Share →
Buffer

The Social Customer – Complete Control or A Level of Control?

By On · 35 Comments · In Social CRM

[widget id="ad_unit-3"]ad_unit-3[/widget]I’m not going to quote it directly, because even 140 characters seems long-winded these days, but I believe Paul Greenberg’s tweetable definition of Social CRM has been blown way out of proportion. So much so, that I actually feel that I need to build a bridge. Can you believe it? The iconoclast is building a bridge!

I’ve read and heard many people since the time this came out talk about the customer controls the conversation. And then this morning, I read a Tweet by Graham Hill, I’m sure completely out of context – but I read it anyway, who said the customer doesn’t control the conversion. I realize he wrote “conversion” and not “conversation”, but it’s the control thing I zeroed in on. Let’s talk about this for a minute.

Did Paul G. suggest that the customer completely controls the conversation? Or did he imply that the level of response by the company is relative to the level of control of the conversation by the customer. I think we can all agree that megaphones are cheap these days. Also, we have more options to buy, and the path of least resistance is hard to fight. But, the customer has always had some level of control. They’ve always had some level of choice and they’ve always had venues for voicing their displeasure. While not complete control, they certainly had some level of control – conversation or otherwise.

Doesn’t the same hold true today? Is anyone suggesting the customer has complete control? I’d love to hear opinions because this is going to be a short post. Did you interpret control to mean complete control or just a level of control? If the latter, ask yourself how many times you’ve referenced “control of the conversation” without qualifying it.

Tagged with:  
avatar
About The Author

Mike Boysen

Mike Boysen, founder of Effective CRM, is a strategic consultant in the CRM arena. He brings practical insight to businesses to help them understand customer-centered business strategy: outside-in process design, frameworks for understanding customer needs, understanding the jobs of your customers, market growth through innovation, behavior driven relationship marketing programs and designing systems to support these initiatives. The technology part is simple, so why are you spending so much money on that? Can't answer that? This is not the CRM your friends have been talking about...

Visit Authors Website →
  • David Mangen

    IMHO it is a question of degree, and what has happened of late is that relatively more influence over the process (note how I am avoiding using the word control) has fallen to the customer.

    In addition to the sheer access to information — a fact aided significantly by the web — I suspect that part of the change is due to an increased supply of goods and services relative to demand, and that therefore more power has fallen to those with the $$ to purchase.

  • Pingback: Customer-Centric Round-up June 18, 2010 | Effective CRM

  • http://twitter.com/mikeboysen mikeboysen

    I’m looking for some opinions. Does the customer have complete control? Come on, I know you have them! http://bit.ly/aj7tYa #scrm
    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • Anonymous

    I do not think the customer gets *complete* control. It seems we use the phrase “the customer is in control of the conversation” to indicate the radical shift in the balance of control.

    No single customer or minority customer group can decide what product the company should build or alter the opinion of the fans of the product. The company still has control to:
    - Create a good product, focus strongly on a market segment and afford to not get distracted by the customer who is not satisfied.
    - Build up its brand advocates to counter any misdirected control by the customer.

    Great question, Mike!

  • http://twitter.com/mikeboysen mikeboysen

    I’m looking for a few more opinions. Does the customer have complete control? http://bit.ly/aj7tYa #scrm
    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://twitter.com/mjayliebs Mitch Lieberman

    Mike,

    It is a fair question and this has been debated a few times as well. Some suggest it is more jointly controlled. Some suggest that it is new (like me) and that is as much a sense of empowerment by customers – empowered to interact with companies in new ways. New in the sense that they can be very social (like the Ann Taylor FaceBook example today) or new as in the check-out line at the grocery store with no human interaction at all.

    I do not believe that anyone has complete control, but I do believe that customers have a much greater degree of control than before. They also have much more knowledge, thus they control their buying via influence from others. If I have learned anything recently, it is that nothing is black and white when customers are concerned. Great question, it is important to to keep this top of mind.

    Mitch

  • http://twitter.com/mikeboysen mikeboysen

    More opinions needed. Does the customer have complete control? Come on, I know you have them! http://bit.ly/aj7tYa #scrm
    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • munishgandhi

    I do not think the customer gets *complete* control. It seems we use the phrase “the customer is in control of the conversation” to indicate the radical shift in the balance of control.

    No single customer or minority customer group can decide what product the company should build or alter the opinion of the fans of the product. The company still has control to:
    - Create a good product, focus strongly on a market segment and afford to not get distracted by the customer who is not satisfied.
    - Build up its brand advocates to counter any misdirected control by the customer.

    Great question, Mike!

  • http://the56group.typepad.com Paul Greenberg

    Thank you, Mike. Its been astonishing to me to see how much people take everything entirely literally since you can’t completely define ANYTHING truly effectively in 140 characters, including what Twitter is.

    What I’m suggesting is quite simple. The customer has the ability to affect the business of a company in a way that is outside the company’s control via channels they (the company) don’t own. Period. That’s all. This isn’t about a new fascist regime run by the customer that gives them total control over everything that a business does. I’ve only said this about 2.5 million times. Or more. and in more than 140 characters.

    I’ll keep it short too.

    • http://effective-crm-consulting.com Mike Boysen

      Thanks for jumping in Paul. I just thought I’d ask that question since, whether it was meant or not, I’ve seen a few statements that would suggest complete control (certainly not from you). I think it’s the danger of the 140 character venue we are using today. On the other hand, I think some people caught up in the hype actually start believing the words literally after they said it enough times.

  • http://twitter.com/mjayliebs Mitch Lieberman

    Mike,

    It is a fair question and this has been debated a few times as well. Some suggest it is more jointly controlled. Some suggest that it is new (like me) and that is as much a sense of empowerment by customers – empowered to interact with companies in new ways. New in the sense that they can be very social (like the Ann Taylor FaceBook example today) or new as in the check-out line at the grocery store with no human interaction at all.

    I do not believe that anyone has complete control, but I do believe that customers have a much greater degree of control than before. They also have much more knowledge, thus they control their buying via influence from others. If I have learned anything recently, it is that nothing is black and white when customers are concerned. Great question, it is important to to keep this top of mind.

    Mitch

  • http://the56group.typepad.com Paul Greenberg

    Thank you, Mike. Its been astonishing to me to see how much people take everything entirely literally since you can't completely define ANYTHING truly effectively in 140 characters, including what Twitter is.

    What I'm suggesting is quite simple. The customer has the ability to affect the business of a company in a way that is outside the company's control via channels they (the company) don't own. Period. That's all. This isn't about a new fascist regime run by the customer that gives them total control over everything that a business does. I've only said this about 2.5 million times. Or more. and in more than 140 characters.

    I'll keep it short too.

  • http://twitter.com/mikeboysen mikeboysen

    RE: Thanks for jumping in Paul. I just thought I’d ask that question since, whether it was meant or not, I’ve seen a f… http://disq.us/elcy9
    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://twitter.com/mikeboysen mikeboysen

    @pgreenbe Paul, I appreciate you jumping in. The literal mind is exposed on Twitter. Re: http://bit.ly/aj7tYa
    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://twitter.com/OutsideInThink OutsideInThink

    @pgreenbe Paul, I appreciate you jumping in. The literal mind is exposed on Twitter. Re: http://bit.ly/aj7tYa
    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://twitter.com/prem_k prem_k

    RE: @mikeboysen Excellent post Mike. And a very important issue in #scrm too! I have said this before somewhere, twitt… http://disq.us/elejx
    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://scorpfromhell.blogspot.com A. Prem Kumar

    Excellent post Mike. And a very important issue in #scrm too! I have said this before somewhere, twitter, especially tweetable definitions lend to creating ‘mantras’ which becomes a mindless repeating of words/sound bites without understanding the real depth or meaning behind them.

    PG’s statement in his comment here says it all: “The customer has the ability to affect the business of a company in a way that is outside the company’s control via channels they (the company) don’t own.”

    Now given that statement alone, what recourses do biz have?
    1) limit ability of customer to affect business
    2) bring the ways a customer can affect business within company’s control
    3) bring customers into channels the company owns
    4) company takes ownership of channels which customers use
    5) embrace customer’s ability to affect biz & in fact facilitate it by opting co-creation, collaboration (anything else here?)

    To me 5th one appeals more, there might be others for whom the earlier options sound good.

    • http://effective-crm-consulting.com Mike Boysen

      @Prem_K, I prefer the word “influence” over control. Even a relationship marketer’s best day is one of influencing, say, a defector to buy again. The customer still makes the decision, but the have been influenced by the proper message at the proper time.

      Channels the company owns – in the customer service area that makes a lot of sense. What about the rest of the business? I think the business will need to be where there customers are. No, they can’t be everywhere. I think it will be just as import today as it has been in the past to understand your customer segments – however they break down for your business – and understand where they are, or could be, in the land of ether.

      As for the co-creation one, while I agree that can be a powerful relationship tool and possibly an innovation that creams the competition, but I also believe that this is one of the most abstract concepts from a lot of businesses. I can’t use the Doom analogy for many businesses I work with and haven’t had time to come up with a good B2B example. I’m sure it’s been talked about. I need to do some research.

      • http://scorpfromhell.blogspot.com A. Prem Kumar

        Agree on the ‘influence’ over ‘control’ aspect Mike. But the concept of ‘influence’ has been messed up big time I believe.I will tell you a small trick of the road side vendors in the flea markets out here. As you might be aware these vendors peddle stuff that have no standard pricing & is a heavily unregulated market or rather a self regulating market.Supposing you want to buy some stuff one of these vendors has put up for sale, you try to haggle the price. Customers try to out guess the price point at which they can buy the product, but of course only the vendor knows the real cost of the product. So the customer always want to bargain further down & even after a reasonably good deal leaves with a feeling that may be the vendor might have provided for lesser.Now heres the influence deal in here.Some vendors have some cohorts who come and ask for (posing as customers) the very same or similar or less expensive looking stuff that you are haggling for. They pay a price thats higher than you are currently haggling for. So you tend to stop haggling sooner and end up paying more.That kind of influence is obviously great for business. Is that the kind of influence we want to deal in?Frankly I am sick of the ‘influence’ pitches from most ‘social media gurus’ & ‘anti-gurus’ (I hate hate hate hate that term BTW). For stuff on ‘influence’ I would rather prefer stuff from neuroscience than snakeoil vendors.

  • http://twitter.com/prem_k prem_k

    The Social Customer – Complete Control or A Level of Control? | Effective CRM http://bit.ly/9GacgE #scrm
    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://twitter.com/mikeboysen mikeboysen

    RE: @34394575 @Prem_K, I prefer the word “influence” over control. Even a relationship marketer’s best day is one of i… http://disq.us/elfxr
    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://twitter.com/glfceo glfceo

    The Social Customer – Complete Control or A Level of Control? | Effective CRM http://goo.gl/fb/H3F6f #scrm
    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://twitter.com/gpach01 gpach01

    Interesting point of view RT @prem_k: The Social Customer – Complete Control or A Level of Control? | Effective CRM http://bit.ly/9GacgE…
    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://twitter.com/scorpfromhell scorpfromhell

    Re: The Social Customer – Complete Control or A Level of Control? http://ff.im/-mo5E1
    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://twitter.com/prem_k prem_k

    RE: @mikeboysen Agree on the ‘influence’ over ‘control’ aspect Mike. But the concept of ‘influence’ has been messed up… http://disq.us/ell1g
    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://twitter.com/scorpfromhell scorpfromhell

    Re: The Social Customer – Complete Control or A Level of Control? http://ff.im/-mohmA
    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • http://effective-crm-consulting.com Mike Boysen

    Thanks for jumping in Paul. I just thought I'd ask that question since, whether it was meant or not, I've seen a few statements that would suggest complete control (certainly not from you). I think it's the danger of the 140 character venue we are using today. On the other hand, I think some people caught up in the hype actually start believing the words literally after they said it enough times.

  • http://www.estebankolsky.com Esteban Kolsky

    Mike,

    Interesting debate, and something that has been wrongly expressed for as long as we have been debating the social evolution.

    I think the term control and influence are being used in the wrong context here, since none of them apply here. What is happening is that the conversation is changing, not that someone is influencing it or control it more than before. The message is slightly different, but the conversational dynamics are the key to understanding what is going on.

    Traditional conversations used to be messages going back-and-forth, not always centered in the specific needs of the customer or the organization. The needs in the conversation were not equal, or comparable, thus the conversation was disjointed — similar to me talking to you about the weather, you talking to me about the latest movie you watched. It was acceptable, to a certain extent, since the company had no way of knowing (or preferred to ignore it if they knew) what the customer wanted or needed. The customer, on the other hand, did not trust the company (or knew how to trust them), resulting in a communication model where the lack of trust on one side met the lack of knowledge on the other.

    Two people with different languages and communication styles attempting to have a communication will never work. The core of a conversation, which we all learned in high school, is to have a common language and topic.

    What this new social evolution has brought is not more control or more influence (although they do apply slightly here), but it has brought a set of tools and methods for companies to learn and understand what customers want, and what they need, and how they want to get it done. It ha also brought the ability for companies to earn trust from customers, by becoming members of common communities and participating as equals, not superiors, in them.

    So, now we have a company that is aware of what the customer wants (they have tools and methods to do so, and no excuse not to do it), and a customer who trusts the company more (they have the channels and opportunities to do so, and less excuse not to do so) which translates not into a control or influence situation – but into a different model.

    This new model is about having a different conversation, with two willing and trusting parties pursuing a common goal. Influence has some meaning in this context, control is useless.

    Anyways, that is just 2.4 more cents to add to the change jar…

    • http://effective-crm-consulting.com Mike Boysen

      I mean, gossip has been around forever. I used to listen in during my Mom’s gourmet club meetings where they wold talk about how bad the macaroni and cheese was and how to improve it. Fortunately, one of the women was married to the CEO of Stouffers – problems solved.

      I wonder if the same good stuff is going to come from the social web? How much time wiill people actually spend on it providing endless ramblings, finally hitting the problem on the head….I thought as I was going on my 6th hour on the Internet typing things this morning

  • http://scorpfromhell.blogspot.com A. Prem Kumar

    Excellent post Mike. And a very important issue in #scrm too! I have said this before somewhere, twitter, especially tweetable definitions lend to creating 'mantras' which becomes a mindless repeating of words/sound bites without understanding the real depth or meaning behind them.

    PG's statement in his comment here says it all: “The customer has the ability to affect the business of a company in a way that is outside the company's control via channels they (the company) don't own.”

    Now given that statement alone, what recourses do biz have?
    1) limit ability of customer to affect business
    2) bring the ways a customer can affect business within company's control
    3) bring customers into channels the company owns
    4) company takes ownership of channels which customers use
    5) embrace customer's ability to affect biz & in fact facilitate it by opting co-creation, collaboration (anything else here?)

    To me 5th one appeals more, there might be others for whom the earlier options sound good.

  • http://effective-crm-consulting.com Mike Boysen

    @Prem_K, I prefer the word “influence” over control. Even a relationship marketer's best day is one of influencing, say, a defector to buy again. The customer still makes the decision, but the have been influenced by the proper message at the proper time.

    Channels the company owns – in the customer service area that makes a lot of sense. What about the rest of the business? I think the business will need to be where there customers are. No, they can't be everywhere. I think it will be just as import today as it has been in the past to understand your customer segments – however they break down for your business – and understand where they are, or could be, in the land of ether.

    As for the co-creation one, while I agree that can be a powerful relationship tool and possibly an innovation that creams the competition, but I also believe that this is one of the most abstract concepts from a lot of businesses. I can't use the Doom analogy for many businesses I work with and haven't had time to come up with a good B2B example. I'm sure it's been talked about. I need to do some research.

  • http://scorpfromhell.blogspot.com A. Prem Kumar

    Agree on the 'influence' over 'control' aspect Mike. But the concept of 'influence' has been messed up big time I believe.

    I will tell you a small trick of the road side vendors in the flea markets out here. As you might be aware these vendors peddle stuff that have no standard pricing & is a heavily unregulated market or rather a self regulating market.

    Supposing you want to buy some stuff one of these vendors has put up for sale, you try to haggle the price. Customers try to out guess the price point at which they can buy the product, but of course only the vendor knows the real cost of the product. So the customer always want to bargain further down & even after a reasonably good deal leaves with a feeling that may be the vendor might have provided for lesser.

    Now heres the influence deal in here.

    Some vendors have some cohorts who come and ask for (posing as customers) the very same or similar or less expensive looking stuff that you are haggling for. They pay a price thats higher than you are currently haggling for. So you tend to stop haggling sooner and end up paying more.

    That kind of influence is obviously great for business. Is that the kind of influence we want to deal in?

    Frankly I am sick of the 'influence' pitches from most 'social media gurus' & 'anti-gurus' (I hate hate hate hate that term BTW). For stuff on 'influence' I would rather prefer stuff from neuroscience than snakeoil vendors.

  • http://www.estebankolsky.com Esteban Kolsky

    Mike,

    Interesting debate, and something that has been wrongly expressed for as long as we have been debating the social evolution.

    I think the term control and influence are being used in the wrong context here, since none of them apply here. What is happening is that the conversation is changing, not that someone is influencing it or control it more than before. The message is slightly different, but the conversational dynamics are the key to understanding what is going on.

    Traditional conversations used to be messages going back-and-forth, not always centered in the specific needs of the customer or the organization. The needs in the conversation were not equal, or comparable, thus the conversation was disjointed — similar to me talking to you about the weather, you talking to me about the latest movie you watched. It was acceptable, to a certain extent, since the company had no way of knowing (or preferred to ignore it if they knew) what the customer wanted or needed. The customer, on the other hand, did not trust the company (or knew how to trust them), resulting in a communication model where the lack of trust on one side met the lack of knowledge on the other.

    Two people with different languages and communication styles attempting to have a communication will never work. The core of a conversation, which we all learned in high school, is to have a common language and topic.

    What this new social evolution has brought is not more control or more influence (although they do apply slightly here), but it has brought a set of tools and methods for companies to learn and understand what customers want, and what they need, and how they want to get it done. It ha also brought the ability for companies to earn trust from customers, by becoming members of common communities and participating as equals, not superiors, in them.

    So, now we have a company that is aware of what the customer wants (they have tools and methods to do so, and no excuse not to do it), and a customer who trusts the company more (they have the channels and opportunities to do so, and less excuse not to do so) which translates not into a control or influence situation – but into a different model.

    This new model is about having a different conversation, with two willing and trusting parties pursuing a common goal. Influence has some meaning in this context, control is useless.

    Anyways, that is just 2.4 more cents to add to the change jar…

  • http://effective-crm-consulting.com Mike Boysen

    I mean, gossip has been around forever. I used to listen in during my Mom's gourmet club meetings where they wold talk about how bad the macaroni and cheese was and how to improve it. Fortunately, one of the women was married to the CEO of Stouffers – problems solved.

    I wonder if the same good stuff is going to come from the social web? How much time wiill people actually spend on it providing endless ramblings, finally hitting the problem on the head….I thought as I was going on my 6th hour on the Internet typing things this morning

  • David Mangen

    IMHO it is a question of degree, and what has happened of late is that relatively more influence over the process (note how I am avoiding using the word control) has fallen to the customer.

    In addition to the sheer access to information — a fact aided significantly by the web — I suspect that part of the change is due to an increased supply of goods and services relative to demand, and that therefore more power has fallen to those with the $$ to purchase.