Time to Put A Stake in The Ground on Social CRM

Time to Put A Stake in The Ground on Social CRM

Summary: The debate and discussion about what defines Social CRM a.k.

SHARE:

The debate and discussion about what defines Social CRM a.k.a. CRM 2.0 vs. its traditional parent has been going on for about 2 years pretty regularly and started, according to thought leader Graham Hill almost a decade before that.

Personally, I'm done defining it and am moving on.  I think enough time has been spent trying to decide what we're calling it and what it is.  I think that we've reached the point that though there is no one point of view, there is a general idea of what we have.  So this post, which will be on ZDNET and PGreenblog is my stake in the ground for the definition of Social CRM.   If anyone asks me what the definition is, they are going to be referred to this post on either blog. I'm putting it on both blogs, but it has implications for each blog that are somewhat different. Check toward the end of the post where I'll discuss how I'm going to approach each one.

Also, for this post, I still will welcome comments and discussion on the definition if you want. But I'm really ready personally to move on.

Why?

First, there seems to be a consensus on the definition already. We all agree on its general characteristics. We see it as the use of social and traditional CRM tools and processes to support a strategy of customer engagement.  Or some permutation of that.

Second, there's too much other work on Social CRM to do.  Its time to start figuring out and documenting the business models, policies, practices, processes, social characteristics, applications, and the methodologies that we need to actually carry it out.  There is some great work going on in those Social CRM areas already with folks like Graham Hill, Denis Pombriant, Thomas Vander Wal, Brent Leary, Prem Kumar, Chris Carfi, Bill Band, Natalie Petouhoff, Mike Fauscette, Michael Maoz and Ray Wang, among others (please forgive me if I didn't mention you. There are many others).  But we need to create a repository for all this work - and an institution that can represent it agnostically. Right now, the body of practice out there is all over the place.  Even with this, the work on Social CRM's "how" needs a dramatic escalation now.

So, I'm providing one last aggregate look at what I see Social CRM to be.  When the 4th edition of CRM at the Speed of Light comes out, you'll see a lot of the what and how in that nearly 800 pages. This is the condensed - black hole condensed - version of that.

I hope that I'm reflecting the consensus. If not, I'm sure the discussion will go on. But as far as I go, I'm interested in the more substantive discussions on what we actually have to do - not how it differs from traditional CRM nor what we're talking about when it comes to "social" and whether or not we are going to call it CRM 2.0 or social CRM.

My Take On It

Okay, here's my take on Social CRM's definition.

  1. I'm conceding to "Social CRM" as the term of choice, rather than CRM 2.0. If ZDNET will let me, I'll change the name of the blog to "Social CRM: The Conversation"  CRM 2.0 has been a placeholder at best and obscuring at worst - it doesn't reflect the customer's control of the business ecosystem all that well.  Social CRM is a better, though not great, reflection of what we're talking about.  Let's use the acronym of the Twitterverse group for it - SCRM or sCRM. I don't care which.
  2. The customer controls the business ecosystem and the conversation, but not the business a.k.a. company a.k.a. enterprise itself.  What that means is that while customers have much greater control over their destinies in how they interact with businesses, make no mistake about it, they don't run the business, nor does the business have to concede everything to the customer.
  3. What this means is that SCRM is an extension of CRM, not a replacement for CRM. Its a dramatic change in what it adds to the features, functions and characteristics of CRM but it is still based on the time honored principle that a business needs its customers and prefers them profitable and that same business needs to run itself effectively too.
  4. The transformation that's sparked the need for Social CRM seems to have occurred in 2004. It has been a social revolution in how we communicate, not a revolution in how we do business per se. All institutions that humans interact with have been affected by things like the cellphone/smartphone, the new social web tools and the instant availability of information in an aggregated and organized way that provides intelligence to the person on the street, not just the enterprise.
  5. Part of that transformation affects how we trust and thus who we trust. Since 2004, "someone like me" is the most trusted source, not businesses, NGOs, government agencies or corporate leaders.  That means that peer trust is how influence and impact germinates and then propagates most effectively - at least as of now.
  6. The lesson for business, in terms of Social CRM is that we are now at a point that the customers' expectations are so great and their demands so empowered that our SCRM business strategy needs to be built around collaboration and customer engagement, not traditional operational customer management.
  7. We've moved from the transaction to the interaction with customers, though we haven't eliminated the transaction - or the data associated with it.
  8. Businesses still need to run their operations, set goals that are cognizant of what the customer wants and needs, but not determined by that.  They need to map their goals and objectives to the customers' goals and objectives  to make it work for all concerned.
  9. That means that we need to recognize that there is an extended enterprise value chain which consists of the company, its suppliers, vendors and agencies that the enterprise has to deal with. There is a separate "personal value chain" which is the total greater than the sum of its parts of what an individual customer needs to achieve whatever their personal agenda is.
  10. For the company to succeed, since they cannot control the personal value chain of the customer, nor should they want to, they can only provide what the customer needs to satisfy that part of the customer's personal agenda that is associated with their enterprise.  That means products, services, tools and experiences that allow the customer that satisfying interaction.
  11. The intersection of the extended enterprise value chain and the customer's use of part of his personal value chain to satisfy that personal agenda creates the possibility for a collaborative value chain that engages the customer in the activities of the business sufficiently to provide each (the company and the customer) with what they need from the other to derive individual and mutually beneficial value.
  12. That means that transparency and authenticity become more than buzzwords because in order for the customer to make intelligent decisions on how they are going to interact with the company and the level of that interaction, they need that visibility and honesty from the company.
  13. That also means that the companies need to make the decision that its a good thing to allow the customer to have that increased level of knowledge, access and honesty - it can help the company immensely in their engagements with their customers. That's a cultural issue that has to be resolved for Social CRM to work.
  14. If these aforementioned conditions are met,  the customer is afforded the ability to co-create by the company. What that means is not all that pat. It can mean anything from customers and the company collaborating on product development, to customer suggestions on how to improve a company process, to customers helping other customers solve customer service issues, to even doing what gamers do and modifying game play using tools for scenario creation which adds value to the game. Co-creation is the ability of the company and customer to create additional value for each other - what form it takes is not always THE BIG THING.  But co-creation, mutually derived value, is at the core of SCRM.
  15. SCRM differs from Enterprise 2.0 though is integrally related to it. Enterprise 2.0 is organized around increasing the productivity of the workforce in all that it does utilizing new collaborative tools to do so. It uses those tools to aggregate and organize information and systems.  However, though different, Enterprise 2.0 is integrally related because part of that improvement in productivity increases the effectiveness of employee-customer interactions.  It also increases the company's ability to capture useful information and knowledge about customers, not just boatloads of data. But what it doesn't do is provide avenues for the customers to engage themselves with the company. That's not its purpose. That is the purpose of SCRM.
  16. SCRM also changes the nature of what kind of customer is optimal for you. Rather than aiming at a satisfied customer (an increasingly useless metric) and even rather than thinking that a loyal customer is your best customer, your objective should be to create advocates and settle for loyal customers.
  17. How you measure customer value changes when you're thinking about SCRM. Rather than just Customer Lifetime Value (CLV) - which reflects the direct financial value of a customer to a company over the life of his relationship to that company, think too about Customer Referral Value (CRV) which measures how valuable influential customers are when they tell others about your company, not just promise to.
  18. When you look at the SCRM applications out there - there are no actual SCRM suites, no matter what the claims of any company on either the CRM or social tools side.  What you do have are effective and important applications that increase the ability of employees to interact with customers - though they are not tools that facilitate the actual interaction.  You also have the integration of social media and community building tools with traditional CRM tools which are providing effective combinations which are leading toward SCRM.  I want to emphasize. These are all good tools. They are worthy of any company's consideration. There is just no SCRM suite out there - as of yet or in the near future.  Which doesn't matter one iota.

I'd say that covers the basics.

A Shorter Definition

For a shorter definition of SCRM, I'd say:

"CRM is a philosophy & a business strategy, supported by a technology platform, business rules, workflow, processes & social characteristics, designed to engage the customer in a collaborative conversation in order to provide mutually beneficial value in a trusted & transparent business environment. It's the company's response to the customer's ownership of the conversation."

Well, it may not be tweetable but it's shorter.

A Tweetable Definition

"The company's response to the customer's control of the conversation."

With the quotes and the period, its 71 characters.  Get rid of the period and you can just write it twice.

What's Next?

Let me reiterate something. This is my stake in the ground. It would be presumptuous of me to assume I can halt a discussion that I no longer want to participate in. That said, in presentations etc. I'm going to continue to give the definition of SCRM because people will be asking.  But I'm not going to try to define it anymore. I know what it is. I think that most people who read my stuff know it too - and many who don't, also know it.  I also am no longer going to engage in discussions or defenses of whether or not it's "necessary" or "marketing hype" or any of that.  Again, stake in the ground. While there is plenty of room for traditional CRM strategies, the change in the customer necessitates some sort of commitment to social CRM to succeed with that neo-customer.

So, here's what I'm going to be doing and not doing from here on.

  1. No more debates on what Social CRM is, though I certainly will discuss what it is in presentations and when else it makes sense. But I'm not trying to define it any more
  2. No more detailed defenses on whether or not its necessary. Its existence is always necessary. Its use is necessary in appropriate situations.
  3. No more calling it CRM 2.0 for me. Its Social CRM.
  4. In all the venues I have when it comes to discussing Social CRM, it will be the new business models, the processes, the methodologies, the practices, reviews of the applications that are part of the SCRM universe - and debunking the claims of those apps if need be.   I'll be providing as many success and failure stories as I humanly can so we can develop a body of practice.
  5. For ZDNET, now that the book is done, I'm going to focus on what the ZDNET audience loves the best - the technology and processes of Social CRM - related or otherwise. Plus the practitioner stories of successful implementation.  There will be deviations from that but that's my ZDNET primary direction. Plus I'm going to try to change the blog name, if it doesn't wreak too much havoc to Social CRM: The Conversation
  6. For PGreenblog, the focus will be on the discussions ranging from the business models, the social psychology, the economics to the theoretical concepts and the practical strategies.  I'll look at the culture of the companies, the nature of the customer's thinking, the effect of style on all of this, etc.  I'll do the best I can with what the line of business person needs to know and what the academician needs to explore.
  7. I'm going to spend some time trying to create an institution to capture all of this called the Institute for the Future of Business and the Customer (IFBC) which will include the actual B2B and B2C and B2G customer on its leadership body with the company leaders. Unlike any other institution of its kind that I know of.  This is not an easy task. I've been trying for two years to do this already and have made some progress but it needs a good academic institution and an endowed chair and a couple of companies to underwrite it. It is an agnostic body that will attempt to aggregate and organize all this incredible knowledge on how companies and customers engage and establish what the new business world looks like going forth.   Ambitious, even grandiose? Maybe. But I'm going to try or go down in flames trying.

That's it. Stake is in the ground. Comments on the definition per se are welcome this one last time on either of the blogs that you see this.

But I'm done. AND I'm just starting.

Topics: Enterprise Software, Software

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

20 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • The clarion call it is!

    Paul, this certainly is the clarion call for action!

    Am glad you picked up the threads of this fight a couple of weeks back & hope that you have put an end to the bickering! :)

    I am certainly going to keep pointing to this for introducing people to the concept of Social CRM.

    Alos, I really like the idea of the agnostic body. BPM has had it for long. We now need it for SCRM too.

    I guess this post is the logical end to the discussions on my post "<a href="http://scorpfromhell.blogspot.com/2009/06/dont-call-it-social-crm-or-scrm-first.html">Don't call it Social CRM or #scrm the first time</a>" as well as my last post where I addressed <a href="http://scorpfromhell.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-social-crm-about-automated.html">my fears for Social CRM</a>.

    Hope henceforth the energies are spent on "How To?" rather than "What Is?".

    Regards,
    Prem
    scorpfromhell
  • RE: Time to Put A Stake in The Ground on Social CRM

    Yay!
    mboysen
  • RE: Time to Put A Stake in The Ground on Social CRM

    Yes. Yes. Yes. Paul, as always, you nailed it. Maybe the term "thought leadership" is overused, but you're providing it regardless. I'm linking to this ASAP, and maybe getting it put on a T-shirt.
    LagerCRM
  • RE: Time to Put A Stake in The Ground on Social CRM

    Good article, thanks.

    My potted history of CRM: allows large corporations, functionally siloed, with demographically and geographically dispersed customer-bases approximate to a 1:1 relationship with those customers - for their own benefit. The relationship kept the corporation in the power position and the consumer got more spam.

    Today's Social Media infrastructure, plus all the new Semantic technologies creates an infrastructure where individual collectivism exerts a substantial force. This provides the ability for these corporations to solicit or at least listen to their customers.

    Although today's model of commerce allows the corporations to drive the processes, the forward thinking ones will understand that this is about to change. These businesses will change their models to build their customers into the processes (in reality, today's information systems operate inside and outside the corporate firewall) and they will find that the cost of doing business can be reduced while developing real mutually valuable relationships with their customers.

    Movements such as IDCommons (http://iiw.idcommons.net), DataPortability (http://www.dataportability.org) and Vendor Relationship Management (http://projectvrm.com) have been working on the plumbing for this vision for a number of years.

    Gammydodger (http://www.realtea.net)
    gammydodger
  • Adding to the Conversation

    Hi Paul

    Really great post.

    A few supporting comments, based on your numbering:

    2. Customers have always talked to other customers about
    their experiences with companies? products and services.
    The internet and particularly, the mobile internet have
    simply turbocharged what has been going on all along.

    3. Social CRM provides companies with tools to listen-in
    on some of these conversations and to harness customers
    for marketing, sales and service. It extends CRM from
    being something predominantly inside-out, to something
    that extends out into the conversations that customers are
    having between themselves.

    5. Marketers haven?t helped this by continuing to spam
    customers with increasingly irrelevant communications.
    This ?tragedy of the marketing commons? means that
    marketers have to try even harder to reach a dwindling
    audience with communications no-one believes. No
    wonder that customers prefer to trust their friends and
    family.

    8. If we want to engage customers we need to really
    understand what they need. And I don?t mean VoC
    programmes. Evidence suggests VoC doesn?t work. I mean
    understanding the jobs customers are trying to do and the
    outcomes they are trying to achieve by doing them. This is
    best practice in understanding customer needs today.

    10. Once we understand what customers need, we can
    innovate around delivering exactly that using customer-
    centric innovation approaches such as that developed by
    Strategyn. And we can use service-dominant logic to
    provide experience platforms that allow customers to co-
    create value together with companies. Co-creating value
    with customers is the modern definition of customer-
    centricity.

    13. Once companies start to think about co-creating value
    with customers, they must also think about improving their
    customers? knowledge so that they can co-create more
    value and also, embedding skills and experience in the
    design of products and services themselves so that they
    are much easier to use. This is where Design Thinking
    comes in.

    15. Just as in traditional CRM, information about customers
    is key. That obviously includes the usual Social CRM
    sources like blogs, tweets and what not. But more
    importantly, it also includes information about customer
    social networks. Mobile telcos have been working with SNA
    analysts like Xtract to identify the most influential
    customers and their calling communities. And to greatly
    increase the effectiveness of retention campaigns and new
    product introductions.

    17. Customer value obviously changes in a networked
    world. The customer?s own CLV is supplemented by their
    Customer Referral Value. But a customer?s CRV has only a
    weak relationship to their CLV. And there is an even
    weaker relationship between referred customers and
    incremental value. Take note all you NPS promoters. And
    that?s not the whole story. CLV and CRV are also
    supplemented by the value of the network to attract other
    customers and sellers to it. Especially in today?s multi-
    sided markets.

    As I said at the beginning. Great post. I look forward to
    continuing the conversation. Through Social media of
    course, what else.

    Graham Hill
    Customer-centric Innovator

    GrahamHill
  • Paul, this is a great post!

    Your observations are right on -- Social CRM is definitely the more descriptive term of what companies and their customers are actually looking for -- We are seeing this across our customer base as they barrel forward to solve business problems, whatever the label. The revolution in how we communicate (as you point out) has already happened -- and the savvy businesses are already moving quickly to "what do I do about it".

    I loved the comment in your post, "your objective should be to create advocates". There is so much power and untapped business value that resides with these advocates in online customer communities.

    One customer calculated the value of one advocate at over $250,000 per year. Others routinely estimate it at anywhere from $10,000 to $100,000 per year.

    Again, great post -- thanks for advancing the dialogue.

    Sanjay Dholakia
    Chief Marketing Officer
    Lithium Technologies
    sdholakia
  • RE: Time to Put A Stake in The Ground on Social CRM

    Paul you are right on.

    The Cluetrain has left the station. Everything those authors talked about now resonances in the hearts, minds and souls of our customers-- and in your post...

    And how customers feel is now public information for all to see. Companies have talked about customer experience, customer touch points, customer RELATIONSHIP management...

    now its time to put their money where their "talk" has... and with ROI models (like the one I created-- to put a "stake" in the ground ---we can end the silliness around whether there is value to Social CRM. As Mike Krigsman says, its beyond Kumbaya. http://blogs.zdnet.com/projectfailures/?p=4493

    There is an ROI. If you don't see it yet, that's ok.

    But take it upon yourself to study it, talk to people that have been doing it for the last 2,3-5 - 8 years... listen to the webinar I just did... this link takes you to a free preso...http://digg.com/d1ul2o

    Learn. Grow. Share.
    @drnatalie
    npetouhoff@forrester.com
    npetouhoff
  • ROI Models: Only Half of the Story

    Hi Dr. Natalie

    I haven't seen your very well marketed report on 'The ROI
    Of Online Customer Service Communities', so I can't
    comment on its contents. But the fact that we are
    exclusively talking about a simple metric like ROI as a
    measure of the value created by Social CRM, shows that we
    are still stuck in Measurement 1.0 thinking.

    One thing is for sure, companies do need a measure of the
    value created by Social CRM. Whether that is a traditional
    inside-out measure like ROI, or a more collaborative
    measure like ROII, or even more fundamental measures
    such as a combination of e.g. CFROI and CAP, will no
    doubt be discussed in the coming months. But these
    measures are largely only about the ex post returns that
    companies receive from their incremental investments.

    Social CRM revolves around the co-creation of value with
    customers. It is about service-dominant logic rather than
    goods-dominant logic. That means we need to understand
    the value that customers earn from co-creation as much as
    the value that companies return. Customer perceived value
    is thus just as important as ROI. If you don't understand
    the trade-offs between Customer Perceived Value and
    company ROI, you are in danger of focussing on only half
    of the value creation equation to the detriment of total
    value creation.

    It is time to create a set of measures of value creation that
    represent the larger co-created Social CRM picture. That
    includes Customer Perceived Value. ROI and other one-
    sided measures are not enough in a Social CRM world. It is
    time for Measurement 2.0.

    Regards, Dr. Graham
    Customer-centric Innovator

    GrahamHill
  • RE: Time to Put A Stake in The Ground on Social CRM

    Paul,
    Although thought leaders like you may want to move on, my clients are just now dipping their toes into Social CRM. In a recent survey of 286 companies, I found that only 21% had implemented some type of customer community [platforms] solution. This was dead last compared 18 other customer management technologies we asked about. And, only 6% felt that customer community platforms were "critical" to success (compared to 56% for contract center infrastructure, 56% for order management solutions, 52% for customer service applications, and 48% for salesforce automation). I think much more work needs to be done to define the business value of Social CRM and document the best practices for capturing this value.

    Bill Band
    Forrester Research
    wband
    • No argument there

      Bill,
      I have no problem with that. That's practical knowledge on how to do something that engages customers and provides value. I'm talking about the constant definitions of WHAT Social CRM is is not all that productive anymore. How to accomplish the strategies for customer engagement is where I think we need to be. This doesn't mean we no longer proselytize to customers or explain it to them. It means that those of us involved in this industry need to figure out how to do it so we can help our customers. Some of that is going on, but not enough of it. Far too much on what "social" means, whether its CRM or not, etc.
      pgreenbe
  • You're right!

    Bill, thanks a LOT for sharing the numbers! This only proves that there are so many people who are not yet aware of the shift that is happening - the transfer of control on the conversations & ecosystem to the customers. Thanks to you we now have an idea of how big a task we face ahead of us! That 94% which doesn't think much of customer community solutions (I would like to know your definition of that term) is who we have to educate & persuade.

    The other customer facing technologies that you have mentioned are what we already call "traditional" in the SCRM camp. ;) For us these are a given, and are an integral part of the bigger picture of a <a href="http://scorpfromhell.blogspot.com/2009/04/social-crm-architecture-explained.html" target="_blank">Social CRM landscape</a>.

    P.S.: Bill, the heading of this comment is a pun we use in the <a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23scrm" target="_blank">#scrm</a> channel on Twitter where lots of discussions, debates & "fights" have happened to merely "define" what is Social CRM & even about that term itself! The pun is based on the concluding observation in <a href="http://www.ideachampions.com/weblogs/archives/2009/05/youre_right1.shtml">this post</a> about the character Tevye in the movie Fiddler on the Roof. :D
    scorpfromhell
  • Groan...Social CRM is NOT About Technology!

    Paul

    I am getting that d?j? vu feeling all over again!

    As the majority of the CRM community has come to
    recognise over the past few years, successful CRM is NOT
    about technology. It is about understanding customer
    needs, about building CRM capabilities - complementary
    combinations of processes, technology, data, work
    routines, performance measures, and other assets and
    resources - that deliver them and about understanding
    how doing so creates superior cashflow. The same
    obviously applies to Social CRM too, although there is the
    added complexity of having to understand customer
    capabilities that enable them to co-create value too.

    The questions companies should really be asking are NOT
    what social CRM technology they are using, but which of
    their customers are already using social media, what goals
    the companies want to achieve using social CRM, how they
    intend to use Social CRM to achieve them and what social
    CRM capabilities they need to build in support of their
    goals. Social CRM technology is just an enabler.

    It is time that we moved beyond this short-sighted
    emphasis on CRM and social CRM technology. Companies
    and customers are depending on us to do so.

    It is time to move beyond d?j? vu.

    Graham Hill
    Customer-centric Innovator

    GrahamHill
  • It Takes Two to Tango

    Some great discussion here. As has been pointed out, the power of SCRM is in the value that can be co-created. However, that does mean that both customers and companies/brands have to get into the game together. Customers have already demonstrated their interest and willingness to engage -- the numbers speak for themselves. Businesses, on the other hand, are just waking up to the imperative -- and, this is absolutely where ROI or whatever we want to call it (by the way, we should abandon the debate of the right lable for this in the same we it is time to abandon the debate of the whether SCRM is the right title) needs to come in. The speed and ferocity with which companies decide to engage in their side of this handshake has everything to do with what they perceive it will return to their business. Companies won't write the checks for SCRM strategy, process, or technologies without a line of sight to that return.

    The good news is that it isn't very hard to show this value. In a recent survey/analysis we did across VPs and CxOs of large enterprises, over 50% said that the value of a customer advocate who was engaged and amplifying their voice on the social web was worth over $50,000 annually.

    Now, that's a reason to dance.

    Sanjay Dholakia
    Chief Marketing Officer
    Lithium Technologies
    sdholakia
    • How To calculate benefits?

      Sanjay,

      Thank you for sharing your numbers. Taking it in the context of the numbers shared by Bill, I wonder whats the difference in the survey audience profile. Not sure if the two are antagonistic or complement each other! Would like the views of others to help me comprehend this better. :)

      As for the returns, we need to soon decide upon a framework to calculate the costs & returns. ROI, ROII, CAP, NPS, CLV, CRV ... a combination of these? Anyways, now that the what has been defined, more or less, we can get ahead with the how.

      Me being from a software background, do not know much about the numbers & the financial stuff & am eager to learn before I contribute. :)

      Regards,
      Prem
      scorpfromhell
  • RE: Time to Put A Stake in The Ground on Social CRM

    Yes, Paul,
    Clearly, the most value that (S)CRM thought-leaders can add now (for the larger CM community) is to move beyond the debate about the "what" and dig into uncovering the best practices that will illuminate the "how" of engaging customers in new, more social, ways. (And, of course, these emerging practices must take into account new business models that include strategy, process, technology, and people components).
    Bill Band
    wband
  • RE: Time to Put A Stake in The Ground on Social CRM

    Paul,

    Sincere thanks for consistently casting vision and
    setting our sites on the future while embracing the
    critical task at hand. Graham, your insights
    constantly stretch the mind into new concepts that I
    wonder if anyone else gets them other than a very
    small select few. Sincere thanks to you both.

    A couple of Paul's key points I think are worth
    focusing on:

    It has been a social revolution in how we communicate,
    <b><i>not a revolution in how we do business per
    se.</b></i> All institutions that humans interact with
    have been affected by things like the
    cellphone/smartphone, the new social web tools and the
    instant availability of information in an aggregated
    and organized way that provides intelligence to the
    person on the street, not just the enterprise.

    <b><i>How you measure customer value changes when
    you?re thinking about SCRM. </i></b> Rather than just
    Customer Lifetime Value (CLV) - which reflects the
    direct financial value of a customer to a company over
    the life of his relationship to that company, think
    too about Customer Referral Value (CRV) which measures
    how valuable influential customers are when they tell
    others about your company, not just promise to.

    To Graham's point(s), measurement 1.0 needs to
    advance, but even using 1.0 measurement, compelling
    stories are already emerging with companies leveraging
    these new tools not necessarily to change their
    business models, but refine the way that they execute.

    Social Technologies are emerging and rapidly evolving
    across society, and has opened up new opportunities
    for forward thinking enterprises to leverage and
    create value in new and interesting ways.

    But we have all learned that technology apart from
    vision, strategy, and execution is simply that -
    technology.

    Paul and others, I look forward to partnering with you
    as we help enterprises to leverage the new emerging
    technologies to extend their value chain and engage
    with their customers in ways that were previously
    impossible.

    Sincere regards,

    Brian Vellmure
    @CRMStrategies
    http://freecrmstrategies.wordpress.com
    bvellmure
  • Bravo Paul

    As you know, I'm a big proponent for Social CRM as CRM 2.0 didn't truly capture the human essence of relationship management.

    BTW, Did I miss the deadline? :)
    brianaaa24
  • RE: Time to Put A Stake in The Ground on Social CRM

    I've been asking myself why companies who previously paid very little attention to the customer input readily available from their call centers are suddenly so interested in social media. The answer seems to be that "published" opinions and views are embarassing and obviously damaging - where the call center complaint was private and the resultant damage unknown.

    Trying to manage or manipulate social media is really not going to work. Company's need to step back and improve their customer relationships from the roots. CRM hasn't changed, in my opinion, there are just many more ways to listen, observe and seek input, and it's a lot more dangerous not to do it!
    monica_slavin
  • RE: Time to Put A Stake in The Ground on Social CRM

    I could not agree more. I'm looking forward to finding a business uses their customers insight and inspiration to mold themselves into something more valuable. To do for customers that we individually cannot do. I'll be in touch and perhaps, if it works, we can help each other define that business that I think we both want. Anybody else out there that wants to grow from nothing into something?

    infomediary.wordpress.com (it's old, but then again, I started early)
    codputer
  • invitation of chapters for a scientific book about Social CRM

    We invite any authors to contribute to a scientific book abou Social CRM:
    http://www.igi-global.com/authorseditors/authoreditorresources/callforbookchapters/callforchapterdetails.aspx?callforcontentid=22c744ff-838d-45fc-b788-0a9e37e96d8c
    stanley6