Social Graphing the Bank of England

The Bank of England's going through a turbulent time right now thanks to the recession (although perhaps not as much as Gordon Brown or the FSA), so its interesting to look at its Corporate Social Graph as viewed on Silobreaker:
http://www.silobreaker.com/FlashNetwork.aspx?DrillDownItems=11_328002



What does this tell us? Well, it doesn't tell me much really... but I'm certain that the Bank of England doesn't have its own tool for doing this sort of graphing and it may be useful for them to plot their relationships over time.

graphing online communities

I've mentioned several times that companies need to understand and even visual their Corporate Social Graph. However, how would you go-about visually reprsenting an online social network or community?

Those clever people over at Orgnet think they have the answer:
http://www.orgnet.com/community.html

This diagram, looking more like a scientific / physics experiment, depicts three different ringed regions of blue, green and red nodes. This work (termed the 'field of social network analysis') also offers some useful insight about the connectivity of users

Node counts are important in social networks, but it's the relationships -- and the patterns they create -- that are key

Insightful stuff! If you want to get further insight, you'd better read the blog of Valdis Krebs (the Founder and Chief Scientist at orgnet.com) at
http://www.thenetworkthinker.com/

Your anti-social graph

The whole concept of the corporate social graph gained traction as a concept after I started reading about the personal social graph and applying it to corporate influencers. However, the corporate social graph, doesn't just show those people who have something positive to say (or write) about your company, it shows those who are negative about them as well.

The question for today (and possibly picked-up again in subsequent postings) is:

In plotting this negative sentiment, are you therefore creating your
anti-social graph of corporate influence?

Influencing what?

I've used the term Influencer throughout a lot of my postings. These are the people who, by their conversations, comment and other interactions, not only have something to say but additonally have something to say that others will listen to and potentially act upon.

For me, they are the social catalysts, partly (but not entirely similar) to those people mentioned in Malcolm Gladwell's Tipping Point book.
Note: I actually disagree with his definition that only specific people are responsible for causing sways in opinion, buying patterns and trust. Instead I think that these people could be anyone, even potentially collections of people. However as I've mentioned before, surely the interesting bit is the 'who' and 'why'.

So what exactly do they influence? Well, assuming they are all talking about their effect on your company, then these people will all apply different actions or factors to your Corporate Social Graph.

Here's my suggestions on what some of those influences could be:

1. Influencing sentiment
   They have an emotional opinion about your company (and the secondary effect of telling others). This sentiment could either be positive or negative and can have an indirect affect on your company.
   Examples: Brand advocates


2. Influencing behaviour
   They have an effect on the sales or take-up (negative or positive) of your products/service. This therefore directly affects your revenue (& profits).


3. Influencing links
   Assuming you already have a website, then links to your site will improve your positons in the key search engines (e.g. Google). What's more, these links can still positively contribute to your SEO efforts, even if the sentiment or behaviour they create isn't.

Proof that there is only one thing worse than being talked about and that's not being talked about.

Fallon Brainfood: The Social 10

Here's a very simple but effective presentation on the top 10 social ideas that companies need to be aware of:

| View | Upload your own

"We gotta have our own Social Network"..

... don't we?

The Economist has recently produced a great article on the current state (and potential future) of social networks:
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10880936

It initially comments on the revenue and partnerships these new environments (e.g. Facebook) have:

So it is entirely conceivable that social networking, like web-mail, will never
make oodles of money

However it brings us back to reality (removes some of the hype) and argues that with email still the ubiquitous communication medium and with open standards for portability of your social graph:

Social networking may end up being everywhere, and yet nowhere

I personally think that in the future there will be a tangible social space but that these areas will be focused far less around building freinds/contacts in each environment and more around the features & functionality that each environement provides (made possible by Open Social?).

The big issue (and one I have not full got my head around yet) is potentially having to decide which of my friends/business contacts/associates fits into each particular environment (and having to tell some that "well I like you, I just don't want to know you in that online space").

What is potentially going to be even harder... is finding the path amongst the blurred lines between individual and the company communication. An organisation, potentially made up of many individuals, will have its own social graph. However, if it decides to have two different conversations in two different functional area/places..... how will it maintain the consistency of approach and still retain the human and transaparent qualities required in modern extended corporate communications?

Corporate Social Graph - Michael Myers Q&A Part3

Q: How should a company identify, track and measure its CSG (especially over time)?

A:
Identify
Research is needed to identify the right brand channels/mediums to reach their customer base. Primary research to find existing customers and targeted demographics/psychographics. Also using internal team members for information as to where they have seen customers online is also good idea. (This is also a good way to find your SME.)

Track
Each brand channel has its own metrics and we always need to keep in mind that little thing we call acquisition.
i. Tracking which medium leads to the most acquisitions (YouTube).
ii. Tracking which medium leads to the highest level of interaction (customer service). Measuring the quality of that interaction on a scale that the business has created (1-10).
iii. Tracking which medium creates the most traffic overall (Facebook application).
iv. Tracking which medium the user spends the most time with (casual gaming).
v. Tracking which medium brings the highest level of complaints (blogs, forums) and more importantly how they were dealt with and the end result.

Measurement
Many of these technologies/methodologies are really in their infancy and measurement should start with ROI. Overtime, as these mediums mature and converge (i.e. interactive TV) it will become clearer as to how well something is working. Measurement is always going to need to be a daily thing with the potential for change in direction (updated tactics) built in.

That is what the Internet provides and as we move towards a CPA model it will become more and more important. I also want to be clear that if something does a great job of building repoire (as evidenced by feedback) but does not pan out in regards to ROI, it should not necessarily be abandoned. The internet and the brand channels/mediums that is contains are evolving and will be for quite some time.

Marketers will need to be vigilant to insure they are doing what they need to successfully create a fluid corporate social graph.

Note: I'd like to thank Michael for his time and valuable contribution

Corporate Social Graph - Michael Myers Q&A Part2

Q: What do you see is the biggest difference between the Personal Social Graph and the Corporate Social Graph?

A: The biggest difference is that a brand identity needs to be kept intact. Although I will say that I believe there are things to be learned from individual social graphs with respect to identity. My LinkedIn account is very different from my Facebook account which is very different from my web site. Each serves a different purpose and is used to connect with different types of people in different ways. Sounds a bit schizophrenic but people behave differently in a variety of social situations, just as companies do. We have to remember that businesses are comprised of people. They just need to be conscious of what other team members are doing within other brand channels/mediums. The goal is the interactivity; communicate and share information and the real trick is how to get customers to expand the corporate social graph.

Part 1 of this interview is also available

Corporate Social Graph - Michael Myers Q&A Part1

I've recently mentioned that Mike Myers has also discovered the term 'the Corporate Social Graph'. Following an interesting email discussion with him, I asked him to do an interview for this blog on the 'CSG'. I know we'd both value your input on this topic, so please contact me if you have any opinons on this posting (hayden at idealinterface dot co dot uk).

Q: What are the challenges a company a company could face in initially creating its Corporate Social Graph?

A: The biggest challenges I see are:

1. Ability to create and maintain a consistent brand message across multiple branding channels (YouTube, flickr, Facebook, mobile). I’m of the opinion that the best brands are the most simple and this is a real challenge to build brand equity with the inherent differences between the mediums that live within those brand channels (blogs, photos, videos, etc.)

2. Knowledge of the medium. Each medium has a set of rules that require a Subject Matter Expert. That SME is hard to find, harder to keep needs to be passionate about the medium and the rules for that brand channel will change over time. Many of the mediums have just come into existence and we are trying to figure what can and more importantly, should be done with them. Next week Toyota will launch a $4 million dollar campaign on YouTube. This is a safer bet given the traffic and the “lack of interactivity”.

Comments are the extent to which one can interact with Toyota through YouTube. We will see if Toyota responds to comments left.

3. Allowing for real interactivity as if someone was talking to a person and not a company. People want to hear a human voice and giving someone the authority to create that voice is risky and requires a tremendous amount of trust. If the guidelines are too strict, the response can sound canned and no one will listen.

Note: further questions and answers to follow soon

The Corporate Social Graph - some personal qualities?

Having taken a second look at the 'Social Map by Sean O'Driscoll', I believe he's provided some interesting indices for measuring the personal social graph:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeremiah_owyang/2293811927/

In his diagram he uses the following qualities:

• Reach
• Density
• Speed
• Structural cohesion
• Proximity
• Personas

However, I wonder whether the properties he gives are also the same ones you would use for the Corporate Social Graph?

Note:
Following a conversation with Michael Myers, COO at Fresh Current, he has answered some questions on his opinion about the Corporate Social Graph. I will be posting his replies here as soon as possible.

The Corporate Social Graph

I have previously mentioned the individual's social graph, the relationships a person has with others and how to represent this.

However the relationships a company has with its influencers does in many ways resemble the relationships individuals have. It must therefore possible to do the same for a company or brand. But what are the differences?

Here's my suggestions on how they differ:

1. As a company is made up of more than one person, the nodes that make up the graph must therefore be greater

2. As a consequence, the connections between nodes must also be greater (but not uniformly)

3. The frequency that these connections change at will be different from an individual's graph (if only because very few individuals have their own marketing or PR function)

4. The type of connections will be different.

For example, a connection between two people (nodes) will be based upon family / friendship - usually a positive connection. However collective sentiment about a company / brand / product will be extremely broad and range from the positive to the negative (I don't know anyone who is hated as much as some companies)

Michael Myers has come to a similar conclusion and also calls this connectivity the Corporate Social Graph. He goes on to state that any company not having one will soon be at a disadvantage... and I couldn't agree more!