I think it’s time for a online social revolution.
The revolution is a shift to a social architecture from a content architecture. Most online brand experiences today are based on a content architecture. In a content architecture content is king. Consumers of the site are users,who experience the content and then move on. We (marketers) talk about using social tools like facebook,YouTube or Twitter, because it is fashionable,trendy —whatever. The reality is marketers still treat consumers like users and content reigns supreme.
I believe moving to a social architecture will require a revolution,because it will require marketers to think differently about consumer to brand interactions;it will change core marketing procedures (e.g. content creation,budgeting;,and it will require a certain level of brand self-awareness (i.e. btw not everyone is an advocate for your brand).
So what are attributes of a social architecture? In my view there are two significant differences between content and social architectures: How content is used and how the consumer is treated.
Content Usage: Brands using a content architecture center the experience around the content. In a social architecture,content takes on a new context. First off,definition of content is more than video,images or copy,it is all content within the experience regardless of who generates it.
Secondly,brand content takes on a new purpose. It becomes a catalyst for action. Many brand videos are a brand talking to themselves. Rarely does a brand listen to the community and then provide content relevant to the conversation —therefore,fueling the conversation.
Consumer Treatment: As I stated prior,consumers in a content architecture are users. In a social architcture,consumers are participants —they are contributors —consumers are king. A social architecture is designed to engage the consumer both initially and longitudinally. We want a person to act immediately. The action may be to comment on content,share it,or contribute their own content to the experience.
Longitudinally,we would like to continue build a relationship by encouraging additional action. We can accomplish this by inviting the consumer back based on how we,as a brand responds to their action,how other’s respond,and/or an invitation to contribute more content.
To move to a social archtiecture measurement needs to evolve too. Many marketers struggle with how to quantify their social experience. They focus on visits,video views,content sharing,or commenting. These measurements are not bad,just difficult to interpret the vibrancy of the social experience.
I would challenge us to assess how much of the conversation is carried by the brand versus the consumer. If 90% or more of the content is generated by a brand,this is still a content architecture. Although the experience may include all of the appropriate tools,it is not resonating with the target consumer. The brand should re-evaluate their overall experience premise. A good start is answering the following questions:
- What are brand target consumers saying out there? Are they talking about the brand?
- Does the site lack a unique value proposition when compared to other communities about the brand?
- Does the brand content on the site encourage commenting? Sharing? Consumer contribution?
- Are their activities on the site encouraging collaboration between consumers?
Finally,beware of novelty. In my opinon slapping a social tool on your site is not a social architecture. To me it is more of a novelty to say,“Hey look at me. I’m a cool,hip brand that gets the social space.” Sorry Skittles. If your objective was to create buzz,you succeeded. However,in my perspective you catered nicely to the Twitter evangelists,while you treated your target consumers like users.
