J. Owyang: Common to grassroots movements within corporations, adoption happens at the lowest levels at the company, rather than from a centralized group. You’ll see individual business units define their own strategy, pick their own tools, engage their own vendors, and communicate with the market on their own terms. Common to companies that haven’t put a strategy in place, depending on culture, this could be detrimental as resources are not used efficiently, data is spread on multiple systems, and the right hand doesn’t know what the left is doing.
Why: Content owners, product experts and market specialists (GB) Why Not: Resources are not used efficiently, data is spread on multiple systems, and the right hand doesn’t know what the left is doing. (TM)
J. Owyang: Common in organizations where power is centralized, we may see a central team formed to organize social media. This team defines the policy, best practices, vendors, and tools. This team which will commonly found in corporate communications and supported by PR will often dictate the direction of social media. Expect a dedicated role or sub-group to appear either experiential marketing, new media, or interactive media to eventually be born out of the group, where social media is centralized. Social media is a grassroots movement, so common dangers can be gagging the natural voice of conversations of product experts with customers using these tools, so a centralized team needs to be more of a support organization to the enterprise, not a controller.
Why: streamlined branding and messaging, coordination, eventual resources (TM) Why Not: no voice of the content and product experts (GB)
J. Owyang: This coordinated model has a central organizational unit that provides best practices, sets policy, supports infrastructure but encourages conversations at the edges of the company. More about empowering business groups to partake in natural social media discussions without hindering, this group will be more of a coordinator, and less of a controller. Expect to see this model to occur as social media infiltrates every nook and cranny of a business, and at a certain point, a company as an enterprise can’t ignore the raging groundswell. Cautions to this model, as overly coordinated programs will be difficult to achieve, and may be ineffective to different unique markets that a large company may have. Like the tower, having a centralized group at a large enterprise is always going to slow down natural conversations so focus on empowerment, rather than control.
Why: coordinated, yet empowered (GB) Why Not: Not another policy, process and procedure! Slows down flexibility; could cloud targeted needs (TM)
Why: experiment! (GB) Why not: disorganized (TM)
Why: No action, no harm, no foul! (GB) Why Not: missed opportunity; stifling employee morale (TM)
Why: personable and authentic (GB) Why not: potential for not enough brand messaging (TM)
Why: coordinated, blessed and empowered (GB) Why Not:
Why: total empowerment; authenticity Why Not: chaos!
Back to: Areas of focus Multiple lines of business You’re managing a portfolio of brands! Your education programs Your young adult programs Different exhibitions… Retail.. How are they branded? Is the master brand earning credit??
Will swap out with more recent graphic
J. Owyang: Estimated with about 80% corporate brand and 20% personal brand this account may be a corporate branded account, although it’s clear there’s an individual participating. Example: ComcastCares, which shows the account is run by Frank Elliason, or CiscoNews, by John Earnhardt Pros: This account maintains the face of the corporate side, yet shows a human element, building trust with the community. Cons: The account may be limiting itself as the community may come to expect and rely on the individual person to participate.
J. Owyang: These accounts are 100% personal content and have no tie or mention of corporate or branded information. These personal accounts, either created by an individual that doesn’t want to be associated with their employer –or their employer won’t let them is void of any corporate ties. Example: There are various personal accounts, without any affiliations to brands. Pros: This account has no tie or risk to a brand. Cons: Although the risks are reduced, so are the opportunities. The chance to evangelize the brand with their community are lost. Which type is right for your social media endeavors? It depends on the culture and goals of the organization. Expect many brands to have several of these accounts (For example, Cisco has types 1, 2, and 3) within their social arsenal). Type 1 may be useful for sharing facts, Type 2 may be helpful for support, Type 3 may have advantages in evangelism and type 4 may be helpful for employees that have little connection to the product or customers.
Why And Why Nots of Social Media
CASE District I — 29 January 2010 <ul><li>Social </li></ul>of Why The & Whys nots Media