Bloghound

The folks over at MIT Media Lab have created some interesting ways to assess whether someone is interested in or even paying attention to a conversation. In fact, using a machine that measures a person’s speaking style (activity, stress, empathy) the MIT researchers can predict the outcomes of a conversation with almost 90 percent accuracy – from just a few minutes of listening.

One tool is the Jerk-O-Meter, which measures how engaged you are with the other person on the phone and sends you messages, from “you’re a smooth talker” to “stop being a jerk” so you can alter your behavior.

Other tests include the The ElevatorRater, a program that analyzes charisma based on a speaker’s delivery, using non-linguistic speech features like pitch, speaking rate, pause durations. Another is the Human Interest Meter, measuring how interested people are in conversations.

I think tools like these hold some potential for communicators, giving us ways to more scientifically help people relax and be more genuine. They can also help us to crack the corporate speak syndrome, showing people just how engaged or unengaged others are when listening in to their podcasts, webinars, and in-person presentations.

One of the MIT researchers has suggested that perhaps people need to become better actors to be engaged in meaningful conversations. I say rubbish to that notion.

If we want genuine interest we need to be genuinely interested in what we’re talking about – and the people with whom we’re talking.

In today’s conversational world, whether online or in-person we have to learn how to find points of view – or help others in our organization find them – that are interesting to others and that we LIKE talking about. Points of view are an “also” to the traditional vision/mission/messaging basics; they’re beliefs, ideas, advice, and perspectives that are fresh, relevant and have a little emotion wrapped around them.

Harder than the usual “messaging” and best practices and feature/benefits? Surely. But if we don’t speak with conviction, research shows that people will tune us out in less than three minutes – despite the words themselves.

How a Point of View Differs

I’m guest blogging over at the International Association of Online Communicators. Here’s today’s post.

What does a person’s writing say about the person? Plenty, especially if you learn how to use the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) program developed by James Pennebaker and colleagues at the University of Texas at Austin.

You run text through the program and it categorizes words into 70 linguistic or psychologically-relevant categories. I inputted the several recent blog posts from three popular CEO bloggers — Paul Levy, CEO of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, Bob Lutz, vice chairman of GM, and Bill Marriott — and here are the partial results:

Some admittedly oversimplified takeaways:

· Bill Marriott comes across as most honest, outgoing, and positive.

· Paul Levy appears to be especially intelligent, with highly cognitive and big words; he’s also quite outgoing and more negative than the other two CEO bloggers. Interestingly he’s done an extraordinary job of turning around Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital and has been writing about union issues, which may account for the negative emotion.

· Bob Lutz comes across honest and smart.

What does this have to do with online communications? It’s an area I’m studying and have no answers yet, just some questions I’d like to ask you:

· Should we “test” executives writing and analyze it before they start blogging on behalf of the company? If they score very negative, low on honesty and low on cognitive thinking – would this person be a good representative of the company?

· Does using an analysis tool like this help us be more aware of our selves – and help us change our language, and, in turn, change our behavior?

· Is it a good tool to coach others in communicating in this new conversational world? (Note that many people think that using the first person “I” is not professional and makes you seem too self-absorbed. But linguistics has found that not to be so; use of the first person implies honesty.)

· Should we never talk about this tool as it may scare execs about being naked out in the blogsophere – especially if they aren’t all that buff when it comes to being positive, cognitively complex and honest?

· Lastly, can writing a blog every day make us healthier? (Studies have proven that writing about personal topics 15 – 30 minutes a day improves people’s emotional and physical health.)

People are sick of being polled and surveyed, as Ad Age’s Jack Neff has been reporting , with articles like “Consumers Rebel Against Marketers Endless Surveys. “ (Survey response rates average 10 percent and are falling.)

But seems like people do want to have a say and help companies. New research to be released tomorrow by Communispace finds that people participate more when companies give them more interesting ways to participate — chats, video sharing, brainstorming, going mystery shopping, posting day in the life diary posts, etc. People also like to be able to weigh in on more topics.

This study of 26,500 people in 57 communities follows up Communispace research earlier this year that found that monthly participation in by-invitation communities ranged from 33 to 84 percent, with an average of 56 percent of community members contributing. In other words, half of the people asked to help, helped. What a difference compared to conventional research’s 10 percent participation, if that.

This is another good example of business disruption — and of people opting out of a blah experiences (surveys) and opting in to experiences that they find interesting, fun or valuable.

Innovation isn’t happening fast enough for most executives, according to Boston Consulting Group’s fourth annual study on innovation — and there are some key implications for marketers.

Only 46 percent of the 2,500 executive surveyed said they were satisfied with returns on innovation spending. The place they think innovation is most important (listen up marketers):

• New offerings for existing customers (92%)
• Offerings that allow expansion to new new customers (85%)

The biggest obstacles to innovation: speed in going from idea to sales, risk averse cultures and overly lengthy development times.

The question for marketing is how do we tap into customer insights all the time to be constantly finding new ways to appeal to existing and new customers, and then how do we collaborate with other business functions to speed product development. How can we rip out processes that are designed to mitigate risk but actually choke the innovation process? If you have an innovative idea but it takes 18 months to bring it to market, it may not be innovative by the time it gets to market.

On a related note, the most difficult business function for marketing to collaborate with by far is IT, according to a new Forrest Research project, “Partnering for Success: The CMO-CIO Relationship.” The top challenges for marketing in working with IT, which tie right back to innovation:

• Slow time to market and speed in completing projects
• Rigid processes and an aversion or inability to change

It’s hard for marketers and PR professionals to let go of trying to control the message and what customers say. But new research from Communispace finds that ceding control and letting customers initiate and control the conversation in online communities results in valuable insights and brand engagement.

Based on analyzing activity in 84 online customer communities the study, Beyond the Other Box: Giving Customers an Independent Voice in Your Community, found that:

1. When customers initiate dialogue they end up saying and contributing more to a community. (vs. the company starting conversation threads about what they want to talk about)

2. The more that people feel like they own the community (vs. the sponsoring company) the more likely they are to talk with the company when the company asks a question or invites people to take a poll, upload videos related to the brand, etc.

My takeaway: if we really want to tap into our customers we should back off and let them own the community and talk about ideas that matter to them. Maybe we’ll learn that those ideas should matter to us too.

Customers buy based on trust, but there’s a gap in what companies think builds trust vs. what customers say builds trust, according to a new study of 366 financial advisers and 500 customers, published by State Street Global Advisors and Knowledge@Wharton. The study found that many financial advisers overestimate clients’ trust, or erode that trust over time.

“Nearly three quarters of both groups cited trust as the most important characteristic of a financial adviser, but the big discrepancies were in performance and cost-per-service. Just 4% of the advisers thought performance was the most important selection criteria, compared with 10% of the clients; only 5% of the advisers voted for cost, versus 12% for clients,” reports Forbes’ reporter Brett Nelson in an article, “Do Your Customers Trust You?”

Especially interesting was the differences between what customers and companies thinks is important in a business relationship, assumptions I see in sales organizations across industries.

• Just 26% of advisers surveyed felt that “knowledge” was the most important element of customer service, compared with 47% of clients.
• 38% of advisers thought “personal factors” took the day, only 14% of clients agreed.

To build trust with customers, constantly share knowledge and advice they can benefit from. Starting in the sales process. And look for sales people who are truly consultative. As this study indicates, the soft “let’s play some golf” personal factors matter far less than most companies think.

Face-to-face word of mouth has the largest influence on business buying decisions, according to a study released yesterday by The Keller Fay Group.

Most executive word of mouth occurs offline, with more than 75% happening in person. (A very small portion happens online.) The 700 U.S. and U.K. executives interviewed for the study said that they value communications channels with two-way dialogue, Top influences on their business purchases:

• Recommendation form a colleague or friend
• Interaction with a salesperson
• Participation at in-person marketing events, conferences and trade shows.

Based on my research for Beyond Buzz there are several implications to this research:

• • Most sales training focuses on style, but lacks ideas on how to jump start conversations with a point of view that is relevant to both the seller and buyer. In the Web 2.0 exuberance many, many companies are overlooking how to make face to face sales conversations more effective.
• Word of mouth for business to business marketing and sales isn’t about buzz, it’s about providing advice and ideas and making meaning.

• Face to face word of mouth requires that your people — executives, sales reps, folks at shows — have interesting ideas to talk about. Ideas that are fresh, engaging, memorable and are easy for people to take back and talk to others about. Give them more to talk about than more about your products and capabilities.

[word of mouth marketing]

Walter Carl, associate professor of communications at Northeastern University and well-known word of mouth researcher, was recently interviewed by the Publicity Club of New England about word of mouth trends. You can read the full interview here.

Walter’s reminder to us of the three principles of human communication is especially noteworthy:

What are two ways that we could all communicate better?

How about three? Mindfulness, dual perspective, and balancing creativity and constraint. These are three principles of human communication.

Mindfulness is about being more aware and being centered in the present moment (very Zen). Accomplishing dual perspective is taking the other person’s perspective and then your own. And balancing creativity and constraint is a principle of both human and organizational communication. Individuals and groups are in continuous tension between balancing needs for control with creative expression. Understanding the need for both of these to co-exist and dance together at each moment is how individuals and organizations can become successful.

New research from Communispace shows that people participate much more in private communities — up to 86 percent — than public social networks, just one percent.

Key findings, based on behavioral research among 26,539 members of 66 private online communities:

The more intimate the community, the more people participate. Up to 86 percent of the people who log on to private, facilitated communities (average community size: 300-500 people) made contributions: they posted comments, initiated dialogues, participated in chats, brainstormed ideas, shared photos, etc. Only 14 percent logged in and “lurked.” In contrast, on public social networks the ratio is typically reversed; one percent of site visitors contribute and the other 99 percent lurk.

Why people participate: social glue, shared passion, having a voice

• Communities of parents get the highest involvement: of the 66 communities analyzed, parent communities, as a group, had the highest levels of participation. In general, the research found that the stronger the “social glue” – common interests and passions among members– the greater the participation.

• Differences between how men and women participate: based on analysis of single-sex communities, the research found that although members of women’s communities participated more frequently than men, men seemed to have more to say when they did participate: 4.8 weekly contributions for men compared to 4.1 for the women.

• Homogeneity triggers participation:the research found that communities based around a particular demographic tended to have higher participation rates. Women and men each participated more in single-sex communities than they did on average in co-ed communities. African-Americans participated at a higher overall level in an all African-American community than they did in other, multi-racial communities. This suggests that people have more in common and are more interactive with a homogeneous group in an online community setting.

• Education and household income were not related to community member participation. Again, the passion around the community’s purpose or its social glue appears to influence participation more than traditional demographics like education and income.

• Having a voice, productive leisure: One of the implications from the research is that people may get more involved in private, intimate communities because they feel like they can have a say and that community members and the sponsoring company hear their views. Another implication is thatpeople may view the time spent as “productive leisure.” They see participating as an interesting or fun outlet for communicating with other people who love what they love. It’s a bridge from what they do in real life to their passions.

People get more involved when they know who they’re talking to and why

• The study also compared participation levels of branded vs. unbranded communities. While the contribution and lurker rates were fairly consistent, branded sites showed a higher volume of participation.
• When potential members were considering whether to participate in a community, they were 30 percent more likely to log on when the welcome notice disclosed the company sponsoring the community. Branded sites had an initial log in rate of 71 percent, compared with 55 percent for unbranded sites. This suggests that transparency – being upfront about who’s behind the community – is a key factor for companies that want to engage with customers in a community.

The research analyzed participation behavior along three factors : frequency (how often members contribute), volume (the number of contributions made by each member), and bystander or “lurker” rate (what percentage of members observe versus participate.)

For more on Communispace’s “Community Participation Trends and Drivers” study, go here to get the white paper.

social netowrking online communities Communispace research

At this week’s Red Herring CMO 2007 Conference in Carlsbad, California, chief marketing officers agreed that their role has substantially changed — as has what CMOs are being held accountable for.

All the CMOs who spoke — from companies including GE, Nortel and Google — said that their number one priority is increasing revenue, and that every marketing activity today must be measurable in a way that aligns with business goals, particularly revenue, growth and improving the customer experience. Dashboards tracking marketing’s impact on key business goals is a fundamental, said the CMOs.

They also concurred that the role of CMOs today is more of a strategic partner to the CEO on how to move the business ahead. More of a chief architect, less of a programs manager.

Other highlights:

Kathryn Hanson, CMO of Red Herring, presented a the results of a survey, “What Keeps CMOs Up at Night.” Top strategic priorities: driving revenue, changing brand perception, custom acquisition, aligning sales and marketing, and aligning marketing across geographies.

CMOs Lauren Flaherty of Nortel and Dan Henson of GE stressed the need for more predictive insights and analytics. “It’s about the headlights not the taillights,” said Flaherty. “You’ve got to measure real time, looking at the future not historical data. That’s why Tracking studies don’t provide value.”

Why CEOs replace their CMOs: According to Tom Seclow of search firm SpencerStuart, CEOs almost always say, “The CMO didn’t get anything done. And they didn’t get buy in in the organization.”

Red Herring CMO Conference