DC Insights

Bud v. Coors v. Miller – Facebook Battle of (light) Beers

First, Happy Thanksgiving Everyone . . . go to your fridge, grab a cold one, and return for a beer battle royal!

For the holidays and to get myself deeper into the guts of Facebook, I shall pit three light beers against each other . . . who is the social media KING?

To start, I set metrics for comparison – a quantitative assessment. Valuable metrics must be tied to the primary objective, or outcome, of a corporation's presence on Facebook. Metrics must also supply actionable information – information the analyst can use to make positive change. Now, owners of Facebook pages have access to a rich set of metrics and tools for measuring success of their own pages. How can they best measure themselves against a competitor? . . . I'll try my best, starting with a generic objective:

Corporate Facebook Page Objective:

• Engage customer base that participates in secondary Facebook relationships; begin a conversation
• Increase exposure to a branded experience that enhances the corporate product(s)
• Gather market insight for R&D, market planning, and improved customer support

Next, selecting metrics that are publically available (let me know if I missed something you were expecting):

• Number of Fans
• Corporate Post Frequency; # per month
  • Based on an average of x months
  • % of fan base response to above recorded posts (# of thumbs + responses/# of fans)
• Fan Post (absolute number; no assessment of quality)
  • Months Represented in fan post #
• Publication of material to build engagement on, including:
  • # of Videos
  • # of Photo Albums
  • # of Favorite Pages
  • # of Interactive Applications Offered

I put these in a tentatively prioritized order: Absolute # of fans is the foundation, but just a start), actual conversation/interaction or posts and responses is key, and then material to continue promoting conversation adds value. If one had a Facebook page with a ton of material and no engagement – it should get an F grade. What you think; valid reasoning?

So. . . drum roll please. . . here are the results as of 11/25/09, 12:00 CST:

	Coors Light	Bud Light	Miller Lite
Number of Fans	288,345	348,053	194,865
Favorite Pages	1	0	0
# of Videos	3	14	3
# of Photo Albums	0	0	43
Interactive Applications	2	8	2
Corporate Post Frequency; # per month	2.6	3.7	4.8
average of x months	5	3	4
% of fan base response to above posts	0.47%	0.46%	0.41%
Fan Post (absolute number)	3	538	718
# of last 6 months Represented	2	4	1

 

And my takeaways:

• There is much more to each companies approach then these numbers. For example, Miller Lite has a much more transparent site where fans and non-fans can see non-corporate posts. The number and complexity of variables means we'll speculate in the blog post – you'll have to bring me in for my more in-depth analysis

• Coors Light does so much more around their primary sponsorship, the NFL, which is no surprise. However, that then becomes the theme of the page/community. There are benefits and possible challenges with that. Bud Light and Miller Lite fans are certainly not there for just the season. . .
• Some metrics above point to what we can't see. While I don't specifically record it because I can't entirely substantiate it, I believe the age of the sites by month are as follows:

  Coors Light: 6        Bud Light: 3        Miller Lite: 4

  It is interesting how that has limited to no correlation with fan base and postings

• Because I'm a Bronco fan, I'd like to say the Silver Bullet one. . . but it appears Miller Lite has locked in their audience. . . and I would not be surprised if their wall settings and posted photo albums have something to do with it. . . but that's part of the more in-depth analysis

I do hope I have given you something to mull over as you digest your turkey and stuffing! As you sip your cold one of choice, what is your speculation on these numbers?

Again, Happy Thanksgiving and Cheers!

Editor's Notes: I'm partial to Pabst, Negro Modelo, and Samuel Smith

Virtual Web Agent: Intro and Channel Cost Data

Have you recently visited a bank* or retailer* and engaged in an online conversation. . . not knowing it was virtual (*instances are positioned next to bank/retailer website)? That's right, HAL is now a reality as virtual web agents start gaining in popularity as a means to extend a company's support services. Here, I provide a quick intro and high level channel cost data – information that should convince you to learn more (that's where I can help). I focus on MyCyberTwin here but recognize other solutions like Noah exist.

This blog entry is the second in a series focused on developing a service platform optimization model to quantify benefits. If you have not, read Channel Cost Analysis: Savings Potential of the Community Channel as a compliment to this entry.

Now, a little more from www.mycybertwin.com: A CyberTwin is an artificial intelligence character, which functions on your behalf. Enterprise CyberTwins are advanced customer support robots, which live on the web and talk to your clients. They outperform humans - CyberTwins are always accurate, always in a good mood, speak many languages, and work day and night. Benefits include:

• Increased sales - provides flexibility across outgoing interactions based on business objectives
• Improved customer satisfaction - responds quickly, with high accuracy, and always with a friendly disposition
• Reduced costs - handles thousands of simultaneous queries, 24 hours a day, at a low cost
• Improved resource availability - humans handle more valuable work

For additional background, check out this virtual web agent discussion by Charles Wooters and Daniel Marcu's.

If you were wondering who's started engaging in this, companies using virtual agents include: Alaska Airlines, Buy.com, Continental Airlines, IKEA (since 2004), NASA, National Bank of Australia, the U.S. Army, and Verizon Wireless

How does one create a virtual agent? Simply develop a virtual 'brain' to handle support needs by leveraging existing expertise among your support staff. As for pricing, think of it as a tiered model – just how smart (how large of a virtual brain) do you want your agent to be?

But, what are the benefits? I'm pulling data from MyCyberTwin. I recognize they have incentives to publish inflated benefits so I consider this a starting point. Focus on the magnitude of the potential cost savings:

Live call agent median cost per contact (source):

$5.50

Virtual agent median cost per contact:

$0.75

 

A few additional metrics that speak to cost savings:

• Virtual customer support character on Buy.com cut the cost of support as a percentage of revenue from 2.06% to 0.57% - Stanford University
• Web self-service systems reduce call-center volume between 8 and 12 percent.
• Users will opt for non-phone based support options 80% to 90% of the time.

If some of those numbers are not enticing enough, I offer these more generic benefits from implementing web-based or self-service technologies, from Supportindustry.com's 2009 survey. Note: the survey does not explicitly include the use of virtual agents. 6% of respondents offer 'Other' as a support channel - the default if a virtual agent is being used. Benefits (as identified by % of respondents):

• 33% - Increased efficiencies
• 18% - Cost reductions
• 16% - Reduction in the number of support requests
• 16% - Greater customer satisfaction and loyalty

And to tie this into my previous blog on customer support communities, a self-service knowledgebase represent the second most-offered support channel, with 63% of respondents making such access available.

Finally, if you want to continue this conversation with me, virtually, feel free to speak with my virtual self at https://mycybertwin.com/chat/easiegmann.

I'm excited to hear what you think of the potential for virtual agents. Does it seem like a viable extension for providing support? Are we going too far off the virtual deep-end?

Cheers!

Aardvark – New Best Animal, EVER!

Aardvark is a must see! O.k., so this is not about the animal (everyone know the Liger is the best animal EVER).

I want you introduce to the most amazing, new web service, aardvark. Here's their one liner, "Aardvark was conceived as the first Social Search engine: a way to find people, not web pages, that have specific information." It's a simple concept in theory:

• Identify and connect a network of people (LOTS of people - all over)
  • Aardvark is very smart to leverage multiple, mature networks that we already propagate
• Create multiple (infinite?) 'panels of experts' by allowing users to self select their expertise
• Open the network allowing users to ask and answer questions
  • Questions are most likely evaluated and allocated to a topic. . .
  • Then sent out to all folks within your 'network' with self-identified expertise in that topic. . .
  • BAM. . . answers get sent to you!

Saturday evening, with the fixings for dinner in front of me, I was inspired to test the site with the below question, and was quite pleased with the speed and quality of the answers – though somewhat subjective:

• You (that's me): What's the best spice to stir-fry shrimp with?
• Christopher G.; 26 / M / Pembroke Pines, FL: We had some shrimp using some Bahamian spices (not sure what it was), maybe some Paprika, and Curry (I think) last night - tasted great!
• Donald J.; 36 / M / Washington, DC: For something different try hoisin, five spice powder, or Szechuan peppercorn

Pretty Awesome for a Saturday evening Q&A on stir-fry shrimp between Chicago, Florida, and DC!

While Aardvark is awesome, the potential for enterprise use is huge. Can you imagine building a similar internal support network that allows customers to asynchronously connect with the most appropriate internal resources – big wins on improved customer satisfaction/loyalty and support cost savings.

I could spend all Sunday afternoon thinking and writing about aardvark. . . but instead I'm going to have a beer before seeing Springsteen play in Milwaukee. . . with GA tickets!!! I'll be sure to tell you all about it. . .

Tell me what you think of aardvark and the concept potential. . . looking forward to hearing thoughts, opinions, and cons! Cheers

GrubHub.com – a Quick SM Assessment

Had a great Friday presentation at Booth School of Business where Matt Maloney spoke about the company he cofounded, Grubhub.com. I love the concept of GrubHub – using inexpensive web technology to aggregate information and make our lives easier. And with the business model where restaurants pay GrubHub a % of online orders, it is win-win for them and free for us.

I thought it would be fun to review how well they use social media tools. Below is the information I collected – I included information on foodler, a competitor, as a point of reference.

Looking at a restaurant, there is a review section – great place to get customer credentials on the food. I used La Gondola as a reference. Here are things that I liked:

• The default review sorting places links to published reviews up top
• And when available links you to Yelp reviews
• Each reviewer has number of reviews and orders by their name for credentialing
• One can rate reviews as helpful or not
• One can sort reviews by 'most helpful' and 'Reviewer's Experience'

Here are my weekend 2 cents:

• The reviews are simple. I might want to know what with the reviewer ate. Foodler goes to the next level, aggregating reviews to the menu items associated with the reviewed order. Foodler also let one know the frequency that menu items were ordered. Note that Foodler provides no visibility into the individual reviewers or quality ratings of reviews. It also does not provide an open field for review like GrubHub.
• Links to external published and Yelp reviews take me to a new tab. It may be better to keep the customer engage on their site – could they communicate that information internally through a mashup before letting the customer leave?
• There is so much more information on these restaurants online. Is it possible to pull this in through mashup/aggregation as well? I know sometime you can have too much information - but GrubHub could pull this in at a low cost and let customers use it to their needs. External content could include:
  • Google has 26 reviews; La Gondola is ZAGAT rated 17 years in a row; additional reviews exist on CenterStage Chicago, tripadvisor, 10best.com, and urban spoon

Some other obvious spaces for them to be in:

They have a facebook page with 1,298 fans. Foodler has 2,445 fans. Their use of this space is consistent with other similar merchants, including:

• Fan buzz and promotion
• Fan feedback, i.e. new restaurants to include
• Promotional Monday trivia post – answer a question get $10 gift card
• Blog publication announcements

They have a twitter page with 1,828 followers and consistent traffic of responses, links to daily specials, and general announcements. Foodler has 83 followers and last tweeted June 28^th. . .

There is an iPhone app, made available August of 2008. Foodler does not have one. Now, I'm ashamed to say I do not have an iPhone yet, so if someone out there has used this app, I'd love to hear about it – do share.

So there you go - an internet based business that does well in engaging their customers via social media tools. I believe they have additional opportunities to mashing up more external review information. It is an easy way to leverage valuable external information, and customer traffic, to add experience value at a minimal cost and effort. I'll see if Matt has time to discuss that with me ;-)

Cheers all, and Go Broncos!

Using Facebook to Jumpstart the Community Channel

An L.A. Times article on Charles Nelson, president of Sprinkles Cupcakes, inspired this blog. Charles and his wife run a viable, if not successful cupcake business in Beverly Hills. The business has been around for 5 years with an advertising budget of $0.00. That's right kids . . . the cupcakes aren't free, but Charles' ability to connect with his customers is. Now, I want to write about connecting with the customer, not marketing. I'm here to convince you of the need to develop a service community channel – and that it's not that hard!

First, let's put all doubts aside. Why should you have a community channel to serve your customers? One reason: a significant portion may expect it. According to 2009 Cone research, 78% of new media users interact with companies or brands and of those, 89% believe a company should present AND also interact with its consumers via social media. And new media has become one of the most popular media channels, see my previous blog.

And it can be easy. Charles leverages Facebook to create his Sprinkles community channel, on which he is able to:

• Manage more than 70,000 'customers', people who declare themselves as fans of Sprinkles'
• Collect feedback from customer base on new flavors (inventory) or potential new locations (distribution)
• Announce daily promotions, a secret word such as "ganache," to drive customers stores for free cupcakes
• Take advantage of free 'buzz' marketing –fans automatically communicate interest and support to their Facebook friends through comment boards

As an editorial assumption, I'll add a key tenet of the community support channel value. If a negative comment were posted in the community space, Charles can address in proactively as opposed to being powerless in dealing with the ramifications. Imagine the horrors of, "I found a fingernail in my cupcake," and the amazing creativity that could create a positive windfall, like, "I was wondering where that went. . . but seriously, Sprinkles considers quality to be the highest requirement in product and service. All incidents of this nature, like mice in beer bottles, will receive appropriate, timely customer care."

Being powerless is a real problem, because there will be talk about your products and services online. Mikkel Svane, CEO of Zendesk, a web-based help desk services company, Suggests that if complaints are happening on media like Facebook and Twitter, "Take advantage of these tools and use them to keep a positive conversation going. Having a dedicated staff person that interacts with customers to answer their urgent questions on Twitter shows how responsive and committed a company is to its customers."

Now, you don't want to just jump in and create a Facebook company page during your lunch break. You should determine what you want to do with your customers online – start by knowing what they are looking by going online and listen to what they are saying about you. Then, with an objective in mind, consider your company's culture, products and services, and customers to determine the right tools to use for creating a community channel through social media space. Facebook may not be an appropriate starter.

Businesses need to go where their customers are. Facebook seems optimal for Sprinkles Cupcakes. That may not be the case for a more professional, B2B company. Traditionally transactional, information providing sites, Yelp (find the best Chicago pizza based on crowd opinion), Citysearch and other Yellow Pages type sites are incorporating social media elements that allow customers to rate and comment on service providers. This is a great way for companies to take baby steps in addressing their customer community through social media sites.

The initial conversations of "where and how to start" are the most exciting to engage in. Have you been asking these questions for yourself?

Nobel Prizes and the Power of Web Video

I want to start by extending congratulations to this year's winners of the Nobel Prize in Physics. They are recognized for achievements that enable the web revolution you and I know today. I also want to extend a special recognition to George E. Smith, a University of Chicago alum (my alma mater). His half of the achievement, awarded to Willard S. Boyle as well, is the development of CCD, the base technology for digital images. Digital images, especially digital video, can contribute a remarkable value for web engagement.

Focusing on the role of video in the online experience, I want to share provocative data from an OVEC survey, found here.

Most Consumed Media: The web represents the most consumed media per day based on the survey. Accounting for 29% of a day's consumption, the web just eclipses TVs 27% and significantly surpasses all others; radio is next at 11%.

In Short Format: Of the time spent online, watching video represents a full third (32%)-an individual's primary activity-just behind reading/writing email (29%). Social networking and news cover the rest at 24 and 15% respectively Even deeper, videos watched are broken down into type. Not surprisingly, short clips dominate viewer time.

. . . and to Entertain: We can also gather what perceived benefit users are getting from these videos. It's certainly not all work with as much as 70% of video viewing being related to entertainment (I included categories called "Entertain Me", "I'm a Fan", and "My Time" but recognize overlap exists). Follow that by a measly 13% of viewing behavior that's identified exclusively for research, i.e. folks "Need Info".

Spread Socially: Of video viewed online, the survey suggests nearly 1 in 5 views are influenced through social media. People are using the web to share their interests and opinions with their network through video. That's good to know if you're looking to tap into that valuable form of marketing.

 

Another telling data point on the role of video is provided by YouTube, which became the number two channel for search at the end of 2008 – and it still holds that position. According to conScore's September 2009 search engine rankings, YouTube represents 16% of total search traffic, behind Google's 43% and ahead of Yahoo's 13% (if you were wondering, MSFT with Bing still only has 6%). People are seeking out video to learn from the web.

 

So if that's the user's side of the story, what are companies doing about this? To begin understanding this, I want to quickly reference McKinsey's latest web 2.0 survey, How companies are benefiting from web 2.0. First, the survey's general takeaway confirms the benefits of web 2.0 technologies:

69% percent of respondents report that their companies have gained measurable business benefits, including more innovative products and services, more effective marketing, better access to knowledge, lower cost of doing business, and higher revenues. Companies that made greater use of the technologies, the results show, report even greater benefits. . . Despite the current recession, respondents overwhelmingly say that they will continue to invest in Web 2.0.

For video, survey results show video sharing as the leading web 2.0 technology in use. They even call out the increasing trend, "respondents report using Web videos more frequently since the previous survey; technology improvements have made videos easier to produce and disseminate within organizations." Given the forecasted increase in web 2.0 investment, we might project a further increase in spend on web video.

The takeaway here, besides a congrats to Smith and Boyle for development of CCD, is that video is here, it is in high demand by users, and it is already a significant portion of many companies web 2.0 strategies. Given all this, you'll want to ask yourself, "Am I using video as strategically as I can?"