Ed. note: This is part of a series of excerpts from The Social Customer, the new guide to social customer acquisition, monetization, and retention by Adam Metz. For the first entry, go here.
This installment continues Chapter 2: The "How" and "Where" of Engagement and the Four Social Customer Scenarios. Adam introduces two more social customer engagement models.
(All of the data for the "percentage of companies using this model" comes from the Altimeter Group's white paper on the role of the community manager.)
Model Three: Coordinated
What it is: A central (usually cross-functional) team makes sure that all connected business units get equal experience (and education) on how to work with the social customer. The cross-functional team sits in the middle, working with connecting business units (e.g., sales, operations, HR), and provides education and support to work with the social customer. (We'll see an example of this model when we get to Whirlpool, later in the book. Their corporate communications team set social media guidelines and shared best practices with all of their brand units.)
Pros: Generally, a consistency of vision and technology practices. All teams are roughly at the same skill level (and ideally, the same response time) as one another, when engaging the social customer. Best practices are shared. Generally, highly effective.
Cons: Takes a long time to implement, requires a shared vision on customer experience management and technology and consistent key executive buy-in.
Percentage of companies using it: 41 percent (the dominant model, at this point in time).
Model Four: Multiple Hub-and-Spoke
What it is: Owyang refers to this as the "dandelion" model. Each business unit has semiautonomy, but there's an overarching tie back to the central group. More common in large companies with multiple smaller brands (i.e., multiflag/multibrand) or products acting essentially autonomously from one another under a common brand (i.e., CPG, food/bev). For example, a large hotel brand would be the central group, and the smaller properties owned by the chain would operate independently of one another. In my opinion, the best one for medium and large enterprise, and the most scalable.
Pros: Realistic, for consumer brands. Among the easiest of the models to manage. Allows for the use of shared resources and the sharing of best practices. A good fit for huge consumer multinationals (e.g., Proctor & Gamble, Unilever).
Cons: Requires a tolerance for cultural differences across product lines or brand extensions and a versatile, agile touch in managing the social customer. Not ideal for inexperienced organizations.
Percentage of companies using it: 10 percent.
Model Five: Holistic Honeycomb
What it is: This model acknowledges that every single employee in the organization is socially enabled. This means that any employee could play the role of customer service, support, or sales, if they choose to be social, or engage with the social customer. Owyang noted, in an April 2010 blog post, that this model rarely occurs naturally and should not be forced. Essentially, if this type of approach to the social customer is not a part of the company's DNA, then don't force it.
Pros: Perhaps a better fit for newer companies, or companies that "grew up" with the social customer. Examples include Zappos and Dell. Has a very "real" feel, almost folksy.
Cons: Requires consistent education, across all business units, and a deep cultural desire to manage and thrill the customer, at all costs. Trades "polish" for presence.
Percentage of companies using it: 1.4 percent (according to that study, that's two brands out of 140).