How to Talk with Customers Differently

You have a communication problem and your brand is suffering because of it.

You speak the language of efficiency and scarcity, your customers think in terms of collaboration and story - most likely their story/experience with you and other providers. You hear what they say as a problem, when you could be listening for the opportunity it comes with.

In many cases all of the ingredients are there, they just need a different mix. Or you may need to open up the kimono, let your customers tell stories about you - your brand as open-source API for the meaning they are looking for. Think of the alternative - if nobody is talking about you, do you really exist? Are you top of mind? And if they're saying negative things, join the conversation, show them you can and do pay attention. 

In my experience, every human interaction is about two things:

1. do you care?
2. can I trust you?

Does your language - what you say and what you do - communicate the answers to those two questions? This is especially important in this time of reevaluation of our priorities inspired by the larger context - the economic crisis with the fast approaching holiday season. Peter Drucker wrote it a long time ago: "organizations are no longer built on force, but on trust." So are markets.

Different times call for different measures. Want to see different results? Today at Fast Company expert blog we talk about how to talk with customers differently.

I was talking with Michael Leis about the commotion that a Motrin ad generated recently and we were in agreement that only part of it may have been because of the ad itself. Motrin, we do feel your pain. Remember that with social media at work, with the fact that interactions are from human to human, there is a much larger consideration to your initiative - that of the context in which it plays.

Things are downright rough at the moment. People are despairing about jobs, and the fast approaching holiday season is bringing a greater amount of stress into the equation. The Motrin ad became the catalyst for these sentiments, the social object for people to come together and talk about how badly they felt. America at the moment has indeed lost its sense of humor.

I believe that the ad and the uproar that it generated offer a real opportunity for J&J, the makers of Motrin, to have a different conversation with customers. Not as a program, not as part of a campaign, not as a momentary patch - as an ongoing part of doing business. The lines between marketing, public relations, and naked conversations have been blurring for years - whether we admit it or not. Mastering this new environment takes learning to talk with customers differently.

It's not us vs. them anymore, it's people on both sides of the conversations trying to figure out two simple things: Do you care? Can I trust you? Organizations may want to consider tactical transparency as part of their learning curve.

What's done is done. Now, I'd like to know what suggestions do you have for J&J and all those other companies that are beginning to grapple with social media in the context of today's larger story and conversation. What would you do inside such a company?

Comments

[Lewis Green]

Valeria, I agree with you. I was disappointed that Motrin backed down instead of taking the Tweeter opportunity to communicate their story. My response is that being loud on Twitter does not a groundswell make but if we want to prevent additonal negativity, we need to be prepared to tell our story. Not defensively but with sensitivity and understand our customers POV.

[Devin]

Agreed agreed agreed, with you and with Lewis! My bosses were actually fairly active in the #motrinmoms twitter uproar (being both marketers AND parents themselves) so they posted their own summary and comments on our blog here: http://thekbuzz-thekisforkerpen.blogspot.com/2008/11/when-motrin-creates-marketing-mom-miss.html

J&J took the first step by apologizing - which is good. I think it's great that more and more companies are seeing the value of an open apology - admitting that "we messed up" and pledging to learn from the mistake in the future. So how should companies like J&J proceed in the future? I think the simplest answer is just to commit the time and resources to building a social media presence! Don't jump onto every single platform all at once with information overload, but take the time to get to know each platform to figure out how it can best work for you and how you can best contribute to it in a way that your customers will appreciate.

[Richard Becker]

Valeria,

You could be right. After everyone was motivated toward this outrage and that outrage during the election cycle, people still seem to still looking for places to leave any leftover angst. The anger of Motrin moms and then the equal anger of the anti-Motrin moms seems to be testament to it.

While Motrin probably did miss an opportunity, they were not prepared to change their communication. And, since they weren't prepared, letting things die down seems suitable enough.

I'm hopeful it will help them think differently about social media in the future. I love some of the thoughts in this post too. Companies might be people, but people aren't companies. It seems anytime people-to-people interactions take place, it's always refreshing and often produces better results.

All the best,
Rich

[Heather Rast]

What an intriguing suggestion...that the stressors in our everyday lives can create feelings of frustration and angst, manifesting in intense reactions such as those experienced with the "motrinmoms" case. At its core, that's a belief that I've long subscribed to. It's the responsibility of every company to be in tune and sensitive to these stressors (political, societal, financial, environmental, etc.) to ensure their message has an opportunity to resonate. Maybe in light of the heightened tension (presidential race, failing economy, etc.), the levity Motrin was hoping to strike was instead an ill-timed and off-theme story.

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Lewis - I do think that the matter was handled with grace. As a brand and as a company, they have enough credibility to regroup and talk about whether becoming more active with the online community.

@Devin - there are many people in companies that get it. Sometimes it's a matter of patience and finding the right opportunity to demonstrate results off the bat. That is critical to winning the confidence of the business side, especially in tight times. Thank you for offering the link.

@Rich - people with people who are willing to have a conversation at worst agree to disagree. All the years of direct to consumer marketing may have also played a role in the sentiments behind the comments after the trigger engaged. It is becoming increasingly challenging to hide behind "company policy".

@Heather - think of road rage. It's so easy to pull together a digital message. We have the tools, and social media conversations are surfacing many of the issues people have been left to grapple with for a long time. You list several. Time and place are everything - in marketing, and in life.

[Beth Harte]

Valeria, excellent points, but I am really disappointed in Motrin for pulling the ad and not using the opportunity to get involved in the conversation. The latest AdAge article (http://tinyurl.com/6e2eh6) about this situation sites that only 0.15% of the world's Internet users utilized Twitter, which makes the mommy blogger population even that much smaller. Minuscule. The Motrin team did research that backed up their campaign initiatives and then the VP of Marketing says, well maybe we didn't do enough. Please. The campaign ran for 45 days and this incident was a perfect storm that could have never been predicted. But the lesson here is that companies need to understand the value of social media and communication so that if another perfect storm arises, they have the tools to sail, somewhat, smoothly through it.

[Adam Needles]

Hi, Valeria.

I think that your statement, "let your customers tell stories about you - your brand as open-source API for the meaning they are looking for," is very interesting and got me thinking.

This is critical as the power shifts from brand companies to customers. And it has significant implications for brand positioning.

The Mad Men ad world was all about taglines and messaging. Increasingly we need to learn how to develop brand positioning that is holistic and that is tagline/messaging free. It needs to be about experience, and it needs to be set up for customers to convey in their own words.

Great insight.

[Green and Clean Mom]

"Things are downright rough at the moment. People are despairing about jobs, and the fast approaching holiday season is bringing a greater amount of stress into the equation. The Motrin ad became the catalyst for these sentiments, the social object for people to come together and talk about how badly they felt. America at the moment has indeed lost its sense of humor."

I have to disagree with what you are saying here. I don't feel that this is what happened or that we lost our sense of humor because "moms" got upset about the ad. I think it was the delivery of the ad, like a bad Saturday Night Live skit! I think what Motrin and other companies have learned and we have all learned is that social media is conversation but when conversation is "bad" and a lot of "bad" is being spoken out there on Twitter, for example, we have a very large voice. Social Media is great free marketing but also marketing research and if you see the other side of the table, they learned a lot as did other companies.

I just don't think rough economic times had anything to do with the uproar. That's condescending like the moms were pissed about other things and then took it out on Motrin. That is giving Motrin a back door and a big fat excuse for why it happened.

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Adam - I put a big caveat there for customers (us all)-- that we uphold ourselves to the same high standards we hold companies to. There is no other way to balance the power back into the conversation.

@Dear Green and Clean Mom - I think you are jumping to conclusions without the proper attention to my choice of words. You are not taking into consideration the context of my post, just your view of it. That is fine up until the point where you judge me as condescending, which of course if you step back and take the whole post in might be a fast conclusion.

The ad opened the door to an opportunity indeed. That opportunity is on both sides of the equation. The passionate voices the ad awakened can *lead* the conversation, but only if they and you choose to behave that way. And no, there are no excuses for *anyone's* behavior.

[Mike Ashworth]

Ponder on this.....

When Companies pander to a small (but vocal) number of the twitterati / s'mores, is their not a risk, that instead of this being a fantastic journey of joy and discovery on the social media superhighway, what will actually happen is that an underclass of Customer will be created.

A customer who doesn't reside on these platforms, perhaps wants to communicate via methods they like, such as the phone, or maybe even a letter?

Of course these Companies may choose to have only Customers who reside on these platforms and that is the day that they will have to shut up shop.

Mike Ashworth

[Matthew T. Grant]

Hey Valeria,

I'm thinking more and more about the "human to human" interaction you mention here. You rightly highlight the fact that this humanness means that communicators need to take the context (ie, social situation, environmental conditions) into account when sending ads, etc. into the world. Although my thoughts are not fully formed on this, it seems to me that the human2human communication facilitated by social media means that we need to think of the things we send into the world as opportunities to engage in discussion. In the past, marketers made ads/shows/whatever because they wanted people "out there" to talk about them. Nowadays, the marketers need to be out there as well and be prepared to talk with the people themselves about everything they're doing.

[Frank Martin]

Damn, you're good. Great post, and SO right on.

Right now, I'm consulting with a very successful, traditional company that is really struggling in a new (geographic) market. I am working to move them toward embracing social media as a way to connect their people with their customers, and they are trying to see it, but keep falling back to their default comfort level of broadcast print and hoping for the best. It is a REAL struggle for some companies to get social media, because they are used to controlling the conversation.

And you and I know they just can't anymore.

[Mary H Ruth]

I think this is a brilliant post. As I'm now in the throes of figuring out how to describe this new world to whole communities that haven't a clue, your words are most helpful. One feels like an evalangelist, or a trouble maker; the new 'paradigm' is so innovative, most don't have the awareness to see it.

[Lewis Green]

Green & Clean,

I don't know you but I respect all opinions, even those I disagree with. I do know Valeria and have for several years. We even had a falling out over a blog post once.

One thing Valeria is not is condescending. She is honorable, sympathetic to other's views and always truthful, and her words need to be understood in that context. This post is a reflection of her values and her high character. We might disagree with her take, but I am confident her words were not condescending nor meant to give anyone an out.

[C.B. Whittemore]

Valeria, fascinating post and great discussion. I'm intrigued with the point that Mike Ashworth makes about customers not on these platforms; how do we bridge the two worlds? It's no longer a matter of either/or. It's both with full engagement.

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Mike - hopefully I understand what you are saying correctly. I am suggesting that radical transparency is a way of thinking about interaction and dialogue with customers - wherever they may be. We can start with customer service calls, for example. Social media is changing the way we think about service, and marketing, and doing business, it is taking it back to the bazaar or the market of old, where people actually did have conversations. That is the new environment I am talking about. Not the tools, the way of thinking. Does this help address your concern?

@Matt - "we need to think of the things we send into the world as opportunities to engage in discussion." Yes, and indeed they are. It's how we think about marketing and how we behave with each other that needs the refresh. Now, I know that there is the question of scale... we will solve that another day.

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Frank - thank you, you are kind. That's why I think it's important for the community out here to support those communicators and marketers inside organizations who are evangelizing the connection.

@Mary - you captured the dilemma with evangelist/trouble maker. Indeed habits die hard. But support is within reach with colleagues and peers as the ones commenting here and interacting online. We are attuned to helping each other.

[Leigh Duncan-Durst]

Valeria,

Thanks for the post.

I agree that Motrin had a great opportunity to respond and engage. However, I think many people fail to understand the very real challenges ANY company in the pharmaceutical realm faces with regard to engaging in "open, transparent dialog with customers."

J&J has been a client. I am sure there were many very smart people who had the desire to come out and engage #motrinmoms. The problems is, unlike Zappos and Comcast and Starbucks... J&J Has staggering legal and compliance issues with which to contend. On top of this, like many companies in the pharmaceutical realm, they've got culture issues steeped in a regulatory reality, and they typically do not move quickly with any issue of legal magnitude.

Cumulatively, this makes it nearly impossible to dialog directly with customers without facing compliance and adverse events reporting risks. This puts a real damper on any kind of transparency and open dialog. Many of these companies aren't even allowed to look at individual customer data due to HIPAA regulations. They store customer data externally, look at feedback anonymously, etc.

I'd LOVE to tell J&J how to mobilize and engage and I DO believe their holistic response could have been done better. However, it was exactly what I expected based on my experience with economies of scale.

For some of their brands (e.g. Baby shampoo) a more proactive approach to social media may be easier to undertake than others (anything health care related).

Unfortunately, as with MANY aspects of customer experience, the obstacles present here are big, heavy, legal, operational and cultural ones....

It took about eight years for pharmaceutical companies to embrace the web - and I don't anticipate social media engagement will come along much faster than this.

So I realize that I'm not answering your question directly... I just felt the need to highlight a point that many people seem to be overlooking.

Moving foward, I think Motrin folks could definitely do some data mining and analysis on this as a case study. By examining posts, feeds, discussion streams and comments they could understand where they went wrong and map the dialog. Perhaps they could create a list of dissenters and work on an ad campaign recruiting those people to co-create a new ad campaign and issue PR around this. Whatever they do, they need to do so without engaging the larger audience one-to-one in social media. That's just the business reality they're dealing with right now.

Thanks for listening!

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Lewis - I'm glad you mentioned that incident, it goes to context as well. You are correct, nobody is getting off the proverbial hook here, just making observations about humans being humans.

@CB - I think we bridge it with attitude and a renewed sense of respect for service. It's about "and/and", we do need to address all interactions in all channels. But it is the interaction that needs addressing, not the channel per se.

@Leigh - I worked in the highly regulated chemical industry as well as in financial services. Yes, there are constrains that other industries do not face there. Lots of people get involved in those kinds of decisions, in any corporation, that I do know. And unless there is a strong support to be proactive and engaged, it remains something they dance around. The other side of the coin is that these regulations are put in place for checks and balances in the products we consume. As I wrote on Twitter, we cannot have it both ways. Thank you for sharing this really good piece.