What we learned: How a few companies are successfully using the Groundswell Framework, and what exactly it is that they are doing.

Listening – companies must listen to what customers are saying to gain better understanding

- Starbucks: My Starbucks Idea (www.mystarbucksidea.com) – a place where registered users can provide ideas, feedback, and talk to each other about the drinks, the food, whatever; Starbucks also monitors twitter feeds and responds directly to customer complaints or questions.

- Sprint: monitors twitter feeds about the company.

- New York Times: The TimesPeople application (http://timespeople.nytimes.com/home/about/) allows users to share and recommend articles more easily than e-mail (which it also supports, though requires some fields have input).

- (Eventually listening) Comcast: Comcast began listening to and acting upon customer complaints at the customer blog Comcast Must Die (http://comcastmustdie.com/). Eventually won that user over by changing service levels and becoming a more customer friendly organization.

Talking – Through social interactive tools (blogs, forums, communities), begin spreading messages to customers

- Starbucks: gives feedback on ideas at its idea site (above), and responds to concerns via twitter.

Example: Anon. twitters: “wtf – i thought starbucks had free internets now… gotta love random open network connections.” 09:02 AM September 26, 2008. Starbucks replies: @anon a registered Starbucks card will get you 2 hours of free at&t wifi … at: http://www.starbucks.com/ca… 10:28 AM September 26, 2008.

- Sprint – responds to twitter concerns directly – see blog post from www.brandflakesforbreakfast.com attached at end of document.

- New York Times: Over 60 blogs with content updated at least daily – many with world class authors such as Steven Dubner. Also uses twitter to send out headlines to followers (subscribers.)

Energizing – Determine who the most energetic users are and leverage their enthusiasm for the brand; essentially making them brand evangelists

- Starbucks: uses a leaderboard at the idea site to recognize significant contributors of ideas; contributors and members can vote for the best ideas which are then sometimes product tested

- Lego: the LUGNET group, which meets online as well as in person, consists of 25 ambassadors for the product and these positions are highly sought after – the title is, in essence, a reward that further incentivizes positive word-of-mouth.

- Apple: uses a reputation function to identify high quality posters among the many thousands who frequent their support and help forums

Supporting – Help customers support each other; an example is Dell’s user generated support forums – people have a natural affinity to help

- BestBuy: BB took this in an inward-facing direction – they set up Blue Shirt Network – a site where employees can connect, share their concerns, and get support from one another

- Apple: has user forums where users help each other

Embracing – After companies have succeeded in the first four steps, engage customers in product development through active feedback principles

- Starbucks: At My Starbucks Idea customer ideas sometimes become reality, as with their new smoother, richer hot chocolate that was obviously in high demand; also reversed their removal of the breakfast sandwiches due to customer feedback – customers have, in turn, responded positively and feel more like part of a community.

- Dell: the Dell IdeaStorm site has promoted user ideas and embraced changes – a site admin provides updates and personally welcomes new users that become solid contributors – many user generated ideas become reality, thus providing more impetus for fans to contribute again and again.

Google > Apple > Facebook?

Two articles I read recently, here at MicroPersuastion blog and here at BusinessWeek, led me to conclude as much.  In the first case, though I have hardly used their products, I think of Apple as a company with good customer service, so it was somewhat surprising to read that they might have a few things to learn from Google on the subject – particularly that Google can teach Apple about how to be transparent.  But the author, Steve, is right – his comparisons show Google believes in the marketplace of information and feedback, by which I mean they are upfront in explaining all the bugs they fix (Apple, no) and customers are able to vote for the best software technicians that helped them with their problems (Apple, no).

Likewise, the BusinessWeek article talks about the ‘marketplace’ – this time it is Facebook that has to learn from Apple.  Facebook (apparently) believes that owning (or being) a platform is the way to make money; Apple believes in the market – its App Store, while a platform of sorts, allows consumers to vote with their dollars for the best apps, meanwhile monetarily incentivizing producers of software to produce the best products by giving them a percentage of every sale (and rankings make their popularity transparent).  Is it any wonder that most Facebook apps are complete garbage?

If you can’t read the article in its entirety, at least check out the following excerpt from “What Apple knows that Facebook Doesn’t”, BusinessWeek, written by Umair Haque on 8/20/2008:

Ultimately, Apple is playing a textbook game of next-gen strategy: using markets to alter the basis of competition, topple incumbents with domino effects, and atomize the value chain. Incumbents playing by yesterday’s rules are trying to fight a limit break with a spoon.

Facebook is doing largely the opposite: clinging to yesterday’s basis of competition, signing deals with incumbents instead of toppling them, largely failing to atomize media—unless it’s for zombies, vampires, and werewolves. Too often, that’s where platform—instead of market—thinking leads.

What would it take for Facebook to stop thinking platforms, and start thinking markets? Well, simply start charging people for apps, for a start: that would amplify incentives for crappy apps to go the way of the dinosaur. If advertisers are subsidizing apps for people, Facebook’s market will always be distorted—because advertisers need consumers more than consumers need advertisers today. [emphasis added]

To finish on a tangent – is that true?  Do advertisers need consumers more than consumers need advertisers?  I guess I mean, has that actually changed – or rather, hasn’t that always been the case?  If you’re talking about 50 years ago, sure, consumers might have needed advertisers more than they do today, but that’s seems fairly obvious.  Anyway, if that is true (and I’m not completely satisfied that it is), if we need advertisers even less today than we did previously, what are advertisers (especially online advertisers) to do?  Are they, to borrow Umair’s hilarious phrasing, ‘trying to fight a limit break with a spoon?’