I’m pleased to see some folks like Brian Solis talk about intent and motivation as a consistent theme in their work. I really wish we’d all talk more about it as a foundational point upon which to build our customer relationships, because it’s important on both sides of the equation, and has been since the dawn of time.
Social media hasn’t changed this, but it’s amplified it. Here’s a (long) bit about what I mean.
Company Intent
Having a great business or product to sell is critical. If you haven’t figured that out by now, stop reading and go start there.
But if you’ve truly got something of value to offer people, how and why you go about doing that is every bit as critical as the what. What’s your motivation for creating this product in the first place? How do you want people to feel when they do business with you? What’s the aftertaste you want to leave with someone for the longer term?
And I’m talking about more than the stuff you put in your mission and vision statement and promptly forego in favor of a meeting around reducing costs. This is the very fabric of what you’re in business to do. It’s one part about your passion, one part about your philosophy on how you treat people that are part of your business (that includes customers and employees and vendors), and the actions that you take to prove that out.
Everything – ultimately – comes down to this. This is part of what the social media uprising is about: trying to suss out the true intentions of the companies that we’re doing business with, and understand whether or not we’re comfortable with that as consumers, even happy or motivated or inspired by it.
Yes, we’re all in business to earn money of some kind. We accept that as both business owners and consumers. The magic is in where that goal falls in the spectrum of human relations, and how you balance your business goals with the fact that you need the emotional investment of people – even momentarily – in order to achieve the monetary thing.
Individual Intent
As individual people, our intentions and needs vary from moment to moment. For the purposes of this post, I’m going to focus on how we seek to interact with companies online (because I could spend endless sociological ramblings about how intent manifests in general in millions of ways, but that for another time perhaps).
As active consumers – meaning somewhere in the purchase cycle – our intentions are pretty clear-cut. We’re largely seeking to connect with companies that solve the problem we’re having and provide a product or service accordingly, at a price we can justify and equate with the value we perceive, and we’d like to feel like our business (and we as human beings) are valued by the company we’re talking to. When all of those things come together, we’re in a pretty good place.
The trickier bit is our intent in between those moments of active consumption. How and why do we care to interact with businesses when we’re not on the market? Do we?
The answer here is awfully subjective and based in personal taste, but for the most part, our intent here is most likely to stay in touch with people that represent a business we care about in some way. Whether we’re a fan of their product or service, interested in their industry or market, or perhaps just personally invested in the success of one of their people, all of those things help drive our desire to stay connected, even when we don’t need the business itself. (Plus, it makes the path so much shorter when we DO need it, right?).
Some things are consistent here: our desire to feel like we matter to a company, even when we’re not buying. That our connection and interaction matters to them when there isn’t an immediate dollar sign attached, and that the company recognizes the potential of that relationship for more than a single sale.
The Disconnect
Where the friction occurs is mostly here:
When the company intent is communicated solely in the IMMEDIATE CONTEXT of sales, and when the consumer intent is rooted and nurtured BETWEEN sales moments.
The result of that disconnect is:
- Companies focus their interactions on sales as a starting point instead of a result
- Companies attribute lackluster attention for their offer with not enough attention or awareness, so they get louder
- Content becomes myopically focused on products or sales instead of the ambient experience with the company
- Customers resent the one-track-mindset and feel pitched or exploited
- Customers perceptions of the company are based on what they can see and feel most, which is the product pitch
- Customers don’t believe that the company sees any value for them other than a dollar figure, and doesn’t care about them between transactions
The reality is that for many companies, their REAL intentions are good ones. They care about customers. They talk about that in meetings, they invest in customer service or leadership training, they’re generally nice people, they try really hard and believe in the product or service they’re selling. But they do a crappy job of showcasing those intentions through their communication, because their mindset has been that the communication pipeline has to be jammed with the highest potential transaction value in order to justify the investment in same. In other words, communication is for earning money.
But we, as customers, want to see a more multi-dimensional company that can showcase more than just the things that drop straight to the bottom line. We want to see all of the ancillary bonuses that make a company more attractive overall: their industry contributions and expertise, the uniqueness of their people, the personality of their company, the causes they care about and contribute to. We want them to communicate to enhance the experience overall, outside of the transactions we make.
And of course, all of those seemingly “soft” things are critical to communicate, because they demonstrate to a customer in between sales moments that the company has a well-rounded sense of values and interest in them. But for a company, they’re having trouble figuring out how all of those dots connect, because as consumers, we really only communicate our true intent with companies when we’re on the verge of needing something from them, or have just had a remarkable experience in the transaction moment (for better or worse). The rest of the time, we just rather expect them to keep guessing about what we care about.
See the issue here?
Bridging the Gap
Enter social media, and the double edged sword that is communication in the open seas.
As consumers, we need to help businesses understand what we value and why. Specifically. We must skip the generalities of “people do business with people they like”, and start speaking up about what constitutes “people we like”, and the detailed characteristics of what we value in a company. What kind of content would we like to see on their website or community? Do we care if they have a blog and why? What do we wish they’d do more of? Less of? How is our experience with them, and how could we help them improve it overall? Do we understand THEM as a company and what they stand for?
If we wait simply until we have a situational and specific issue to address, we’re reversing the microfocus we’re blaming companies for, and drawing our experiences only in the framework of our immediate transactions. I think we can do a better job in social media of not just waiting for business to find and talk to us, but instead investing our own time and effort in improving business practices through our own input in between those sales, and sharing what we know from our vantage point.
As companies, it’s not enough to just “be listening” and “join the conversation”. It’s important to get down to brass tacks, get dirty, and sit down in the chairs that are next to your customers when they’re not buying from you. It’s time consuming. It’s not scalable. It requires invested individuals who care about your company, but also care about understanding how to bring the customer and company closer to parallel in the intentions we talked about above. It’s a willingness to invest in the moments between the sales in order to make the active moments better, even desirable on both ends. And it’s an imprecise thing that requires lots of nurturing over time. Sometimes, it’s as manual and analog as it comes.
Social media helps take some of the friction out of the process. It makes things easier to share, hear, read, see, react to, weigh in on, pass along. But it doesn’t negate the need for the underlying intent to be in the right spot. That’s nothing technology can solve, and it resides right among the very threads that connect us as members of the same species.
Together, we have to share one core intention and motivation: to make our shared experience better. And if it’s friction we feel, we must be willing to dig beneath the surface actions and talk about why we’re even standing next to each other in the first place.
Long before Twitter or Facebook or blogs or forums, that mutual understanding of purpose has always been what ignites enduring human affinity, and the lack of it has started more than one world war.
Intent matters. In fact, I’d argue it’s everything. You?
“But they do a crappy job of showcasing those intentions (caring for customers) through their communication, because their mindset has been that the communication pipeline has to be jammed with the highest potential transaction value in order to justify the investment in same. In other words, communication is for earning money.” Bulls-eye. It can be like pick-up lines at a bar – using tactics to move toward some pre-determined (and self-centered) goal. Great analysis here, Amber! And, if I could get you into a new blog design by the end of the day, what would it take to…ooops, sorry….
“But they do a crappy job of showcasing those intentions (caring for customers) through their communication, because their mindset has been that the communication pipeline has to be jammed with the highest potential transaction value in order to justify the investment in same. In other words, communication is for earning money.” Bulls-eye. It can be like pick-up lines at a bar – using tactics to move toward some pre-determined (and self-centered) goal. Great analysis here, Amber! And, if I could get you into a new blog design by the end of the day, what would it take to…ooops, sorry….
This is one of the most thought provoking posts I have seen in a while. Customer relationships, well all relationships, are built on trust. Trust in our intentions and trust in our abilities. Trust in many cases is missing, it went for a long walk a long time ago! Intent is authentic, sincere and reinforces integrity.
I think you’ve stimulated great thought here in terms of the essence of everything we say must be motivated by intent and being authentic which is about being transparent. You can’t have a true conversation without an authentic voice thats full of intention to share, engage, participate and collaborate.
.-= Ann Holman´s last blog ..Managing Online Reputation =-.
This is one of the most thought provoking posts I have seen in a while. Customer relationships, well all relationships, are built on trust. Trust in our intentions and trust in our abilities. Trust in many cases is missing, it went for a long walk a long time ago! Intent is authentic, sincere and reinforces integrity.
I think you’ve stimulated great thought here in terms of the essence of everything we say must be motivated by intent and being authentic which is about being transparent. You can’t have a true conversation without an authentic voice thats full of intention to share, engage, participate and collaborate.
.-= Ann Holman´s last blog ..Managing Online Reputation =-.
What you refer to as Intent, Amber, I often call “The Theory Of The Firm.” The theory of the firm is that one central unifying proposition (not necessarily a “unique offering”) that gives the firm its very reason for being. For instance, there is a gourmet coffee/wine shop here in Chapel Hill that I often frequent called 3Cups. Their “theory of the firm” can be found in their manifesto, but it’s far too simplistic to say that they are in business to sell coffee, or to “delight the customer.” They are in business to provide customers with the very best coffee experience, period. This means that the customer is NOT always right, especially when they come in asking for a quick cup of drip coffee. They make you wait while the coffee steeps in a French press. They aren’t mean, or snotty about it – it’s just tied to their central organizing principle.
In this sense, money is a trailing variable. If 3Cups’s intent was to sell coffee, they might sell some. Their intent, however, is to educate and support those people who want the finest coffee has to offer, whether they drink it in the store, brew it at home, or, God forbid, buy it elsewhere.
When you are clear about your intent – the organizing principle of the firm – then what you need to do is often obvious. For a gourmet coffee shop, it’s to be there well before the sale to educate, during the sale to provide the best in-store experience, and after the sale to help support those consumers who want to graduate to making their own coffee. Social media does not only help the firm “broadcast” that intent, but to put it into practice. If the offerings of the firm are tightly integrated with the theory of the firm, then sales will be a trailing variable of the successful communication of this intent. When the product is obsolete, broken or otherwise irrelevant, the intent is that which remains. The intent is what is sustainable over the long haul.
It also means that your company has to stand for something. If you are going to trust that your employees out on the front lines of social media are going to make good decisions, then the theory of the firm (please, don’t call it a ‘mission statement’) is the crystal clear, laser-etched reason for being that employees can rally around and derive clear marching orders from. If you don’t have this, you don’t have a social media problem.
You really spilled some ink on this one, Naslund! Good on you, and thanks for making me think.
.-= Tom Webster´s last blog ..Longitudinal Social Media Monitoring =-.
I love this, Tom. Thanks so much for leaving such a thoughtful comment. In many ways, I like your comment better than the post I wrote. Lots of gems in there. Thank you.
What you refer to as Intent, Amber, I often call “The Theory Of The Firm.” The theory of the firm is that one central unifying proposition (not necessarily a “unique offering”) that gives the firm its very reason for being. For instance, there is a gourmet coffee/wine shop here in Chapel Hill that I often frequent called 3Cups. Their “theory of the firm” can be found in their manifesto, but it’s far too simplistic to say that they are in business to sell coffee, or to “delight the customer.” They are in business to provide customers with the very best coffee experience, period. This means that the customer is NOT always right, especially when they come in asking for a quick cup of drip coffee. They make you wait while the coffee steeps in a French press. They aren’t mean, or snotty about it – it’s just tied to their central organizing principle.
In this sense, money is a trailing variable. If 3Cups’s intent was to sell coffee, they might sell some. Their intent, however, is to educate and support those people who want the finest coffee has to offer, whether they drink it in the store, brew it at home, or, God forbid, buy it elsewhere.
When you are clear about your intent – the organizing principle of the firm – then what you need to do is often obvious. For a gourmet coffee shop, it’s to be there well before the sale to educate, during the sale to provide the best in-store experience, and after the sale to help support those consumers who want to graduate to making their own coffee. Social media does not only help the firm “broadcast” that intent, but to put it into practice. If the offerings of the firm are tightly integrated with the theory of the firm, then sales will be a trailing variable of the successful communication of this intent. When the product is obsolete, broken or otherwise irrelevant, the intent is that which remains. The intent is what is sustainable over the long haul.
It also means that your company has to stand for something. If you are going to trust that your employees out on the front lines of social media are going to make good decisions, then the theory of the firm (please, don’t call it a ‘mission statement’) is the crystal clear, laser-etched reason for being that employees can rally around and derive clear marching orders from. If you don’t have this, you don’t have a social media problem.
You really spilled some ink on this one, Naslund! Good on you, and thanks for making me think.
.-= Tom Webster´s last blog ..Longitudinal Social Media Monitoring =-.
I love this, Tom. Thanks so much for leaving such a thoughtful comment. In many ways, I like your comment better than the post I wrote. Lots of gems in there. Thank you.
Excellent post, Amber.
I agree that open communication of intent is critical. My question is how likely are organizations and individuals to share their true intent? Interactions are negotiations. Will individuals (or organizations) be willing to express precisely what they intend or will they hide bits and pieces for fear of losing leverage in any “negotiation”? Same goes for organizations.
I’d certainly love to think that we (read: individuals and organizations) could all be wide open about what we intend, our wants and needs and that the party receiving that information would act responsibly on it. Just not sure that is the reality.
Thought provoking. Thanks for continuing this important conversation, Amber.
I didn’t necessarily intend to say that we always have to be sharing our intent, but rather that it has to lie at the center of what we’re doing, whether or not we speak it aloud.
We all choose which cards to show, all the time, in business or personally. But the underlying motivation for our intentions eventually shines through, or at least becomes evident enough that people decide whether or not we’re worthy of their attention. And when we find out that actions and intentions aren’t true to one another? That’s a recipe for mistrust and a sense of beytrayal, and in a business sense, that’s awfully hard to repair.
Excellent post, Amber.
I agree that open communication of intent is critical. My question is how likely are organizations and individuals to share their true intent? Interactions are negotiations. Will individuals (or organizations) be willing to express precisely what they intend or will they hide bits and pieces for fear of losing leverage in any “negotiation”? Same goes for organizations.
I’d certainly love to think that we (read: individuals and organizations) could all be wide open about what we intend, our wants and needs and that the party receiving that information would act responsibly on it. Just not sure that is the reality.
Thought provoking. Thanks for continuing this important conversation, Amber.
I didn’t necessarily intend to say that we always have to be sharing our intent, but rather that it has to lie at the center of what we’re doing, whether or not we speak it aloud.
We all choose which cards to show, all the time, in business or personally. But the underlying motivation for our intentions eventually shines through, or at least becomes evident enough that people decide whether or not we’re worthy of their attention. And when we find out that actions and intentions aren’t true to one another? That’s a recipe for mistrust and a sense of beytrayal, and in a business sense, that’s awfully hard to repair.
I won’t disagree…but I think “intent” is dangerous in that it (1) could become one of those buzzwords that no one understands and (2) for me it comes down to “they meant well.”
BP: they intended to move “beyond petroleum.” They intended to have better interactions with consumers who visit their stations, and with the environment. In fact, their intent on the service station side could be really good: I like going there, it’s near my house, I get gasoline at a fair price, and their snacks and coffee are pretty good. Intent, in this case, equals “give the customer a valuable experience.”
Of course, if you look at the spewing petrol cock-up in the Gulf…well, the intent (get the oil, drill offshore, don’t mess up) will score them zero points.
“Intent” ain’t gonna help BP now. They intend to make the shared experience better…I could go on, but I, for one, see this as just another buzzword bingo entry.
.-= Dave Van de Walle´s last blog ..Top 3 Grammar Mistakes and How to Avoid Them =-.
Do you think though that “buzzword lingo” builds more on the tendency to hop onboard with something as “the next big thing” rather than something actually being degraded in the word itself? I mean – “everyone is on Twitter” hasn’t translated to universal best practices, but instead there are lots of wannabes who tried, didn’t see a return in 7-10 business days, and they’re off to the next buzzword like you said.
Instead, I like Amber’s take here on INTENT and some of the other comments, knowing full well that it takes more hardwork and determination to make it meaningful beyond the buzz.
.-= Rick´s last blog ..SYMBOLS =-.
Dave – anything can become a buzzword if we let it become a crutch, use it to mask what we’re really trying to do or say, or simply rest on the word itself instead of acting on its meaning.
I don’t think buzzword danger alone is enough for me to think that this isn’t a valid concept to discuss. Transparency is important too, as much as we’ve bastardized the word, the problem is that no one is talking about what transparency looks like in action, or those that say it and don’t do it are stopping short of delivering the goods.
I do agree, however, that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. So I suppose the key is making sure that the intent is rooted in the right place to begin with, and that the actions that back it up demonstrate that commitment.
Hey Amber,
I hear you…
Some of this comes down to good or bad business design. A topic for another day, I’m sure. So, yes, if your intent as a company is “make a lot of money,” you’re probably going to step on a few little people along the way.
Building from the ground up, though, around intent to change the world, do no evil, create a better process for x, etc….now we’re looking at something.
.-= Dave Van de Walle´s last blog ..How to Make LinkedIn Work for You in 20 Minutes or Less =-.
I won’t disagree…but I think “intent” is dangerous in that it (1) could become one of those buzzwords that no one understands and (2) for me it comes down to “they meant well.”
BP: they intended to move “beyond petroleum.” They intended to have better interactions with consumers who visit their stations, and with the environment. In fact, their intent on the service station side could be really good: I like going there, it’s near my house, I get gasoline at a fair price, and their snacks and coffee are pretty good. Intent, in this case, equals “give the customer a valuable experience.”
Of course, if you look at the spewing petrol cock-up in the Gulf…well, the intent (get the oil, drill offshore, don’t mess up) will score them zero points.
“Intent” ain’t gonna help BP now. They intend to make the shared experience better…I could go on, but I, for one, see this as just another buzzword bingo entry.
.-= Dave Van de Walle´s last blog ..Top 3 Grammar Mistakes and How to Avoid Them =-.
Do you think though that “buzzword lingo” builds more on the tendency to hop onboard with something as “the next big thing” rather than something actually being degraded in the word itself? I mean – “everyone is on Twitter” hasn’t translated to universal best practices, but instead there are lots of wannabes who tried, didn’t see a return in 7-10 business days, and they’re off to the next buzzword like you said.
Instead, I like Amber’s take here on INTENT and some of the other comments, knowing full well that it takes more hardwork and determination to make it meaningful beyond the buzz.
.-= Rick´s last blog ..SYMBOLS =-.
Dave – anything can become a buzzword if we let it become a crutch, use it to mask what we’re really trying to do or say, or simply rest on the word itself instead of acting on its meaning.
I don’t think buzzword danger alone is enough for me to think that this isn’t a valid concept to discuss. Transparency is important too, as much as we’ve bastardized the word, the problem is that no one is talking about what transparency looks like in action, or those that say it and don’t do it are stopping short of delivering the goods.
I do agree, however, that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. So I suppose the key is making sure that the intent is rooted in the right place to begin with, and that the actions that back it up demonstrate that commitment.
Hey Amber,
I hear you…
Some of this comes down to good or bad business design. A topic for another day, I’m sure. So, yes, if your intent as a company is “make a lot of money,” you’re probably going to step on a few little people along the way.
Building from the ground up, though, around intent to change the world, do no evil, create a better process for x, etc….now we’re looking at something.
.-= Dave Van de Walle´s last blog ..How to Make LinkedIn Work for You in 20 Minutes or Less =-.
“Customers don’t believe that the company sees any value for them other than a dollar figure, and doesn’t care about them between transactions”
We experienced this issue a while back after surveying our client contacts. Customer service between transactions and projects has been a topic of many conversations with our team since. We have worked hard to ensure this does not happen again.
Great article, Amber. Thanks.
@parnellk63
Good for you for a) asking and b) listening. That’s worth its weight in gold, and many companies would do well to follow that example.
“Customers don’t believe that the company sees any value for them other than a dollar figure, and doesn’t care about them between transactions”
We experienced this issue a while back after surveying our client contacts. Customer service between transactions and projects has been a topic of many conversations with our team since. We have worked hard to ensure this does not happen again.
Great article, Amber. Thanks.
@parnellk63
Good for you for a) asking and b) listening. That’s worth its weight in gold, and many companies would do well to follow that example.
Hi Amber –
I feel like I just read the memo (mission statement) from “Jerry Maguire” 😉
Excellent points and I agree, businesses need to spend more time in the gaps fostering relationships and helping customers long before they reach a need/buy phase.
“If we wait simply until we have a situational and specific issue to address, we’re reversing the microfocus we’re blaming companies for…. investing our own time and effort in improving business practices through our own input…”
Having customers like those described above would be nirvana for any company — and exactly what they should strive for. But bridging the gap to create that type of customer needs to start with the company. The majority of customers are simply not going to invest time providing feedback unless they’re already an advocate. As it is, less than five percent of dissatisfied customers complain when they do have a problem so swaying the pendulum in the opposite direction will take a lot of work. Unfortunately, too many businesses are still in the dark and afraid to open the doors and welcome criticism. Of course, these are the same companies that will find themselves being pushed into the light of social media and open communication.
.-= Kristof´s last blog ..kristofcreative: @Urbanverse Gave that a shot. Might be intermittent API issue. Thanks. =-.
I think you’re partly right about this starting with the company, but let’s look at WHY people don’t complain. Is it because they don’t want to be heard? Because they’re too lazy to speak up? Largely, I doubt it. I think it’s an indication of how poorly we as businesses have given easy and clear paths for people to deliver that feedback (maybe because we didn’t really want to hear it?) and because we have a crappy track record of doing anything with it.
A suggestion box that gathers dust is an insult, really. So you’re right to point out that the businesses that care enough to ask are the ones that will get ahead.
Truth be told, this entire post needs the caveat that some businesses just don’t care. I’m not talking to them, because they’re a waste of my time.
Hi Amber –
I feel like I just read the memo (mission statement) from “Jerry Maguire” 😉
Excellent points and I agree, businesses need to spend more time in the gaps fostering relationships and helping customers long before they reach a need/buy phase.
“If we wait simply until we have a situational and specific issue to address, we’re reversing the microfocus we’re blaming companies for…. investing our own time and effort in improving business practices through our own input…”
Having customers like those described above would be nirvana for any company — and exactly what they should strive for. But bridging the gap to create that type of customer needs to start with the company. The majority of customers are simply not going to invest time providing feedback unless they’re already an advocate. As it is, less than five percent of dissatisfied customers complain when they do have a problem so swaying the pendulum in the opposite direction will take a lot of work. Unfortunately, too many businesses are still in the dark and afraid to open the doors and welcome criticism. Of course, these are the same companies that will find themselves being pushed into the light of social media and open communication.
.-= Kristof´s last blog ..kristofcreative: @Urbanverse Gave that a shot. Might be intermittent API issue. Thanks. =-.
I think you’re partly right about this starting with the company, but let’s look at WHY people don’t complain. Is it because they don’t want to be heard? Because they’re too lazy to speak up? Largely, I doubt it. I think it’s an indication of how poorly we as businesses have given easy and clear paths for people to deliver that feedback (maybe because we didn’t really want to hear it?) and because we have a crappy track record of doing anything with it.
A suggestion box that gathers dust is an insult, really. So you’re right to point out that the businesses that care enough to ask are the ones that will get ahead.
Truth be told, this entire post needs the caveat that some businesses just don’t care. I’m not talking to them, because they’re a waste of my time.
Thank you Amber! One of the most insightful posts I’ve read in a long time.
Authentic honesty is at the core of what we do as an agency on all fronts.
Even the brand campaigns we develop strive to emphasize the essential truth – if your customer can’t shoot holes in a claim, by jove, I think you’ve got it!
Thank you Amber! One of the most insightful posts I’ve read in a long time.
Authentic honesty is at the core of what we do as an agency on all fronts.
Even the brand campaigns we develop strive to emphasize the essential truth – if your customer can’t shoot holes in a claim, by jove, I think you’ve got it!
It’s difficult to comment on an article in which you so completely agree. In addition to impact that social media has on exposing intent, I’d just say that one area that will become dramatically more important over time is the notion of “top-down intent”.
We all know of those few figureheads in corporations who stand for ‘more’. That ‘more’ might have nothing to do with the customer per se, but instead trickle to them as a after-effect. That might be values or morals for example (google’s “do no evil”, chik-fil-a being closed on sundays, etc). But those attributes feed directly to a customers sense of “top-down intent”. If they have a bad experience at a lower rung of the company they are much more likely to forgive it as something that isn’t representative of the company as a whole vs. something that is indicative of that companies belief system. Most figureheads today play to the investor & BOD, I think that will change.
Cheers, and fantastic article.
Thanks for chiming in, especially because I know this is a topic you care about.
Look, with every evolution comes the willing and the reticent. There are always going to be the “yeah, but” companies and I personally don’t care if they’re going to stand in the corner with their arms crossed in defiance. That’s fine with me, because the sea is swimming with companies who are hungry to understand how this new era will work, individuals who are champing at the bit to seize the reins and drive like crazy to something different.
Those are the ones I’m talking to here, because they’re standing at this crossroads, they feel what the “more” is, and they’ve got the capability to get it out there and make a difference, even if they don’t know how just yet. It’s they who deserve our efforts, patience, and investment.
It’s difficult to comment on an article in which you so completely agree. In addition to impact that social media has on exposing intent, I’d just say that one area that will become dramatically more important over time is the notion of “top-down intent”.
We all know of those few figureheads in corporations who stand for ‘more’. That ‘more’ might have nothing to do with the customer per se, but instead trickle to them as a after-effect. That might be values or morals for example (google’s “do no evil”, chik-fil-a being closed on sundays, etc). But those attributes feed directly to a customers sense of “top-down intent”. If they have a bad experience at a lower rung of the company they are much more likely to forgive it as something that isn’t representative of the company as a whole vs. something that is indicative of that companies belief system. Most figureheads today play to the investor & BOD, I think that will change.
Cheers, and fantastic article.
Thanks for chiming in, especially because I know this is a topic you care about.
Look, with every evolution comes the willing and the reticent. There are always going to be the “yeah, but” companies and I personally don’t care if they’re going to stand in the corner with their arms crossed in defiance. That’s fine with me, because the sea is swimming with companies who are hungry to understand how this new era will work, individuals who are champing at the bit to seize the reins and drive like crazy to something different.
Those are the ones I’m talking to here, because they’re standing at this crossroads, they feel what the “more” is, and they’ve got the capability to get it out there and make a difference, even if they don’t know how just yet. It’s they who deserve our efforts, patience, and investment.
Wow Amber, tell us what you really think about intent… ;>)
While I 100% agree with your position on this, the reality is that it is difficult to ascertain true intent, especially today. We live in a fast-food world, where convenience and low cost take precedence over quality, both of products and services. I know this is a bit of over-generalizing, but one doesn’t have to look far into too many industries to see this.
One can easily argue that the internet/social media sites have dramatically increased our ability to communicate and share information. This is a great thing, but also creates more opportunities to “manage” intent, instead of sharing it openly and honestly. Ironshef makes a good point on this. Why would a company give up that leverage point easily?
That parade-raining aside, I also see Kristof’s pendulum swinging towards this in new start-ups. The “old school” way of doing business (from the early 2000’s and prior.) is being replaced by creative new processes that ultimately rely on openness of intent. Brands aren’t built via structured marketing efforts so much as created by leveraging the power of viral adoption – build it, throw it out to the masses, test the reaction, tweak it, throw it out again. Wash, rinse, repeat….
Time to climb down from the stump and get more caffeine. A great post, thanks for sharing!
Here’s the trick:
True intent is either there, or it isn’t. You’ve got a mindset for a greater purpose, or you’re fixated on the short term win. The latter is what you’re talking about, and that’s not intent. That’s subterfuge.
I agree with your assessment that some new, emerging businesses – or dare I say the ones brave enough to reinvent themselves a bit – are showing great character at their core. I’m hopeful.
Wow Amber, tell us what you really think about intent… ;>)
While I 100% agree with your position on this, the reality is that it is difficult to ascertain true intent, especially today. We live in a fast-food world, where convenience and low cost take precedence over quality, both of products and services. I know this is a bit of over-generalizing, but one doesn’t have to look far into too many industries to see this.
One can easily argue that the internet/social media sites have dramatically increased our ability to communicate and share information. This is a great thing, but also creates more opportunities to “manage” intent, instead of sharing it openly and honestly. Ironshef makes a good point on this. Why would a company give up that leverage point easily?
That parade-raining aside, I also see Kristof’s pendulum swinging towards this in new start-ups. The “old school” way of doing business (from the early 2000’s and prior.) is being replaced by creative new processes that ultimately rely on openness of intent. Brands aren’t built via structured marketing efforts so much as created by leveraging the power of viral adoption – build it, throw it out to the masses, test the reaction, tweak it, throw it out again. Wash, rinse, repeat….
Time to climb down from the stump and get more caffeine. A great post, thanks for sharing!
Here’s the trick:
True intent is either there, or it isn’t. You’ve got a mindset for a greater purpose, or you’re fixated on the short term win. The latter is what you’re talking about, and that’s not intent. That’s subterfuge.
I agree with your assessment that some new, emerging businesses – or dare I say the ones brave enough to reinvent themselves a bit – are showing great character at their core. I’m hopeful.
Amber,
Thank you for such a great article. You’ve brought up some very important and highly sophisticated points about the…money versus meaning explorations that companies must face in order to fulfill a true business vision — a business vision for the people they help!
I jotted down some thoughts as I read your article:
Cracking the mystery of why people work together… customers see something in a company that is themselves and/or what they aspire to be.
Customers see a company as making something possible that has been missing in their OWN offering
Customers see the company as a higher manifestation of their own goals
Customers see the company as a way to make a connection to their own audience (in the b2b kind of way)
Thank you for creating this conversation, and I hope you write more about this subject matter. I’ve always thought that…and this may sound nuts…that companies are in competition with their own marketing. Sound nuts? Well, I think so many business owners want to be the hero/loner/rebel, and view marketing as a lessening of their offering. So, they miss chances to form deeper relationships with people who buy from them.
Keep up the great writing, the thoughtful writing, the not-afraid to use evolved language writing!!
best,
J
Joseph, I love where you’re headed here because it talks about what people *aspire* to, and how they either consciously or unconsciously gravitate to reflections of those aspirations. I think there’s a deep and very interesting sociological conversation there, one that’s had moments when we talk about marketing and communications, but I think the magic is really when you bring an entire BUSINESS into that place, and show people what’s possible.
Okay, off with my philosopher’s hat for the moment. Thanks for stopping by.
Amber,
Thank you for such a great article. You’ve brought up some very important and highly sophisticated points about the…money versus meaning explorations that companies must face in order to fulfill a true business vision — a business vision for the people they help!
I jotted down some thoughts as I read your article:
Cracking the mystery of why people work together… customers see something in a company that is themselves and/or what they aspire to be.
Customers see a company as making something possible that has been missing in their OWN offering
Customers see the company as a higher manifestation of their own goals
Customers see the company as a way to make a connection to their own audience (in the b2b kind of way)
Thank you for creating this conversation, and I hope you write more about this subject matter. I’ve always thought that…and this may sound nuts…that companies are in competition with their own marketing. Sound nuts? Well, I think so many business owners want to be the hero/loner/rebel, and view marketing as a lessening of their offering. So, they miss chances to form deeper relationships with people who buy from them.
Keep up the great writing, the thoughtful writing, the not-afraid to use evolved language writing!!
best,
J
Joseph, I love where you’re headed here because it talks about what people *aspire* to, and how they either consciously or unconsciously gravitate to reflections of those aspirations. I think there’s a deep and very interesting sociological conversation there, one that’s had moments when we talk about marketing and communications, but I think the magic is really when you bring an entire BUSINESS into that place, and show people what’s possible.
Okay, off with my philosopher’s hat for the moment. Thanks for stopping by.
This is definitely thought-provoking stuff. I always wonder about big service companies, whether there’s even a discussion about intent at any level. I’ll give you an example. What happens when the power goes out for a few hours or maybe a lot longer? Well, we’re all tremendously inconvenienced of course, and sometimes it can be tragic, for example if someone’s home medical equipment fails. We have no recourse really but to call an automated phone system that takes our info, and they’ll get it fixed when they can. I’m not knocking the utilities – it’s not an easy business and people only respond when things are really bad. The problem is exactly that – there is no attempt to put a live, caring face on customer service, and even if you get someone on the phone, they obviously don’t care either. There’s no top-down or bottom-up sense of caring across the company. I’m sure they’re much more concerned with logistics and response time and cost than they are with customer satisfaction. There are plenty of other examples – and we all tend to hate these companies because they put us on hold. I’m not sure there’s a solution, because this stuff is so ingrained in us, we tend to let the companies go who are guilty.
It’s so interesting to me how a conversation about intent and its importance brings out so many people speaking to the seeming lack of it all over the place.
So here’s my challenge to you. Let’s say that’s the case, and there are egregious violations all over. Companies that don’t care. Insensitve, unfeeling business that puts process before people, spreadsheets before humans, all that jazz.
Is there a language we can speak that bridges the gap? Where instead of kicking at tree stumps we keep illustrating how to move – even slowly – in another direction?
That’s what I’m trying to do. When I talk about things like this, I want just ONE person – maybe just a guy at just a company – to say “wow, we should think about this”, and take it upon themselves to have a single conversation with a single person that just might change a little something.
This is definitely thought-provoking stuff. I always wonder about big service companies, whether there’s even a discussion about intent at any level. I’ll give you an example. What happens when the power goes out for a few hours or maybe a lot longer? Well, we’re all tremendously inconvenienced of course, and sometimes it can be tragic, for example if someone’s home medical equipment fails. We have no recourse really but to call an automated phone system that takes our info, and they’ll get it fixed when they can. I’m not knocking the utilities – it’s not an easy business and people only respond when things are really bad. The problem is exactly that – there is no attempt to put a live, caring face on customer service, and even if you get someone on the phone, they obviously don’t care either. There’s no top-down or bottom-up sense of caring across the company. I’m sure they’re much more concerned with logistics and response time and cost than they are with customer satisfaction. There are plenty of other examples – and we all tend to hate these companies because they put us on hold. I’m not sure there’s a solution, because this stuff is so ingrained in us, we tend to let the companies go who are guilty.
It’s so interesting to me how a conversation about intent and its importance brings out so many people speaking to the seeming lack of it all over the place.
So here’s my challenge to you. Let’s say that’s the case, and there are egregious violations all over. Companies that don’t care. Insensitve, unfeeling business that puts process before people, spreadsheets before humans, all that jazz.
Is there a language we can speak that bridges the gap? Where instead of kicking at tree stumps we keep illustrating how to move – even slowly – in another direction?
That’s what I’m trying to do. When I talk about things like this, I want just ONE person – maybe just a guy at just a company – to say “wow, we should think about this”, and take it upon themselves to have a single conversation with a single person that just might change a little something.
This was a great read, thanks for posting! One of my daily struggles is the internal debate on who owns social media and who, from a funtionality standpoint, gets to create the company’s “intent” and who manages the relationships inbetween those purchase points.
Our Marketing teams never had to deal with maintaining those relationships actively and never had two-way conversations before. Our Consumer Relations team has always had the joy/burden of nurturing those relationships but if we only view social as another push channel – we’ll continue to fail just like Amber describes.
It’s silly to see companies trying to build up expertise in their Mkting staff when they already have tons of untapped resources in-house in their CR folks – this could help get companies closer to bridging the gap.
Wait a sec – “create the company intent”?
I’m not sure that’s something that can be manufactured by assigning it to a department. That has to be something that’s wired into the very bedrock of an organization. That means everyone from the executives to department heads to the simplest line worker have to “get it” and feel it down to their toes.
It’s not a matter of who manages customer relationships. It’s far, far more fundamental than that. And the very issue you’re describing – who “owns” this – is exactly indicative of the problem. The minute we start treating our purpose as a company as something on someone’s job description, we have most seriously lost our way.
This post really got me excited because it hits on something nonprofits need to be wary of – the “if we build it, they will come” philosophy. Even with a good product (mission), if the intent is not clear and consistent throughout every facet that touches the public, the goodwill and identification with the mission can be fragmented and lost. I agree that “intent” (just as any other word) can be misconstrued or distorted, but only if the company or nonprofit hasn’t made the effort to school the staff on how the term is being defined with regard to the mission. I’m glad your post included discussion about individual intent, which is not just about the consumer but also about staff. Intent, clearly communicated and reinforced by training and regular review, is a powerful way to distill brand.
.-= Robyn McIntyre´s last blog ..Your Ugly Baby – Design & Your Small Nonprofit =-.
Having worked in the nonprofit sector for a long while, I can say that intent is more naturally wired into these organizations than most. But something you said is a little bothersome:
“reinforced by training and regular review.”
Training? See, to me, the very essence of purpose, intent, mindset, whatever you call it can’t be trained. It’s felt. Understood. Grokked. Embraced. Believed in. But I just don’t know that it’s “trained”.
And as I said above, brand distillation is surface treatment. This isn’t about branding. This is about purpose. The brand is one manifestation of that and a somewhat superficial representation of same. But the purpose is the stripped-down reason for being. And I don’t think enough companies look at it that way, nor spend enough time discussing it without loading the discussion with a bunch of business jargon strategic planning garbage.
This post really got me excited because it hits on something nonprofits need to be wary of – the “if we build it, they will come” philosophy. Even with a good product (mission), if the intent is not clear and consistent throughout every facet that touches the public, the goodwill and identification with the mission can be fragmented and lost. I agree that “intent” (just as any other word) can be misconstrued or distorted, but only if the company or nonprofit hasn’t made the effort to school the staff on how the term is being defined with regard to the mission. I’m glad your post included discussion about individual intent, which is not just about the consumer but also about staff. Intent, clearly communicated and reinforced by training and regular review, is a powerful way to distill brand.
.-= Robyn McIntyre´s last blog ..Your Ugly Baby – Design & Your Small Nonprofit =-.
Having worked in the nonprofit sector for a long while, I can say that intent is more naturally wired into these organizations than most. But something you said is a little bothersome:
“reinforced by training and regular review.”
Training? See, to me, the very essence of purpose, intent, mindset, whatever you call it can’t be trained. It’s felt. Understood. Grokked. Embraced. Believed in. But I just don’t know that it’s “trained”.
And as I said above, brand distillation is surface treatment. This isn’t about branding. This is about purpose. The brand is one manifestation of that and a somewhat superficial representation of same. But the purpose is the stripped-down reason for being. And I don’t think enough companies look at it that way, nor spend enough time discussing it without loading the discussion with a bunch of business jargon strategic planning garbage.
Loved this post Amber. Hears the heart of it for me and this is what I tell clients (and kids for that matter!)is, “Dont contact people only when you want something. It makes them feel used.” This is simply common sense and decency. Ultimately,it’s about the long term relationship not the sale. Great discussion!
Loved this post Amber. Hears the heart of it for me and this is what I tell clients (and kids for that matter!)is, “Dont contact people only when you want something. It makes them feel used.” This is simply common sense and decency. Ultimately,it’s about the long term relationship not the sale. Great discussion!
Amber,
This is a fabulous post! I agree with just about everything you’ve said in theory. However I know there are companies out there that won’t dedicate any resources to something they can’t measure. Social Media is definitely something that can’t be measured – yet.
A few of the questions asked at any company when rolling out a new initiative are “How are we going to measure this?” & “What performance metrics do we apply to calculate the ROI?”. If those two questions can’t be answered, I can’t see widespread adoption. That is unfortunate, because I would love to see many of the points you’ve raised put into practice. Communication and intent are the key to not only our business relationships but our personal relationships as well.
Again, great post!
Tom –
Boy am I all types of antsy here, on a couple of fronts.
1) Social media is measurable. Without question. The problem is that people are trying to measure the activity instead of the results or impact of same. And that’s backwards. But this is an entirely separate topic that I’ve addressed before, but won’t belabor in the comments.
2) This isn’t about social media. It’s about the impact of social media. But intent is ancient. It’s essential, to both humans and businesses. And intent is not a tactic, a strategy, an initiative, or even a goal. It’s not something to be “adopted” as part of a strategic plan. It’s not a thing-to-be-measured. Intent is the very core of an organization, whatever its nature. If a company seriously has to “measure” their intent and prove a ridiculous notion of ROI for having a reason and a purpose to exist that’s larger than their balance sheet, then they’re doomed indeed.
Until we can quit looking at business so tactically all the time and look harder at fundamentals, we’ll all be lost trying to find our way among a forest full of useless trees.
Amber,
This is a fabulous post! I agree with just about everything you’ve said in theory. However I know there are companies out there that won’t dedicate any resources to something they can’t measure. Social Media is definitely something that can’t be measured – yet.
A few of the questions asked at any company when rolling out a new initiative are “How are we going to measure this?” & “What performance metrics do we apply to calculate the ROI?”. If those two questions can’t be answered, I can’t see widespread adoption. That is unfortunate, because I would love to see many of the points you’ve raised put into practice. Communication and intent are the key to not only our business relationships but our personal relationships as well.
Again, great post!
Tom –
Boy am I all types of antsy here, on a couple of fronts.
1) Social media is measurable. Without question. The problem is that people are trying to measure the activity instead of the results or impact of same. And that’s backwards. But this is an entirely separate topic that I’ve addressed before, but won’t belabor in the comments.
2) This isn’t about social media. It’s about the impact of social media. But intent is ancient. It’s essential, to both humans and businesses. And intent is not a tactic, a strategy, an initiative, or even a goal. It’s not something to be “adopted” as part of a strategic plan. It’s not a thing-to-be-measured. Intent is the very core of an organization, whatever its nature. If a company seriously has to “measure” their intent and prove a ridiculous notion of ROI for having a reason and a purpose to exist that’s larger than their balance sheet, then they’re doomed indeed.
Until we can quit looking at business so tactically all the time and look harder at fundamentals, we’ll all be lost trying to find our way among a forest full of useless trees.
Wait a sec – “create the company intent”?
I’m not sure that’s something that can be manufactured by assigning it to a department. That has to be something that’s wired into the very bedrock of an organization. That means everyone from the executives to department heads to the simplest line worker have to “get it” and feel it down to their toes.
It’s not a matter of who manages customer relationships. It’s far, far more fundamental than that. And the very issue you’re describing – who “owns” this – is exactly indicative of the problem. The minute we start treating our purpose as a company as something on someone’s job description, we have most seriously lost our way.
I try, I really do try to not have additional comments. But there’s all this talk of brand, and roi, and ‘managing intent’, and it being just an unclear buzzword. It drives me a little bonkers.
Intent is so important because it is the core through which all else flows. Beneath what we *think* is the center of an organization lies intent.
Culture? Driven by intent
Brand? Driven by intent
Hiring practices? Management styles? Organizational structure? Profit margins? I can go on.
It’s part belief and part philosophy. You can even call it touchy-feely if that makes you feel better. Intent has nothing to do with whether you are a good company or a bad one, they both can have intent. Intent is internalized before it’s exhibited in action or vocalization.
You know that mover and shaker with the big personality who not only dazzles you with her business acumen but also that sense that they actually care? That’s their intent that you *feel*, it’s not verbalized or written down. And you know that if you worked for them you’d soon be exhibiting some of those same traits.
You know the other mover and shaker who dazzles you because you know they’d sell their mother for the right price? Same thing.
What makes intent so important *now* is that social media strips away many of those protective layers that kept you from seeing/feeling that intent before. So those businesses whose intent is in line with yours, will prosper more than those who do not. Yes, it’s touchy feely stuff, but make no mistake about the fact that it’s good business.
.-= Matt Ridings – @techguerilla´s last blog ..The Trade-offs Between SCRM And Privacy =-.
I try, I really do try to not have additional comments. But there’s all this talk of brand, and roi, and ‘managing intent’, and it being just an unclear buzzword. It drives me a little bonkers.
Intent is so important because it is the core through which all else flows. Beneath what we *think* is the center of an organization lies intent.
Culture? Driven by intent
Brand? Driven by intent
Hiring practices? Management styles? Organizational structure? Profit margins? I can go on.
It’s part belief and part philosophy. You can even call it touchy-feely if that makes you feel better. Intent has nothing to do with whether you are a good company or a bad one, they both can have intent. Intent is internalized before it’s exhibited in action or vocalization.
You know that mover and shaker with the big personality who not only dazzles you with her business acumen but also that sense that they actually care? That’s their intent that you *feel*, it’s not verbalized or written down. And you know that if you worked for them you’d soon be exhibiting some of those same traits.
You know the other mover and shaker who dazzles you because you know they’d sell their mother for the right price? Same thing.
What makes intent so important *now* is that social media strips away many of those protective layers that kept you from seeing/feeling that intent before. So those businesses whose intent is in line with yours, will prosper more than those who do not. Yes, it’s touchy feely stuff, but make no mistake about the fact that it’s good business.
.-= Matt Ridings – @techguerilla´s last blog ..The Trade-offs Between SCRM And Privacy =-.
Thanks for the post Amber,
so far I’ve read about intent in the post and comments: it can’t be created it actually is the force that should have created the business en the first place. It can be measured and it can’t be just a strategy in the company.
My question would be: if it can’t be an strategy, and it may have gotten lost somewhere after creating the company, how do we recover intent?
does it have to be with the initiative of some employee? does it start, like you say, with someone asking something to a customer that changes something else? or, can it be started at the top with some strategies regardless of what you say about it not being that?
love how you always make us think.
.-= Gawed´s last blog ..Robin Hood, o quizá Robin Begins. Algo le faltó. =-.
Thanks for the post Amber,
so far I’ve read about intent in the post and comments: it can’t be created it actually is the force that should have created the business en the first place. It can be measured and it can’t be just a strategy in the company.
My question would be: if it can’t be an strategy, and it may have gotten lost somewhere after creating the company, how do we recover intent?
does it have to be with the initiative of some employee? does it start, like you say, with someone asking something to a customer that changes something else? or, can it be started at the top with some strategies regardless of what you say about it not being that?
love how you always make us think.
.-= Gawed´s last blog ..Robin Hood, o quizá Robin Begins. Algo le faltó. =-.
Thoughts about intent, and its possible buzzwordedness. Are we really talking about anything more here than “trust” and that commercial enterprises are relationship enterprises. There is the expectation from a customer that the “pitch” will happen. They have created a space for it – sometimes an actual perceptual space on the screen of a computer, but as you suggest, usually a narrative space: “here” is where the pitch happens. But such a space needs a frame, and this frame includes all of those affective cues that indicate stable, predictable, invested, competent and sympathetic human action. These are the cues that are taken from everything from how fast a page will load or aesthetically be displayed and the tone of voice on a phone, to the degree that a product unexpectedly addresses aspects other than those of its immediate design aim. The entire constellation of these produces the frame in which the commercial transaction sits. And what this constellation is meant to express is the specific human investment in the groundwork that surrounds the transaction. It is its confidence. Much of this is found at the level of values, but what really is at stake is footprinting, the feel that people (sellers and buyers) have been there and will remain there in relative concert.
This is the remarkable thing about social media. The reason why SEs are so hot on it is that it is very hard to fake in a consistent way. This is to say, sure there are inflated Twitter numbers or PageRanks, mechanical workaround and spammers, but there is a determined sense – I want to call it trust – that the vast content of social media expressions are relational and invested. For instance, one of the interesting things about Twitter is that while any one tweet has a value approaching nil, the weave of them is so matrixed with investments and trust ethics the relationships found there are imbued with a kind of social credit that is much harder to earn in other media. You have to tweet in order to be tweeted. This was the huge gamble of Facebook’s recent privacy move in my opinion, it messed with the social credit of the entire network. Maybe it will pay off, but likely it has opened the door for others.
Amber I think you are really right that social media illuminate this lasting aspect of commerce, because social media have become the signature of repeated human investments. As such, at least as they are newishly constituted with some resilience to counterfeit, they represent high return payback for company investments that express the human capital in an enterprise. It is not just that big brands can give the commerce monoliths of past decades a human face, but rather brands can only be expressed by people (workers and customers). As such celebrity is undergoing a kind of radical democratization. The image of a company becomes an adventure of personal branding. And one should not underestimate the ethical effect real social media conversations have upon companies, even if companies are pursuing hardline advertising strategy.
Its not just that the core “message” of a company needs to get out there, your best 3 sentence pitch couched in all the right socially sensitive and value rich terms, its about a company (even if a company of one) displaying a broadband of concern, to use a well-placed analogy. The trust comes from the peripheral cues of investment. What used to be the way that folks would interact with you at your storefront on Main st – whether they waved and smiled or walked quickly past, whether your shop needed a coat of paint, even whether they had seen you in church – now is expressed across the conversation filter. And the one thing that produces results, as it always has been, is explicit investment in the experiences and lives of others beyond the immediate commercial concern.
Sorry for the long post.
@mediasres
kevin v.
Thoughts about intent, and its possible buzzwordedness. Are we really talking about anything more here than “trust” and that commercial enterprises are relationship enterprises. There is the expectation from a customer that the “pitch” will happen. They have created a space for it – sometimes an actual perceptual space on the screen of a computer, but as you suggest, usually a narrative space: “here” is where the pitch happens. But such a space needs a frame, and this frame includes all of those affective cues that indicate stable, predictable, invested, competent and sympathetic human action. These are the cues that are taken from everything from how fast a page will load or aesthetically be displayed and the tone of voice on a phone, to the degree that a product unexpectedly addresses aspects other than those of its immediate design aim. The entire constellation of these produces the frame in which the commercial transaction sits. And what this constellation is meant to express is the specific human investment in the groundwork that surrounds the transaction. It is its confidence. Much of this is found at the level of values, but what really is at stake is footprinting, the feel that people (sellers and buyers) have been there and will remain there in relative concert.
This is the remarkable thing about social media. The reason why SEs are so hot on it is that it is very hard to fake in a consistent way. This is to say, sure there are inflated Twitter numbers or PageRanks, mechanical workaround and spammers, but there is a determined sense – I want to call it trust – that the vast content of social media expressions are relational and invested. For instance, one of the interesting things about Twitter is that while any one tweet has a value approaching nil, the weave of them is so matrixed with investments and trust ethics the relationships found there are imbued with a kind of social credit that is much harder to earn in other media. You have to tweet in order to be tweeted. This was the huge gamble of Facebook’s recent privacy move in my opinion, it messed with the social credit of the entire network. Maybe it will pay off, but likely it has opened the door for others.
Amber I think you are really right that social media illuminate this lasting aspect of commerce, because social media have become the signature of repeated human investments. As such, at least as they are newishly constituted with some resilience to counterfeit, they represent high return payback for company investments that express the human capital in an enterprise. It is not just that big brands can give the commerce monoliths of past decades a human face, but rather brands can only be expressed by people (workers and customers). As such celebrity is undergoing a kind of radical democratization. The image of a company becomes an adventure of personal branding. And one should not underestimate the ethical effect real social media conversations have upon companies, even if companies are pursuing hardline advertising strategy.
Its not just that the core “message” of a company needs to get out there, your best 3 sentence pitch couched in all the right socially sensitive and value rich terms, its about a company (even if a company of one) displaying a broadband of concern, to use a well-placed analogy. The trust comes from the peripheral cues of investment. What used to be the way that folks would interact with you at your storefront on Main st – whether they waved and smiled or walked quickly past, whether your shop needed a coat of paint, even whether they had seen you in church – now is expressed across the conversation filter. And the one thing that produces results, as it always has been, is explicit investment in the experiences and lives of others beyond the immediate commercial concern.
Sorry for the long post.
@mediasres
kevin v.
What great stuff! The original post and all the comments.
For me, NOTHING is as exciting as getting in step with a client and utilizing my expertise, team and resources to grow, build and create.
Personally, the grow, build and create part of the above is my passion and what I would do even if not getting paid (which is proven!).
It seems that this passion leads to intent for my enterprise which develops and draws on the shared passions of both leaders and employees to fulfill the objective experience with our clients.
This seems true for me as a business consultant/marketer but just as true for any inspired entrepreneur be it home re-modeler, coffee shop chain or government contractor.
True, the passion sometimes gets buried beneath the complexities of running a business and the challenges of the marketplace but if passion is not at the core then the intent can easily get lost, diluted or mis-directed into the competitive sameness that is so everpresent.
Am I naive?
What great stuff! The original post and all the comments.
For me, NOTHING is as exciting as getting in step with a client and utilizing my expertise, team and resources to grow, build and create.
Personally, the grow, build and create part of the above is my passion and what I would do even if not getting paid (which is proven!).
It seems that this passion leads to intent for my enterprise which develops and draws on the shared passions of both leaders and employees to fulfill the objective experience with our clients.
This seems true for me as a business consultant/marketer but just as true for any inspired entrepreneur be it home re-modeler, coffee shop chain or government contractor.
True, the passion sometimes gets buried beneath the complexities of running a business and the challenges of the marketplace but if passion is not at the core then the intent can easily get lost, diluted or mis-directed into the competitive sameness that is so everpresent.
Am I naive?
I don’t think you are naive, but a good number of folks get into business for very different, often highly competitive reasons. Business is warfare, business is combat. Business is BIG business. But I agree, its where the connections are that business gets interesting. Business as life.
I don’t think you are naive, but a good number of folks get into business for very different, often highly competitive reasons. Business is warfare, business is combat. Business is BIG business. But I agree, its where the connections are that business gets interesting. Business as life.
Are you kidding me?! No comments…
this post should be bronzed and hung somewhere in the halls of Internet justice.
Amen, this is a home run of a post.
I will seriously read this 7 more times.
Not just because it articulates how I feel and communicates far better than I can, but because as a person who is laboring over building the foundation of an internet business myself, this is the core of a successful internet business.
Communicating intent is everything. It's where things start and finish.
Nicely done.