old broadcast model can never work in the long tail social netwrokoed world. Users aren’t look at the stage. No wonder ad click thrus are low! He concludes by reminding us that if the world outside is changing faster than the world inside, something is going to tear – and it won’t be the world outside! Almost everything you try as a mass media broadcast solution – or possibly naything you try at all will be disrupted by the network. The future isn’t digital – it is the network.

In questions, Cushman was asked what about thought about the rush to put content behind paywalls. His reply? Its insanity. Its a strategy designed to make as much money as you can from teh old model while you can. It si not a building block for the future

You can see the presentation here

Related articles by Zemanta

• A new era for specialist media? (fasterfuture.blogspot.com)
• 90:10 a company purpose built for the networked society (smlxtralarge.com)

Having been a program manager for several years, I always liked the crappy discussions about investments in infrastructure and business cases.  I do not say that any investment in new technology should be considered to be an investment in infrastructure but indeed there are circumstances. Great read to react and act on!

Found at http://brian.magierski.com/2009/11/21/stop-obsessing-about-enterprise-2-0-roi/#utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

To be continued at http://brian.magierski.com/2009/11/21/stop-obsessing-about-enterprise-2-0-roi/#utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Related articles by Zemanta

• Lessons from a crisis and the behavioral economics (duperrin.com)
• Must read! Why Process Barfs on Social from Pretzel Logic – Enterprise 2.0 (fredzimny.wordpress.com)
• Does enterprise 2.0 threaten your security ? (duperrin.com)
• Read Bob Thompson’s Where is the Customer in Enterprise 2.0!! (fredzimny.wordpress.com)
• Read John Ingham’s Andrew McAfee: Enterprise 2.0 (beta) (book review) (fredzimny.wordpress.com)
• Check out Enterprise 2.0: What do we know today about moving your organization into the 21st century? (fredzimny.wordpress.com)
• Reading Gil Yehuda’s Review of Andrew McAfee’s Enterprise 2.0 book. (fredzimny.wordpress.com)
• Jeff Jarvis about “The Future of (your) Business Is in Ecosystems” (fredzimny.wordpress.com)

Craig and Darren are back and since they destroyed the Twittersphere, Craig has moved on from Twitter to Linked In. Darren is still having none of it, begging the question, “Why does anyone use this site?” over and over again. Craig explains that one must be linked in to find a job, even though nobody he knows has ever found one through social networking. Violence ensues. — HuffPo

Related articles by Zemanta

• Twitter: It’s no longer What are you doing, but what’s happening (technology.johnsamuel.in)

The thing I love about the internet, even more so than the seemingly never-ending availability of useless information, is the seemingly never-ending availability of useful information. The only thing even better about the internet than that is the community DIY camaraderie it fosters amongst like-minded (usually creative) individuals.   The most obvious example of this is the fashion blogosphere - bloggers often enthuse about the friends they have made via blogging and how they feel a part of a community, albeit a virtual one.

Perhaps it’s the closet hippie in me, but I think that at best the internet allows the growth of the collective in a way that was impossible before the advent of the World Wide Web.  And this is a good thing…  idealism is evolving into a tangible and pragmatic practice.  Which can only be a positive course of action during these jaded times of financial doom and gloom and corporate cynicism.

Which is why I can only wholeheartedly love organisations such as Not Just A Label and Mill Co.  Not Just A Label is an online “global showroom where trend scouts, tastemakers, stylists and retailers can source talent and ideas globally”.  It is a platform from which independent designers can showcase their work and during these days of social/taste/consumer tribalism, it’s a system which works, with several designers having been scouted by the internation press, retailers and fashion houses via the Not Just A Label website.

Mill Co., is another example of putting this ethos into practice.  Based in Manchester and London, Mill Co., is a full service creative agency with a difference.  Offering both creatives as well as clients a new way of operating which makes sense and benefits all involved – take the focus away from winning/losing, it’s all about sustaining equality.  If you are a photographer, a graphic designer, an illustrator or copywriter, I suggest you get in contact with the lovely Claire, one of the founders of Mill Co. and get yourselves involved.

Visit Pixel Disco, Mill Co.'s blog

]]> http://solvetheweb.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/linked-in-date-in-us-format/ Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:01:50 +0000 catyoung http://solvetheweb.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/linked-in-date-in-us-format/ http://annabey.com.au/2009/11/19/70/ Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:22:30 +0000 annabey http://annabey.com.au/2009/11/19/70/ http://fredzimny.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/the-new-symbiosis-of-professional-networks-social-media%e2%80%99s-impact-on-business-and-decision-making/ Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:47:20 +0000 fredzimny http://fredzimny.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/the-new-symbiosis-of-professional-networks-social-media%e2%80%99s-impact-on-business-and-decision-making/

Found at http://www.customerthink.com/blog/the_new_symbiosis_of_professional_networks_social_media_s_impact_on_business_and_decision_makin

To be continued at http://www.customerthink.com/blog/the_new_symbiosis_of_professional_networks_social_media_s_impact_on_business_and_decision_makin

Related articles by Zemanta

• How Social Media Is Like Sharecropping (conversationagent.com)
• The Über-Connected Organization: A Mandate for 2010 (blogs.harvardbusiness.org)
• Using Social Networking to Reach Customers (custserv.gbwatch.com)
• Marketing and How Social Software Aligns (chrisbrogan.com)
• Read John Ingham’s Andrew McAfee: Enterprise 2.0 (beta) (book review) (fredzimny.wordpress.com)
• Reading Conversation Agent’s: More Thoughts on Your New Media Equity (fredzimny.wordpress.com)

Nichts zeichnet den Menschen mehr aus als die Fähigkeit zur “Fantasie”. Der Mensch ist ein Meister wenn es darum gehts seine eigene Wirklichkeit zu konstruieren.  Der unerschütterliche Glaube und Phänomenen und Visionen, egal ob von den großen Weltreligionen, Mentalcoaches oder NLP-Trainern sind mit rationalen Denkmustern nicht zu belegen.

Ebenso wenig ist der unerschütterliche Glaube an Social Media Marketing rational begründet. Allein in den letzten 6 Monate hat sich der Klickpreis für Facebook Ads mindestens verdreifacht. Nach Second Life wird momentan die Social-Media Sau durchs Dorf getrieben.

Alle machen mit. Wenige habens verstanden. Und noch weniger haben adequat reagiert. Wo man auch hinsieht, wird oftmals Mittel und Zweck verwechselt. Der Hausverstand wird von der unglaublichen Größe von Facebook (als 325 Millionen Mitgliedern) überwältigt.

Doch der enorme Erfolg von Facebook ist nur einer von vielen Entwicklungen, die insgesamt einen fundamentalen Wandel im Machtgefüge zwichen Verkäufern und Käufern andeuten. Das Model des Consumer Empowerment 2.0 beschreibt die Triebkräfte des Wandels:

• Konsumenten generierte Inhalte

Jeder kann Autor, Journalist, Filmemacher, Werber oder Händler werden. Benutzerfreundliche Social Media Anwendungen und schnelle Breitband-Verbindungen erlauben die Einbindung von Text-, Bild-, Ton- und Video-Inhalten. Konsumenten wird es dadurch ermöglicht, eigene Inhalte zu veröffentlichen und einer breiten Masse zu präsentieren.

• Digitalisierung von sozialen Netzwerken

Der gestiegene Vernetzungsgrad der Konsumenten fördert das Consumer Empowerment. Unter der Digitalisierung von sozialen Netzwerken versteht man die Übernahme, Pflege und Erweiterung von Kontakten im virtuellen Raum, durch die neuen Social Media Anwendungen. Digitale Netzwerke, sind demnach die Infrastruktur für den Informationsaustausch der Konsumenten im Internet.

Online-Kontaktnetzwerke beruhen dabei auf dem Small-World-Phänomen nach Milgram. Dieses Modell besagt, dass die Mitglieder eines Netzwerkes über eine geringe Anzahl an Kontaktpersonen verbunden sind, obwohl sie sich untereinander noch nicht kennen. Diesen Effekt nutzen Online-Communities mittels moderner Kommunikations-technologien.

Online Communities im Überblick (USA/Deutschland nach Nutzer)

Quelle: Eigene Darstellung, Daten entnommen von wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites, Stand 02.10.2009

• Digitalisierung der Mundpropaganda

Mundpropaganda, definiert als informelle Kommunikation im Freundes- und Bekanntenkreis, wurde bereits 1967 von Arndt behandelt. Unter der Digitalisierung von Mundpropaganda, versteht man die Online-Archivierung von subjektiven Meinungen, Erfahrungen und Bewertungen, die für ein weltweites Publikum frei zugänglich sind.

Studien aus den USA und Großbritannien ergaben, dass die Weiterempfehlungsrate (NPS – net promoter score) auf verlässliche Weise das Unternehmenswachstum voraussagen kann. Mundpropaganda wirkt sich außerdem nachhaltig auf die Kaufentscheidung aus. Eine DoubleClick Studie mit mehr als 5.000 Befragten stellte fest, dass Mundpropaganda in allen Ländern einen hohen Einfluss auf die Kaufentscheidung ausübt.

Während Anwendungen wie Produktbewertungsplattformen (z. B. ciao.com) schon länger am Markt sind, entwickeln sich Bewertungsmöglichkeiten in Social Media Anwendungen zum Massenphänomen. Benutzerfreundliche Anwendungen erleichtern das Abgeben von Bewertungen. In Verbindung mit effizienten Such- und Relevanzsystemen, wie Bewertungsplattformen, Produktsuchmaschinen oder Blogs, finden Konsumenten einfach und schnell die gewünschten Meinungen und Erfahrungen.

• Virusartige Verbreitungsgeschwindigkeit

Durch die Kommunikationsstrukturen des Internet sowie den neuen Social Media Anwendungen wird das soziale Netzwerk feinmaschiger. Informationen verbreiten sich epidemieartiger und unkontrollierbarer als bisher.

Nach Willmott erreicht eine Nachricht im Internet Innerhalb von 20 Zeiteinheiten bereits die doppelte Anzahl von Kontakten im Vergleich zu alten Netzwerk. Kleine Proteste im Netz können sich binnen kurzer Zeit zu einer Sturmflut hochschaukeln. Dabei ist besonders jener Moment entscheidend, in dem die online oder traditionelle Presse die Geschichte aufgreift. Bisherige Beispiele von viralen Effekten in der Blogosphäre bestätigen diese Theorie (siehe das Beispiel Jako, Kapitel 1.1). Andererseits kann die unentgeltliche Multiplikatorwirkung durch die schnelle Diffusionsgeschwindigkeit von Informationen im Internet, zur Steigerung der Markenbekanntheit genutzt werden.

• Relevanz- und Suchsysteme

Unter Relevanz- und Suchsystemen versteht man Anwendungen, die das Finden von Informationen unterstützen bzw. Nutzer durch Empfehlungen auf relevante Inhalte aufmerksam machen.

Ein Unternehmen kann somit immer weniger direkt beeinflussen, welche Inhalte auf der ersten Suchergebnis-seite angezeigt werden. Dieses Phänomen ist ein typisches Beispiel, wie Unternehmen durch Social Media zunehmend die Kontrolle über ihre Marke und der öffentlichen Kommunikation verlieren. Eine Studie von Nielsen hat ergeben, dass „user-generated content“ bereits 25 Prozent der ersten Suchergebnisse von großen Marken ausmacht.

Eine Klick-Analyse des BVDW ermittelte, dass gerade Suchergebnisse auf den ersten Plätzen besonders viel Aufmerksamkeit bekommen. Auf diesen ersten Suchergebnissen sollte die Marke daher in einem positiven Licht dargestellt werden.

BVDW Google Klickanalyse, 2008

Detailiert nachzulesen in meiner Diplomarbeit: Erfolgspotenzial von Social Media in der Hotellerie

Im Context dieser Entwicklung, wird deutlich, dass Facebook nur die Spitze des Eisberges sein kann. Im nächsten Teil der Artikelserie geht es dann um die praktichen Ableitungen für ihr Hotel.

Abstract

The use of communities of practice as tools for organizational learning, knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer has widely been accepted. Communities of practice are now widely used, not only in business organizational learning but also in social and professional environments. From small communities of six to seven individuals, there are now communities of practice that span the globe, some with a few hundreds or thousands of members. There has been no recent serious attempts at categorizing these communities of practice. Are there any variants apart from the eight sets identified by Wenger et al (2002)? Is it possible to identify major categories of communities of practice, so that designing for their cultivation can  be made less difficult? This paper attempts to identify at least two of these categories under which all communities of practice can fall, and provide design guidelines (or at least suggestions) for one category for which current literature has been disparate.

A             Introduction

Communities of practice (COPs) have been recognized as one of the tools by which corporations can manage their knowledge. Nevertheless, communities of practice have also been “formed” for objectives which are outside the realm of business and profit generation activities. There is a sizeable literature on COPs. From a scan of the literature, there are different variants of COPs that can be identified. Here, we seek to examine two variants under which most or all of COPs can be categorised and recommend design guidelines which would aid leaders of COPs in cultivating successful COPs.

B             Definition of COP

The most popular definition of a COP is:

“…. a COP is a group of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis.”

(Wenger et al, 2002)

COPs are also defined along three structural elements (Wenger, 1998):

1. domain – what it is about
2. community – how it functions
3. practice – what capability it has produced

Apart from the above three elements, a healthy COP is also characterized by a balance of the four following pairs of dimensions (Wenger et al, 2002):

1. participation and reification – negotiation of meaning (reification means the crystallisation and realization of ideas)
2. local and global – interaction among and with members of the community and interaction with elements outside the community
3. identification and negotiation – differing forms of memberships in the COP which gives members ownership and meaning to their participation in the COP
4. design and emergence – the constant negotiation of meaning implies that COPs cannot be designed but is rather a response to design.

The key characteristics of a community of practice (Wenger, 1998) are:

1         sustained mutual relationships

2         shared ways of engaging and doing things together

3         the rapid flow of information and propagation of innovation

4         absence of introductory preambles, as if conversations and interactions were merely the continuation of an ongoing process

5         very quick setup of a problem to be discussed

6         substantial overlap in members’ descriptions of who belongs

7         knowing what others know, what they can do, and how they can contribute to an enterprise

8         mutually defining identities

9         the ability to assess the appropriateness of actions and products

10     specific tools, representations, and other artifacts

11     local lore, shared stories, inside jokes, knowing laughter

12     jargon and shortcuts to communication as well as the ease of producing new ones

13     certain styles recognized as displaying membership

14     a shared discourse reflecting a certain perspective on the world.

C             Variants of COPs

Wenger et al (2002) acknowledged the different variants of COPs as follows:

1. small or big
2. long-lived or short-lived
3. collocated or distributed
4. homogenous or heterogenous
5. inside or across boundaries
6. within business, across business units or across organizational boundaries
7. spontaneous or intentional
8. unrecognized or institutionalized.

Wenger et al (2002) did not include online/virtual and face-to-face/physical COPs as variants of COPs.[1] The reason for this was perhaps the situation at the time of that study. At that relevant time, the capabilities of the web was still rudimentary and acceptance of communicating via web technologies was not widespread. The situation now has changed tremendously. The situation since Wenger et al (2002) has changed dramatically. Members of COPs, as well as organizations, are now more at ease with transacting and communicating online and via telecommunication devices.

D             Research methodology

Using the set of variants set out by Wenger et al (2002) as a reference, we sought to locate their presence in the current available literature on COPs. A simple search of online databases of scholarly journals for the phrase “communities of practice” in the titles and abstract of articles, revealed about 180 articles. After, deleting articles which were not relevant, I selected 60 articles which I could scan for variants. A more thorough approach would have been to search also for alternative terms, like “tech clubs” or “learning communities”. However, the time afforded and scope of this paper do not permit such a venture. 

A quick survey of the 60 articles identified the following variants :

• top down (deliberate formation by management; this would be considered “intentionally” formed by management according to Wenger et al (2002))
• bottom up (deliberate formation by members of COPs; this would be considered “intentionally” formed by members according to Wenger et al (2002))
• naturally occurring (COPs which were not deliberately formed but developed from other structures, like a social network, work team or work group; this would be considered as “spontaneous” by Wenger et al (2002))
• deliberately formed (“intentionally” formed as COPs according to Wenger et al (2002))
• global (where COP members are not located in only one geographical location; this would be considered as “ distributed” or “across boundaries” by Wenger et al (2002))
• local (where COP members are located in the same office location, or within same country; this would be considered “collocated” or “within businesses” according to Wenger et al (2002))
• organizational (COP members are within the organization)
• across organizations (COP members belong to different organizations; this would be considered )
• social (where the purpose of the COP is socially motivated and not professional or organizational-wise)[2]
• professional (where the purpose of the COP is motivated by the professional pursuits of the members)[3]
• online/virtual (where the COP members interact online via the web or other telecommunication devices)[4]
• face-to-face/physical (where the COP members interact face-to-face).

For purposes of discussion here, we ventured to locate two variants by which we could generally categorize all COPs. After the scan of the articles a pattern emerged – members of COPs either interacted face-to-face in physical meetings or virtually, online. Hence, we made a general conclusion for purposes of this paper that:

1. All COPs can be categorized by the primary mode of interaction between the members  ‑  either online/virtual or face-to-face/physical.
2. The presence of the other variants in the literature reviewed is not as pervasive as the face-to-face; virtual/online variants. As the objective of this paper is to present a workable set of guidelines to managers of COPs, the selection of the most common variants is suitable.[5]

There is sizeable literature regarding the design of COPs where members meet face-to-face or are “collocated”. However, despite the popularity of online/virtual COPs, literature regarding the design of online/virtual COPs is disparate, with more concentrating on proof of existence of online COPs rather than recommendations for designs of online/virtual COPs. We shall attempt to set out certain helpful guidelines by looking at several case studies of online/virtual COPs and the existing seven principles developed by Wenger et al (2002) (see below)

E             Literature Review

COPs are not stable or static entities (Roberts, 2006), not all CoPs are the same and may experience a different status within an organisation. There is widespread support that communities of practice exist in nearly every organizations – whether they are recognized or not by the organization. Nevertheless, when organizations do try to direct the activities of these COPs, they invariably fail. (Kerno, 2008). Lave and Wenger (1991) argued that COPs cannot be “formed” and therefore the management of organizations cannot establish a COPs (nevertheless, there may be suggestion that even if management cannot form COPs, they can encourage and cultivate COPs). On the other hand, Saint-Onge and Wallace (2003) and Wenger et al. (2002) suggest that COPs can be cultivated and utilised for strategic advantage.

Seven principles for cultivating COPs

According to Wenger et al (2002), the seven principles for cultivating COPs are: 

1. design for evolution
2. open a dialogue between inside and outside perspectives
3. invite different levels of participation
4. develop both private and public community spaces
5. focus on value
6. combine familiarity and excitement
7. create a rhythm for the community.

These principles can be used for either face-to-face or online COPs. Nevertheless, for online COPs there may be several areas of difficulties that may not be present in face-to-face COPs.

Design for evolution

As COPs are organic, according to Wenger et al (2002), “designing them is more a matter of shepherding their evolution than creating them from scratch”. The key for this is to combine design elements in a way that encourages community development. For example, social and organization structures like community coordinator or problem solving meetings can hasten the evolution of a community.

Open a dialogue between inside and outside perspectives

Wenger et al (2002) acknowledges that good community design requires an insider’s perspective to lead in the discovery as to what the community is about. Nevertheless, Wenger et al (2002) concedes that it takes an outsider’s perspective to help the members to see possibilities which are outside the insider’s normal experience. Good community design allows dialogue with outsiders about what the community can achieve. As a result of this dialogue, members of the community who understand the issues are able to see the possibilities and can effectively act as agents of change.

Invite different levels of participation

Members in COPs participate for several reasons. According to Wenger et al (2002), some people participate because they care about the domain and wish to see it developed. Others wish to interact with peers, yet others wish to make a contribution and be genuinely appreciated for it. Yet, others simply wish to learn about the practice.  A COP provides members an opportunity to learn new techniques and approaches in their personal goal to perfect their craft.  Not all members will participate equally.  An “alive community” usually has a coordinator  who organizes events and connects community members;  while others take on other leadership roles. According to Wenger et al (2002), there are three levels of participation:

1. core group (made up of about 10 to 15 percent of the whole community)[Core members the heart of the community and provides its pulse. As the COP grows, core group members take on much of the leadership role.]
2. active group (made up of about 15 to 20 percent of the whole community) [Active members attend meetings regularly and participate occasionally in discussion forums without the intensity of core group members.]
3. peripheral group (the remaining percentage of the whole community, after deleting percentages for 1. and 2.) [Peripheral group members stay on the sidelines, participating rarely, and are satisfied observing the interaction between the core and active members. On online communities, these members are called “lurkers”.]

Develop both private and public community spaces

According to Wenger et al (2002) dynamic communities are rich in connections that occur in public places (like meetings and events) as well as in private places (one-to-one networking of members). The heart of a community is the web of relationships between the members and much of the day-to-day issues occurs in one-to-one exchanges. These one-to-one exchanges actually help orchestrate the public space, hence ensuring the success of meetings.

Focus on value

It is difficult to see the value of a COP when it is first formed. According to Wenger et al (2002) early value comes in the form of solution to current problems and needs of members. As the COP grows, the systematic development of a body of knowledge easily accessible from the COP becomes more important.

Combine familiarity with excitement

As COPs mature, they settle into a routine, making it comfortable and inviting to members to discuss matters candidly. Unlike members of work teams, COP members feel more free to volunteer advice without the fear of being entangled with the project in question.

Create a rhythm for the community

Vibrant COPs have rhythm (Wenger et al, 2002): “Regular meetings, teleconferences, Web site activity, and informal lunches ebb and flow along with the heartbeat of the community. When that beat is strong and rhythmic, the community has a sense of movement and liveliness. If the beat is too fast, the community feels breathless; people stop participating because they are overwhelmed.” Keeping this beat alive requires constant monitoring and tweaking by the leaders/managers of the COP.

Difficulties of online/virtual COPs

Some of these difficulties were summarized by Wenger et al, 2002:

1. Teleconferences and web sites do not offer easy opportunities for informal networking.
2. Online COPs are also likely to cross cultures.
3. Difficulty in access to technology can be a barrier to communication. As communities depend on the connections between members, if members find it difficult to get connected, they are less likely to make the effort, at least not regularly.
4. Distributed communities usually have a greater diversity of viewpoints, needs, interests, priorities, and expectations than local groups. At the same time, distance provides fewer opportunities to negotiate those issues. 
5. As members of large distributed communities have less contact, it is more difficult to build trust and personal relationships.
6. Cultural differences often make trust and deep personal relationships more difficult.

Captured in the above list is the understanding that online/virtual COPs usually have a greater diversity of viewpoints, needs, interests, priorities, and expectations than collocated COPs. Enhancing the problem is that distance ensures fewer opportunities for members to meet, hence fewer opportunities to negotiate those issues. As a result of having less contact, it is more difficult to build trust and personal relationships. Wenger et al highlights that trust-building occurs in private spaces of a COP. For purposes of online/virtual COPs, can design guidelines based on the latest web technology be established to create more of these virtual private spaces for trust-building?

Apart from difficulties in trust-building within online/virtual COPs, there is also the problem of developing commonality required for craft intimacy across different cultures.[6] The commonality required for craft intimacy can be more difficult to develop across cultures.  

Case studies of online/virtual COPs

Case study 1

Ardichvili, A., Maurer, M., Wei Li, Wenthing, T. & Stuedemann, R. 2006. Cultural Influences on Knowledge Sharing through Online Communities of Practice. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2006: 10(1). p. 94.

The authors wanted to explore cultural factors influencing knowledge sharing strategies in virtual COPS. The authors set out to see whether the following factors would explain differences in knowledge sharing patterns in Brazil, China and Russia:

1. degree of collectivism
2. competitiveness
3. importance of saving face
4. in-group orientation
5. attention paid to power and hierarchy
6. culture-specific preferences for communication modes.

The findings of Case Study 1 were:

1. The issue of saving face was less important than expected in China. In Russia “face” was not perceived as an important factor at all.
2. Modesty was an important influence on online participation and knowledge sharing in China. (In Chinese culture, it is no acceptable to speak a lot in public and to stand out.) In Russia or Brazil, the issue of modesty was not as important.
3. Competitiveness and job-security related fears were more prevalent in China. In Brazil & Russia, members felt that knowledge sharing would enhance their prospects and potential for promotions.
4. When selecting and appointing online community managers, in all 3 countries, seniority, rank or age were not major factors. As for participation in online discussion, members from all 3 countries said that both top managers and middle-level managers are less likely to participate.
5. In Russia, members were very comfortable with email communication, with no particular preference for face-to-face or telephone communications. In China, members preferred, in order of preference: face-to-face communication, phone calls and emails. For members in Brazil, they were comfortable with emails, although face-to-face interaction was strongly valued, especially by members who were dealership employees.
6. In Russia, there was evident “us vs them” distinction when members discussed the issue of knowledge sharing with local dealers and other partners. Similarly, in China, there was strong suggestion of this in-group orientation. Likewise in Brazil, members did not support the idea of US expatriates or local dealers to manage their knowledge sharing.

Case Study 2

Zucchermaglio, C. & Talamo, A. 2003 The development of a virtual community of practices using electronic mail and communicative genres. Journal of Business and Technical Communication. July 2003; 17 (3). p. 259.

In this study, the authors explored the ways that technological mediation of community development interact by examining email communication within an inter-organization community of software developers. Generally, the authors found that within the community, there was a prevalence of note messages, as opposed to types of more formal business communications (like proposals and business letters). This indicates a prevalence of an informal communicative and work style. More interestingly, when members of this community communicated with outsiders, they used a more formal communicative style. This indicated the fact that the community recognized itself as a community and recognized those who were not part of the community as different.

Case Study 3

Kimble, C. & Hildreth, P. 2005. Dualities, distributed communities of practice and knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management; 2005; 9 (4). p. 102.

The authors explored the relationship between knowledge management and COPS using theoretical constructs, the notion of a duality and data from a case study on a virtual COP. The COP was based in 3 geographically separate locations (UK, USA and Japan). The 2 most important results from the case study were:

1. The role of shares artefacts in the process of creating, sharing and sustaining knowledge and the role such artefacts played in facilitating participation.
2. The importance of building and sustaining personal relationships between members, the group and the role of face-to-face meetings.

In this case, the shared artifact in question was the use of a planning document. This document could be seen as reification; an indication of the importance of process; as a stimulus for innovation and a catalyst for participation.

Members felt that face-to-face interaction was vital for developing personal relationships; and as a way of turbo-boosting existing relationships.
From the above the authors concluded with the following “guidelines” for cultivating virtual COPs:

1. regular and frequent interaction
2. the setting of task focus and deadlines
3. the presence of a shared interest, desire and motivation
4. maintenance of a balance between regular interaction, a task focus and shared motivation.

Case Study 4

Masoud Hemmasi, M. & Csanda, CM. 2009 The Effectiveness of Communities of Practice: An Empirical Study. Journal of Managerial Issues; Summer 2009; 21 (2). p. 262.

The aim of the authors here was to study the effectiveness of COPs using empirical data from State Farm Insurance Companies. State Farm had formed a network of COPs with a focus on inducing a greater quantity and quality of intentional collaboration and transfer of best practices throughout the organization. COPs were self-directed and led by members and not by managers or representatives from the corporate office. COP members used electronic shared folders for sharing documents, web conferencing and email to conduct COP activities.

The authors found that perceived COP leadership strength, member’s commitment to the COP and its goals, the feeling of connectedness to COP – all had positive relationship with the perceived impact on the job. The authors explained that when members felt more connected to one another and experienced a more positive impact on their own jobs as a result of COP participation, they also develop a stronger sense of satisfaction regarding their association with the COP. The strength of the COP leadership had positive antecedent effects on both perceived community impact on member’s jobs as COP’s overall effectiveness.

The author highlighted the following insights from the study:

1. Virtually all the characteristics of the COPs were viewed favourably. This reassures the organization as to the worthiness of effort put into these COPs.
2. For role based COPs, the opportunities that allow members to improve their job performance and productivity that lead to perception of greater COP effectiveness and a more enjoyable and satisfactory experience.
3. Committed, engaged and well-connected members are the heart of successful COPs, and as long as their involvement can be made relevant to their productivity and performance, they would view it as a worthwhile cause.
4. If increases in member connectivity lead to greater job impact and enhanced community effectiveness, it is important that the COP sponsors and leaders identify and undertake the kind of measures that are helpful in cultivating the member’s sense of connectivity to their peers in the COP network.

Case Study 5

Dubé, L., Bourhis, A. & Jacob, R. 2005. The impact of structuring characteristics on the launching of virtual communities. Journal of Organizational Change Management,  2005; 18 (2). p. 145.

The authors investigate an attempt by 14 organizations to implement 18 virtual COPs. The study concludes that the environment, the relevance of the virtual COP’s objectives to its members’ daily work, and  the degree to which the virtual COP is embedded in the organizational structure are 3 structuring characteristics most likely to explain the success or failure of a virtual COP at the launching state.

The authors found that a facilitating and neutral environment allows virtual COPs to be launched successfully. Obstructive environments will work to resist launch. However, in one case, despite an obstructive environment, one virtual COP managed to succeed because of the inclusion of a coach to guide the COP leader. This is logical since COPs are new modes of collaboration and the COP leader would have had no role model to follow, offering this person some coaching is a way to strengthen his leadership abilities and increase the likelihood of the COP’s success.

The author also found that the COP will not succeed if the concept of COPs is too far removed from the organization’s culture. Also, adopting a top-down approach to form virtual COPs also raises the issue of relevance. These intentionally created virtual COPs may lack context and purpose amongst its members, making it difficult to succeed. In one case, the sponsor of the COP stated that members were to hold discussions according to the current rules and procedures and that no request for changing of those rules and procedures would not be considered. Members were disappointed and decided that the COP would not be an agent of change.

The authors highlighted a very surprising find. It has always been though that COPs should be formed around already existing informal networks (Wenger et al, 2002). However, the authors stated that although that principle may be true for traditional face-to-face COPs, it was not true for virtual COPs. In 3 of the cases, there were already the informal networks before the launch of the virtual COPs. The members felt that they did not need their network to be expanded and they though interacting via email and phone were already sufficient. They felt that the implementation of the virtual COP ended their community. The authors thus recommended that the face-to-face element was necessary at the launch state to stimulate the socialization process.

Another interesting finding was relating to member’s enrolment. It had been thought that voluntary membership would guarantee the success of a COP. However, the finding here showed otherwise. Out of 10 COPs with voluntary membership, half failed and half succeeded. The authors reasoned that a new member can learn from passively reading from forums and responses online, he can learn while his non-participation goes unnoticed.

Case Study 6

Tarmizi, H., Vreede, GJ de, Zigurs, I. 2007.  Leadership Challenges in Communities of Practice: Supporting Facilitators Via Design and Technology. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 2007, 3 (1).

Although the concept of facilitation has been acknowledged to be applicable to communities of practice (Johnson, 2001), the authors of this case study felt that the role of the facilitator in COPs was still under-researched, in contrast to research on facilitation in other fields. The objective of the study was to answer the following questions:

1. What are the most challenging facilitation tasks in COPs?
2. How can facilitators be supported in addressing the most important challenges?

The authors recommended that the work of facilitation be aided by design and technology. Increasing participation in an online COP, e.g. increasing the number of quality postings, should be one of the facilitator’s main goals. Design that can evoke aliveness (Wenger et al., 2002) and technology that is able to extend human capability (Satchwell & Dugger, 1996) are two factors that could have a high impact on participation. The authors also stated that having a clear policy within an organization as to how information is to be shared digitally or within an online community would also have a positive impact on the sharing activity (Staples & Jarvenpaa, 2000). More sharing would in turn increase members’ participation. A regression analysis by Millen and Patterson (2002) found that prior experience with other communication applications, e.g. e-mail lists and chat services, predicted increased participation in an online community. The authors set out the following table to address participation in COPs.

The authors recommended the following as design strategies for increasing participation in a COP

Table 1: Design strategies for increasing participation

Source: Tarmizi et al (2007)

Case study 7

Wei Zhang & Watts, S. 2008. Online communities as communities of practice: a case study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2008; 12 (4). p. 55-71.

The authors of studied one of the best Chinese online communities for backpacking. The selected community was a moderated online travel forum hosted by a major internet portal company in China. The company provided the necessary hardware and software, but was not involved in its daily businesses. Instead, a small group of moderators kept the community running. All moderators were volunteers; they were not associated with the company in any other way. Technically, the travel forum utilized a web-based bulletin board system where text-based messages were displayed in a threaded format.

The authors identified the online community as a COP because the three structural elements of COP were present:

Domain – joint enterprise.  Although there was no written statement on the joint enterprise of the travel forum, there seemed an implicit agreement between community members that the forum serves to promote backpacking in China and to facilitate knowledge exchanging between backpackers.

Community – engagement. The large average thread size suggested a fairly high level of engagement between community members.

Practice – Shared repertoire. Over time, the travel forum had developed a rich shared repertoire. It had its own languages. For example, The members call the forum donkey pot because the two phrases are pronounced similarly in Chinese. Word big-shrimp was borrowed from other online communities to refer to members who were experienced backpackers.

The authors highlighted the following findings:

1. Through exchanging text-based messages the members of the travel forum were able to maintain a high level of engagement online. The forum clearly manifested a joint enterprise. The concern that the large size of online communities might threaten engagement and joint enterprise seemed unwarranted. that an online COP can survive large number of light participants is encouraging to organizations that are interested in nurturing global online COPs but are concerned with the low participation levels from some or even most organizational members.
2. By developing a rich repertoire that included local vocabularies, FAQs, help files, the best article selection, and the gonglue message format, which suggested that the members were able to not only adapt to the online environment but also take advantage of it, the online community facilitated knowledge sharing between the members.
3. Consistent with the notion that the theory of COPs was first introduced as a theory of learning (Duguid, 2005), the travel forum presented an environment conducive for learning in the community, especially for newcomers. Newcomers could learn about the practice by observing how other members engaged with each other, by reading articles from the best collection, by studying the FAQs and the manuals, and eventually, by interacting with other members and contributing to the community.
4. The online community also provided space for knowledge creation. Homework messages and gonglue messages were highly valued and encouraged. In fact, the best article collection was consisted mostly of such messages. These messages recorded the authors’ personal backpacking experience and incorporated what the authors had learned first-hand from their trips. They enlarged what the community knew collectively. Knowledge creation also took the form of heated discussions on more abstract topics.

F             Discussion

The seven design principles introduced by Wenger et al (2002), as set out earlier (and repeated here for sake of easier reading):

1. design for evolution
2. open a dialogue between inside and outside perspectives
3. invite different levels of participation
4. develop both private and public community spaces
5. focus on value
6. combine familiarity and excitement
7. create a rhythm for the community

would also invariably apply to online/virtual COPs. In fact, a reading of the case studies above show that the authors of the case studies agree with the above 7 design principles. However, they also highlight certain idiosyncracies of online COPs to warrant additional design principles when cultivating online COPs.

The following are additional design guidelines that are particularly suitable for online/virtual COPs as distilled from the case studies presented above:

1. When selecting and appointing online community managers, seniority, rank or age are not major factors. [Case Study 1]
2. Participation in online discussion ‑ top managers and middle-level managers are less likely to participate. Target participation of rank and file members. [Case Study 1]
3. Members of COPs interact within themselves informally [Case Study 2] and when management orders it to interact according to rules and procedures, the COP will not receive member support [Case 5].
4. Regular and frequent interaction [Case Study 3]
5. The setting of task focus and deadlines [Case Study 3]
6. The presence of a shared interest, desire and motivation [Case Study 3]
7. Maintenance of a balance between regular interaction, a task focus and shared motivation [Case Study 3]
8. For role based COPs, it is important that the opportunities that allow members to improve their job performance and productivity are present [Case Study 4]
9. Committed, engaged and well-connected members are the heart of successful COPs, and as long as their involvement can be made relevant to their productivity and performance, they would view it as a worthwhile cause [Case Study 4]
10. It is important that the COP sponsors and leaders identify and undertake the kind of measures that are helpful in cultivating the member’s sense of connectivity to their peers in the COP network. [Case Study 4] [This seem to address the concern about cultivation of trust in distributed COPs as highlighted by Wenger et al (2002).]
11. A facilitating and neutral environment allows virtual COPs to be launched successfully [Case Study 5] [This also seem to address the concern about trust as highlighted by Wenger et al (2002).]
12. The concept of COPs should not be far removed from the organization’s culture [Case Study 5]
13. The face-to-face element is necessary at the launch state to stimulate the socialization process [Case Study 5] [This face-to-face element also aids in the cultivation of trust.]
14. The work of facilitation of a virtual COP can be aided by design and technology; and the main goal of the facilitator is to increase online participation [Case Study 6] (see also Table 1 for Design Strategies for increasing participation in online COP).
15. Online COPs can survive large numbers of light participants [Case Study 7]

The 6 concerns listed by Wenger et al (2002) with regard to distributed COPs, seems to have been addressed by the case studies and the information and telecommunication situation that the world is in today.

1. With regard to the concern that teleconferences and web sites do not offer easy opportunities for informal networking, the advent of web 2.0 technologies and social networking, seem to have neutralized the feared effect.
2. The fear that online COPs are also likely to cross cultures, is also somewhat neutralized with the proliferation of social networking, blogging, web 2.0 technologies, etc.
3. The fear that difficulty in access to technology can be a barrier to communication still remains, but it is not so looming and does not affect communication in a crucial manner. With huge developments in recent years in information and communication technology, virtual communication is not only limited to PC’s and notebooks, but also hand held devices like mobile phones and the new smart phones.  
4. The concern that distributed communities usually have a greater diversity of viewpoints, needs, interests, priorities, and expectations than local groups have also been addressed with the latest net technologies. For example, company-wide instant messaging tools are used by multinational corporation and this enables members of COPs in these organizations to communicate in real time over the internet, without ever meeting face-to-face. Web and video conferencing have also reduced the need for employees to travel to face-to-face meetings, thus saving costs in travel expenses.
5. The concern about members of large distributed communities having less contact has been addressed by instant messaging tools over the internet and the use of web and video conferencing.
6. The fear that cultural differences often make trust and deep personal relationships more difficult has also been somewhat reduced with the current state of internet and web technologies.

G    Conclusion

All COPs can either be categorized as face-to-face or virtual/online, based on the main platform of COP interaction. Categorising a COP as online/virtual, does not mean that there is no face-to-face element. In fact for the socialization factor in the earlier part of an COP’s life, face-to-face factor is important (Ardichvili et al, 2006; and Dubé et al, 2005).

The guidelines set out above are suggestions collated from case studies presented in current literature. Studies of online/virtual COPs are still in their infancy, if compared to studies of traditional COPs. With the advent of Web 2.0 and social networking, there online/virtual COPs will find that they will have more and more avenues by which their members can socialize and build both private as well as public spaces for COP interaction. This will provide more opportunities for research on the impact of these tools on COPs, knowledge sharing and organizational learning. The identification of  a number of variants earlier in this essay also provides more opportunities for further studies on design guidelines for those variants.

References:

Ardichvili, A., Maurer, M., Wei Li, Wenthing, T. & Stuedemann, R. 2006. Cultural Influences on Knowledge Sharing through Online Communities of Practice. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2006: 10(1). p. 94.

Cosley, D., Frankowski, D., Kiesler, S., Terveen, L., & Riedl, J. (2005). How oversight improves member-maintained communities. G. v.d. Veer & C. Gale, (Eds.), Proceeding of the SIGCHI 2005 Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems, 11-20. New York: ACM Press.

Duguid, P. (2005). The art of knowing: Social and tacit dimensions of knowledge and the limits of the community of practice. Information Society,  2005 ; 21 (2). p. 109-18.

Girgensohn, A., & Lee, A. (2002). Making Web Sites be places for social interaction. Proceedings of ACM 2002 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 136-145. New York: ACM Press.

Johnson, C. M. (2001). A survey of current research on online communities of practice. Internet and Higher Education, 4(1), 45-60.

Kapoor, N., Konstan, J. A., & Terveen, L. G. (2005). How peer photos influence member participation in online communities. G. C. v.d. Veer & C. Gale, (Eds.). Extended Abstracts Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1525-1528, New York: ACM Press.

Kelly, S. U., Sung, C., & Farnham, S. (2002). Designing for Improved Social Responsibility, User Participation and Content in On-line Communities. D. Wixon, (Ed.). Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 391-398. New York: ACM Press.

Kerno Jr, Steven J. 2008. Mechanical Engineering. October 2008.130(10). p 22.

Kimble, C. & Hildreth, P. 2005. Dualities, distributed communities of practice and knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management; 2005; 9 (4). p. 102.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Masoud Hemmasi, M. & Csanda, CM. 2009 The Effectiveness of Communities of Practice: An Empirical Study. Journal of Managerial Issues; Summer 2009; 21 (2). p. 262.

Millen, D. R. & Patterson, J. F. (2002). Stimulating social engagement in a community network. Proceedings of ACM 2002 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 306-313. New York: ACM Press.

Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (1999). Shedding light on Lurkers in Online Communities. Proceedings of Ethnographic Studies in Real and Virtual Environments: Inhabited Information Spaces and Connected Communities Conference, Edinburgh, 123-128.

Robert, J. 2006. Limits to Communities of Practice, Journal of Management Studies, May 2006, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 623-639.

Saint-Onge, H. and Wallace, D. 2003. Leveraging Communities of Practice for Strategic Advantage. Butterworth-Heinemann, Amsterdam.

Satchwell, R. & Dugger, W. (1996). A united vision: Technology for all Americans. Journal of Technology Education, 7(2), 5-12.

Staples, D.S. & Jarvenpaa, S.L. (2000). Using Electronic Media for Information Sharing Activities: A Replication and Extension. W.J. Orlikowski, P. Weill, S. Ang, H.C. Krcmar and J.I. DeGross, eds. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Information Systems, 117-133. New York: ACM Press.

Tarmizi, H., Vreede, GJ de, Zigurs, I. 2007.  Leadership Challenges in Communities of Practice: Supporting Facilitators Via Design and Technology. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 2007, 3 (1).

Wei Zhang & Watts, S. 2008. Online communities as communities of practice: a case study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2008; 12 (4). p. 55-71.

Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R. and Snyder, WM. 2002. Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to managing Knowledge. Harvard Business School Press, United States.

Zucchermaglio, C. & Talamo, A. 2003 The development of a virtual community of practices using electronic mail and communicative genres. Journal of Business and Technical Communication. July 2003; 17 (3). p. 259.

[2] Wenger et al (2002) had not mentioned this variant as their study was approached in terms of organizational learning; and socially-motivated purposes were, perhaps, not within the confines of their study. The two articles located were in relation to travel (Wei (2004) and Wei & Watts (2008)).

[3] This variant is a logical opposite of “social”, the previous variant in the list.

[4] Being “virtual” does not preclude face-to-face meetings but using ICT becomes more convenient because of busy schedules and geographic locations. So too, face-to-face COPs does not preclude the use ICT to interact. Nevertheless, the primary mode of interaction for face-to-face COPS is the face-to-face, physical meetings.

[5] As the primary objective of COPs is knowledge sharing — language, communication and mode of communication is crucial. Hence, variants relating to platforms of communications should be logically present in all COPs.

[6] Wenger et al 2002 illustrated thus:  In planning Shell’s global communities, it was found that many Europeans were skeptical of a U.S.-initiated community. There was concern that the Americans would try to impose their model of interaction on the Europeans. A further example is that even when the same role description was used for community leader, two different interpretation the role surfaced.

This morning, Rex Petrasko, my savvy, smart, sincere executive vice president, closed our daily meeting with the announcement that the New Oxford American Dictionary had proclaimed the Word of the Year for 2009 to be “unfriend.” I smiled at him knowingly from across the room, because I had heard the confounding announcement hours earlier on NPR as I brushed my teeth.

When I heard the brief news byte, I paused for a moment, swallowed hard and considered the irony. First of all, how interesting that the Word of the Year would be a social media—even Facebook word. And “unfriend,” no less. How perplexing that the Oxford folk embraced the negative version of the verb-ized noun “friend.”

Unfriend: (verb) To remove someone as a “friend” on a social networking site such as Facebook. As in, “I decided to unfriend my boyfriend on Facebook after we had a fight.”

“It has both currency and potential longevity,” notes Christine Lindberg, Senior Lexicographer for Oxford ’s US dictionary program. “In the online social networking context, its meaning is understood, so its adoption as a modern verb form makes this an interesting choice for Word of the Year. Most “un-” prefixed words are adjectives (unacceptable, unpleasant), and there are certainly some familiar “un-” verbs (uncap, unpack), but “unfriend” is different from the norm. It assumes a verb sense of “friend” that is really not used (at least not since maybe the 17th century!). Unfriend has real lex-appeal.”

Christine, I think I beg to differ. “Unfriend” has a limited appeal, if at all, and it is particularly disconcerting in this age when people are desperate to connect on some level—electronic or otherwise. Friend, blog, text, comment, post, and tweet are all new inhabitants of the morphed communication lexicon. They are all terms for a new mode of behaving—a new way of being—not so much communicating.

I commented on my Facebook page status today that the Word of the Year might be indicative of the dark underbelly of social media. Merridith Branscombe, a Facebook pal and spirited, sassy woman from my Northwestern sorority days, commented, “It is fairly strange that friend somehow transformed to a verb; and that ‘unfriend’ is Word of the Year? I guess it’s not on the underbelly anymore, but in plain sight.

She is absolutely correct. It is in plain sight. We are connecting and disconnecting in plain sight—in front of God and everyone, and “there’s the rub,” as Hamlet said. Social media is less about communicating and more about behaving. At one point, my ex-boyfriend seemed more disturbed about my “unfriending” him on Facebook than about the actual breakup of the relationship. It gives me pause. Are we all more concerned about the virtual ramifications of relationships than the realities? Something to ponder—especially when we are all so hungry for valuable, real, authentic connection, and online experiences that are truly worth our time and attention in this choatic, often superficial world.

More and more, we are defining ourselves by how we interact, as opposed to what we say. The way we describe ourselves is really irrelevant. We are—how we are, as opposed to who we are. Same goes for businesses. Our customers are defining our brands—not vice versa.

“Unfriend” means that we no longer wish the “offending” person to be part of our online inner circles—our intimate online world, our defined universe. Our walls and tweet streams are sacred ground in many ways. They document our inner most thoughts and our profoundest dreams—our vulnerability and our humanity. As I have mentioned in other posts, “ambient intimacy” has come to describe the visceral nature of social media. Considering that an old boyfriend still might be lurking around as a so-called friend feels invasive, almost voyeuristic. But, how incongruent this seems in a word of open-source and “shareware.” It’s a paradox, indeed.

As the social web continues to explode with opportunities for connection and synergy, conversely, the need to maintain personal autonomy and control somehow intensifies. What do you think?

“A few weeks ago, college students in Tipperary Institute placed chairs and desks around common areas with descriptions of college societies. At the time, I thought passersby might have also enjoyed learning about the vibrant online societies that occupy students’ time. While at my desk (video at right), I’ve seen several online networks that attract a lot of interest from our third level students …” (more)

[Inside View from Ireland, 17 November]

Facebook is not a very good marketing tool.

There, I got that out of the way. It’s great a connecting people to people they know. Under that, it can be a good tool for connecting them to things they also know (that’s where pages and groups and causes come in). But it has limitations. I once wrote a post about 10 things to do with a Facebook page, and I still think they are valid.

But it’s time to update this with ten things Facebook can, and can’t do.

10. Facebook can’t: magically get those people to fan the page. A website needs marketing to tell people about it. So does a Facebook page. If you build it, they won’t  come. True, Facebook offers a little more interaction with people. It still is a tactic with a built-in send to friend key (someone’s interaction with a page is broadcast to some of the newsfeeds of their friends), but that demands some initial friends. It’s a quiet place if people don’t hear about it.

(An exception to this rule is a company with a really strong brand. A really strong brand gets a steady stream of people, I’ve seen it)

9. Facebook can: turn a promotion into something a little more special. For example, Elf Yourself now allows you to add images from your Facebook page. This promotion from Land’s End interacts with a Facebook page (or other network) to pull content that makes the interaction better.

8. Facebook can’t: be a place to give away product on the wall. As participation sky rocketed to over 360,000,000 people (almost 10 times the population of Canada), the refined their promotions terms and conditions. Brands can still think of ways to give away product, but it can’t be for getting fans to write on the wall, submit photos or videos.

7. Facebook can: offer a microsite-like experience on the tabs. Target has a microsite inside of a tab. Coke does too. If a brand is launching a thing, in the future we most-likely won’t be launching them on unique Facebook pages, we’ll be launching them on Tabs inside brand pages. Thus, this page for a promotion, would simply be a tab on the brand page. Then, when the promotion ends, the fans aren’t lost. The tab simply is removed.

6. Facebook can’t: create awareness. People become FANS of a Facebook page. No one is a fan of something they haven’t tried or experienced. No one. The word fan implies knowledge or the thing. If there is no knowledge of the thing, there will be no fans of the thing. See #10 for more details.

5. Facebook can: be a place to poll your customers and gain insights into their behavior. With the right investment (see #10), a brand can build a room whereby people for like the brand can be asked questions about why they like it. It might be smart to turn over a Facebook page to a “director of Insights” or something with a planner structure. The ROI of the community is figured out not in interactions, but in insights gained. Something that more and more brands are going to be looking for in these fast-moving times.

4. Facebook can’t: work without a goal. Here we are, all the way at #4 and we’re talking goals. The 2 year goal of a Facebook page could be #5 above. It could be to drive traffic in store. It could be x, it could be y. It could be part of an overall strategy that works with print ads and radio spots that drives evangelism. It could be other buzzword bingo like goals, but it should have one. And, “because my competition has one’ isn’t a goal.

3. Facebook can: drive traffic in store. Brands can’t give away product or gift cards on the wall of Facebook anymore, but they can do it in store. If a brand has an in-store location, then give Facebook fans a secret password and let that password get them something special in store. Almost 2 years ago, Whole Foods gave away a Facebook only $5 off coupon. It was just $5 to be used in any way, no restrictions. If  fans come in-location (or on a website), is it easy to give them a Facebook discount code? Figure out a way to give your fans, AKA your best customers, a discount for their loyalty.

2. Facebook can’t: work alone. It’s not a lone gunmen. It needs help from the website (in the form of badges), e-mail blasts, ads…whatever. It’s not a silo, sitting in the wilderness collecting the 150 or so people who know someone who works on the marketing of the brand. If a brand decides to do a Facebook Page, it needs to work with other things. It might mean an ad drives people to a Facebook page instead of a website. It might mean something different, altogether. Figure that out as part of the goal.

1. Facebook can: be a nice new tactic in your marketing plan for 2010. It can do some wonderful things. Just set your expectations on something less than the top pages, and something a little more than the bottom pages. Be realistic, and Facebook can be a realistic tactic in your arsenal.

Related PowerPoint presentations by Zemanta

• Goal Driven Web Strategy Extended (slideshare.net)
• Your social media action plan (slideshare.net)

Here’s a link to a great article by Andrew Mcafee from HBR Voices.

This article really got me excited, and I have a lot of things to say about it. Hopefully I can cram it all in here.

I completely agree with Andrew that content is no longer limited to that produced by a company. Consumers have found an easy way to express themselves through the means of social media. Hence, Andrew’s argument about it being an illusion to control  conversations about your brand holds good. While I don’t disagree with Andrew, I do think there are other ways to control brand conversations in the web 2.0 era. So I’m going to take a crack at explaining how one could actually not only control what people say about a brand but also influence it, in a positive way!

1. Understand your consumers’ subculture – their behaviour, identify key influencers and study them. Remember in school when you always looked up to the kid who was awesome at sports and always had the cutest girl in class as his girlfriend (I did!). Your brand needs to be him! (Apologies for a very male driven analogy…but school was hard!)

2. Once you’ve nailed down your brand’s essence, stay true to it….no matter what! When your consumers see you acting a certain way, using a certain vocabulary and behaving a certain way – they will choose to follow you, thereby becoming brand ambassadors.

3. Finally, be a brand asshole!

Think that your brand is the best in the world and that you know more about it than anyone else on this planet. This confidence will help ensure that only you (or your company’s key spokesperson) are taken seriously when it comes to news about the brand/product.

Think Steve Jobs (man, I was trying to avoid Apple’s example for once…but it always catches up to you!).

Mexicans who have migrated to the United States from rural villages have been forming online communities to stay in touch with their families and friends back home. They log onto specific websites (such as that of Tlaltenango.com, above) to share photos, memories and send Yearbook-style greetings. In the process, they are reinforcing cultural, historic and emotional ties.

In some cases, the online communication is also providing a way of reinforcing democratic practices and political debate in Mexico. According to one study about the village of San Martin de Blonan~os, 13.26 percent of messages on that village’s independently-run web site included discussions about politics and accountability (A few examples: The alleged corruption of one of the mayoral candidate members and mine contamination in a local river). The study, by Mexican researcher Miriam Cardenas Torres, provides a fascinating look at the online dynamics of this particular Jalisco community and the technological barriers and benefits to such interaction.

I am not finding a recent link to the paper about San Martin de Bloan~os that I found earlier this year by Miriam Cardenas Torres. But here is a link to another study of hers that mentions San Martin de Bolan~os: “Transnational Migration and Communication” (in Spanish). An additional study by Victor Gonzalez an Luis Castro  - “Maintaining links through the Web: The case of the Mexican communities of immigrants in the United States” (in Spanish) – was published in the Journal of Community Informatices (2007).

Special thanks to Stephanie Elizondo Griest, author of “Mexican Enough.” Elizondo Griest mentioned Miriam Cardenas’ studies in her own book “Mexican Enough,” which I read earlier this year.