The Conversation Manager by Steven Van Belleghem @Steven_InSites #CM48
Word of mouth
 
 
Word of mouth B.G.
Wor L d of mouth A.G.
We know things are  changing , we  don’t know  how to act upon it
Need for RADICAL change
It’s time to jump and to become… The Conversation Manager
Not just about observing & joining social media
integration of word-of-mouth in all marketing thinking & acting
Philosophy Conversation Advertising Brand
Conversation Activation Brand Philosophy
STEP 1: Brand leverage
 
 
 
 
 
 
Brand identification  is  KEY  for the Conversation Manager 1
Step2: Advertising becomes  ACTIVATION
Advertising  is the start of a good  conversation
 
Number of followers Number of re-tweets Number of mentions
Number viewers Number conversations Number of blogs
Number of fans Number of sharing Number of reactions
What should people tell each other
Step 3: Manage your  conversations
Conversation Activation Brand Philosophy
As a manager As a brand As a peer
“ Please don’t change OUR brand; we love it the way it is”
“ Please don’t change OUR brand; we love it the way it is”
 Thank you! Listen Ask questions Open Honest Personal Engagement
That’s the philosophy of… The Conversation Manager
A story of  CHANGE
 
Long term goal: Be ambitious
“ Success is going from failure to failure without the loss of enthusiasm”
Word of mouth
Thank you! Good luck! Questions, feedback, remarks: [email_address] Follow me: @Steven_InSites Join me on LinkedIn www.the...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

2010.06 The Conversation Manager

594

Published on

Interact Congress Barcelona 2010
Branding Online: The Time Is Now

The Conversation Manager

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
594
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Recent literature on WOM has largely emphasized these so called influencers. However, others have challenged this idea poning that “word-of-mouth from celebrities, mavens, connectors, alphas, hubs, transmitters, trendsetters, [...] is always good. But it’s no more powerful or influential than word-of-mouth from that guy [...] sitting next to you on the train” (Balter & Butman, 2005). It is therefore our belief that the first step towards a better measurement of WOMO is not looking at “who is doing something”, but at “what everybody is doing.” Therefore, action rather than persons and their characteristics are situated at the heart of our model. When evaluating a viral campaign it is important to map all different communication that consumers have started. The model distinguishes different levels of online actions in relation to the level of engagement they imply (see figure 1) (Womma, 2005). A first type of actions are receiver actions. These happen whenever people receive and absorb the content of a message about brands, products and services. Online surfers can come in contact with information about brands via two types of channels. They can use selective channels like e-mail where they receive information that is personally addressed. However, they can also find information on public sharing platforms like YouTube, online forums,... A second type of actions are sender actions. This encompasses all actions where people share the information about brands with other people. While forwarding as such is indicative for extended reach of an ad (by definition a key performance indicator) it can crystallize in different actions. “Selective forward” actions happen whenever consumers forward the communication to a focussed and/or limited set of people. In turn there are three formats of this kind of forwarding. In “plain forwarding” no comments or much thinking or acting is added from the part of the sender. “Commented forwarding ” means that the forwarder adds negative, positive, reinforcing or other comments. Finally, forwarders can specifically “target” certain people in their peer group (e.g. only send it to brand lovers or acquaintances they know are in a buying process). A second type of sender action are “sharing forward” actions. These consumers like or dislike the ad so much they post it on a open sharing platform such that anyone else interested can be exposed to the ad. The sender is not interested in reaching close acquaintances but reach as many people as possible A final type of actions are creator actions. These actions basically imply people contributing content to the add (e.g. filling out there or others’ details to personalize the ad), participate in a contest or play an interactive game or even create a new add. In this research, we want to measure to what extent consumers undertake the different types and subtypes of actions:   We believe that some WoMo actions will occur more frequently than others. Because receiver actions are passive actions that do not ask a lot of effort from the consumer, we expect this type of action will be the biggest group. Similarly we hypothesize that although sender actions demand more consumer involvement than receiver actions, they will still occur more frequently than creator actions that require a truly active and passionate consumer. Next, we expect that there will be a difference between selective (e-mail) and sharing online communication channels (online forums, blogs, websites specialized in online movies). We hypothesize that consumers will still have a preference for e-mail communication above other types of communication because they are more familiar with the channel ( www.E-scape-reports.com )
  • Recent literature on WOM has largely emphasized these so called influencers. However, others have challenged this idea poning that “word-of-mouth from celebrities, mavens, connectors, alphas, hubs, transmitters, trendsetters, [...] is always good. But it’s no more powerful or influential than word-of-mouth from that guy [...] sitting next to you on the train” (Balter & Butman, 2005). It is therefore our belief that the first step towards a better measurement of WOMO is not looking at “who is doing something”, but at “what everybody is doing.” Therefore, action rather than persons and their characteristics are situated at the heart of our model. When evaluating a viral campaign it is important to map all different communication that consumers have started. The model distinguishes different levels of online actions in relation to the level of engagement they imply (see figure 1) (Womma, 2005). A first type of actions are receiver actions. These happen whenever people receive and absorb the content of a message about brands, products and services. Online surfers can come in contact with information about brands via two types of channels. They can use selective channels like e-mail where they receive information that is personally addressed. However, they can also find information on public sharing platforms like YouTube, online forums,... A second type of actions are sender actions. This encompasses all actions where people share the information about brands with other people. While forwarding as such is indicative for extended reach of an ad (by definition a key performance indicator) it can crystallize in different actions. “Selective forward” actions happen whenever consumers forward the communication to a focussed and/or limited set of people. In turn there are three formats of this kind of forwarding. In “plain forwarding” no comments or much thinking or acting is added from the part of the sender. “Commented forwarding ” means that the forwarder adds negative, positive, reinforcing or other comments. Finally, forwarders can specifically “target” certain people in their peer group (e.g. only send it to brand lovers or acquaintances they know are in a buying process). A second type of sender action are “sharing forward” actions. These consumers like or dislike the ad so much they post it on a open sharing platform such that anyone else interested can be exposed to the ad. The sender is not interested in reaching close acquaintances but reach as many people as possible A final type of actions are creator actions. These actions basically imply people contributing content to the add (e.g. filling out there or others’ details to personalize the ad), participate in a contest or play an interactive game or even create a new add. In this research, we want to measure to what extent consumers undertake the different types and subtypes of actions:   We believe that some WoMo actions will occur more frequently than others. Because receiver actions are passive actions that do not ask a lot of effort from the consumer, we expect this type of action will be the biggest group. Similarly we hypothesize that although sender actions demand more consumer involvement than receiver actions, they will still occur more frequently than creator actions that require a truly active and passionate consumer. Next, we expect that there will be a difference between selective (e-mail) and sharing online communication channels (online forums, blogs, websites specialized in online movies). We hypothesize that consumers will still have a preference for e-mail communication above other types of communication because they are more familiar with the channel ( www.E-scape-reports.com )
  • Recent literature on WOM has largely emphasized these so called influencers. However, others have challenged this idea poning that “word-of-mouth from celebrities, mavens, connectors, alphas, hubs, transmitters, trendsetters, [...] is always good. But it’s no more powerful or influential than word-of-mouth from that guy [...] sitting next to you on the train” (Balter & Butman, 2005). It is therefore our belief that the first step towards a better measurement of WOMO is not looking at “who is doing something”, but at “what everybody is doing.” Therefore, action rather than persons and their characteristics are situated at the heart of our model. When evaluating a viral campaign it is important to map all different communication that consumers have started. The model distinguishes different levels of online actions in relation to the level of engagement they imply (see figure 1) (Womma, 2005). A first type of actions are receiver actions. These happen whenever people receive and absorb the content of a message about brands, products and services. Online surfers can come in contact with information about brands via two types of channels. They can use selective channels like e-mail where they receive information that is personally addressed. However, they can also find information on public sharing platforms like YouTube, online forums,... A second type of actions are sender actions. This encompasses all actions where people share the information about brands with other people. While forwarding as such is indicative for extended reach of an ad (by definition a key performance indicator) it can crystallize in different actions. “Selective forward” actions happen whenever consumers forward the communication to a focussed and/or limited set of people. In turn there are three formats of this kind of forwarding. In “plain forwarding” no comments or much thinking or acting is added from the part of the sender. “Commented forwarding ” means that the forwarder adds negative, positive, reinforcing or other comments. Finally, forwarders can specifically “target” certain people in their peer group (e.g. only send it to brand lovers or acquaintances they know are in a buying process). A second type of sender action are “sharing forward” actions. These consumers like or dislike the ad so much they post it on a open sharing platform such that anyone else interested can be exposed to the ad. The sender is not interested in reaching close acquaintances but reach as many people as possible A final type of actions are creator actions. These actions basically imply people contributing content to the add (e.g. filling out there or others’ details to personalize the ad), participate in a contest or play an interactive game or even create a new add. In this research, we want to measure to what extent consumers undertake the different types and subtypes of actions:   We believe that some WoMo actions will occur more frequently than others. Because receiver actions are passive actions that do not ask a lot of effort from the consumer, we expect this type of action will be the biggest group. Similarly we hypothesize that although sender actions demand more consumer involvement than receiver actions, they will still occur more frequently than creator actions that require a truly active and passionate consumer. Next, we expect that there will be a difference between selective (e-mail) and sharing online communication channels (online forums, blogs, websites specialized in online movies). We hypothesize that consumers will still have a preference for e-mail communication above other types of communication because they are more familiar with the channel ( www.E-scape-reports.com )
  • Recent literature on WOM has largely emphasized these so called influencers. However, others have challenged this idea poning that “word-of-mouth from celebrities, mavens, connectors, alphas, hubs, transmitters, trendsetters, [...] is always good. But it’s no more powerful or influential than word-of-mouth from that guy [...] sitting next to you on the train” (Balter & Butman, 2005). It is therefore our belief that the first step towards a better measurement of WOMO is not looking at “who is doing something”, but at “what everybody is doing.” Therefore, action rather than persons and their characteristics are situated at the heart of our model. When evaluating a viral campaign it is important to map all different communication that consumers have started. The model distinguishes different levels of online actions in relation to the level of engagement they imply (see figure 1) (Womma, 2005). A first type of actions are receiver actions. These happen whenever people receive and absorb the content of a message about brands, products and services. Online surfers can come in contact with information about brands via two types of channels. They can use selective channels like e-mail where they receive information that is personally addressed. However, they can also find information on public sharing platforms like YouTube, online forums,... A second type of actions are sender actions. This encompasses all actions where people share the information about brands with other people. While forwarding as such is indicative for extended reach of an ad (by definition a key performance indicator) it can crystallize in different actions. “Selective forward” actions happen whenever consumers forward the communication to a focussed and/or limited set of people. In turn there are three formats of this kind of forwarding. In “plain forwarding” no comments or much thinking or acting is added from the part of the sender. “Commented forwarding ” means that the forwarder adds negative, positive, reinforcing or other comments. Finally, forwarders can specifically “target” certain people in their peer group (e.g. only send it to brand lovers or acquaintances they know are in a buying process). A second type of sender action are “sharing forward” actions. These consumers like or dislike the ad so much they post it on a open sharing platform such that anyone else interested can be exposed to the ad. The sender is not interested in reaching close acquaintances but reach as many people as possible A final type of actions are creator actions. These actions basically imply people contributing content to the add (e.g. filling out there or others’ details to personalize the ad), participate in a contest or play an interactive game or even create a new add. In this research, we want to measure to what extent consumers undertake the different types and subtypes of actions:   We believe that some WoMo actions will occur more frequently than others. Because receiver actions are passive actions that do not ask a lot of effort from the consumer, we expect this type of action will be the biggest group. Similarly we hypothesize that although sender actions demand more consumer involvement than receiver actions, they will still occur more frequently than creator actions that require a truly active and passionate consumer. Next, we expect that there will be a difference between selective (e-mail) and sharing online communication channels (online forums, blogs, websites specialized in online movies). We hypothesize that consumers will still have a preference for e-mail communication above other types of communication because they are more familiar with the channel ( www.E-scape-reports.com )
  • 2010.06 The Conversation Manager

    1. 1. The Conversation Manager by Steven Van Belleghem @Steven_InSites #CM48
    2. 2. Word of mouth
    3. 5. Word of mouth B.G.
    4. 6. Wor L d of mouth A.G.
    5. 7. We know things are changing , we don’t know how to act upon it
    6. 8. Need for RADICAL change
    7. 9. It’s time to jump and to become… The Conversation Manager
    8. 10. Not just about observing & joining social media
    9. 11. integration of word-of-mouth in all marketing thinking & acting
    10. 12. Philosophy Conversation Advertising Brand
    11. 13. Conversation Activation Brand Philosophy
    12. 14. STEP 1: Brand leverage
    13. 21. Brand identification is KEY for the Conversation Manager 1
    14. 22. Step2: Advertising becomes ACTIVATION
    15. 23. Advertising is the start of a good conversation
    16. 25. Number of followers Number of re-tweets Number of mentions
    17. 26. Number viewers Number conversations Number of blogs
    18. 27. Number of fans Number of sharing Number of reactions
    19. 28. What should people tell each other
    20. 29. Step 3: Manage your conversations
    21. 30. Conversation Activation Brand Philosophy
    22. 31. As a manager As a brand As a peer
    23. 32. “ Please don’t change OUR brand; we love it the way it is”
    24. 33. “ Please don’t change OUR brand; we love it the way it is”
    25. 34.  Thank you! Listen Ask questions Open Honest Personal Engagement
    26. 35. That’s the philosophy of… The Conversation Manager
    27. 36. A story of CHANGE
    28. 38. Long term goal: Be ambitious
    29. 39. “ Success is going from failure to failure without the loss of enthusiasm”
    30. 40. Word of mouth
    31. 41. Thank you! Good luck! Questions, feedback, remarks: [email_address] Follow me: @Steven_InSites Join me on LinkedIn www.theconversationmanager.com @Steven_InSites #CM48
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×