New site launch! Check out 90-9-1.com for info on the 90-9-1 Principle of Social Groups

Communispace: Imitation community and the future of this space

Posted on
May 29, 2008

Fake Elvis

Did you know that a ripe banana has more than 150 taste components? And beyond that, “taste” is influenced by the visual appearance, the aroma, and even source of purchase. It’s no wonder that when scientist head to the lab to recreate “banana”, what they develop is something far different than a fresh, ripe tasty banana.

In his book, Fast Food Nation, Eric Schlosser described his experience with flavor chemists at International Flavors & Fragrances:

Before placing each strip of paper in front of my nose, I closed my eyes. Then I inhaled deeply, and one food after another was conjured from the glass bottles. I smelled fresh cherries, black olives, sautéed onions, and shrimp. Grainger’s most remarkable creation took me by surprise. After closing my eyes, I suddenly smelled a grilled hamburger. The aroma was uncanny, almost miraculous — as if someone in the room were flipping burgers on a hot grill. But when I opened my eyes, I saw just a narrow strip of white paper and a flavorist with a grin.

But it wasn’t a hamburger. Or cherries. Or black olives. It was a trick, a technically impressive trick, but a trick nonetheless. Schlosser might have truly believed he was smelling a grilling hamburger… if only he’d just kept his eyes shut.

At Community 2.0 two weeks ago, Dan Comenduley from United Airlines presented an overview of the community project he’s running for frequent fliers. Communispace is powering the project, and the focus is on gathering insights from frequent fliers. This group is limited with only 600 (exactly twice as much as Communispace’s suggested and typical 300) and has little to no connection with the rest of the company, according to Dan. He talked a great deal about how the project was “creating relationships” with customers and about how they’re building “long-term community”. But it’s not community, it’s a marketing research focus group. When he closes his eyes, it’s easy to envision that this is more than insight gathering but that ignroes the smiling vendor and the narrow strips of imitation community.

At that same event, Communispace client Andy Hessabi from Network Solutions presented a similar session about working with Communispace. He’s generating customer insights, yet believing he’s creating long-term community.

Back in November, I saw another Communispace client speak about another project at the WOMMA event. Hilton Hotels’ research director shared the success they’re having with “community” too, with their goal also being research insight gathering. Specifically, Hilton wanted to find non-loyalists to talk to them about what Hilton could do to transition them into loyalist activities and mindset. After about 6 months of interacting with the company, however, these non-loyalists had actually started to become bad non-loyalist test subjects. Hilton’s research director said something to effect of “… it’d be really great to have a ‘retirement community’ for these folks to go once we kick them out of the program, but it’s just too expensive”. That’s not community Hilton is creating, it’s better donuts on the refreshment table at the focus group. But to hear her talk about the project, it was “community”.

This isn’t a rant about Communispace as much as a rant against the idea that we can find easy, quick solutions that are easily outsourced when we decide we want to “build community”. Communispace is, at its core, a market research tool provider and they’re pitching the solution they have, like we all do. They do what they do very well and are certainly generating insights for clients. There are others in the space, but no one seems to have generated the level of attention, at least at the events I attend, as they do.

The real question is this: Is their success actually blurring the lines so dramatically between real community and imitation community that we’ll soon see no real distinction between the two?

Agencies and vendors alike are building solutions for clients that allow them to write a check and have instant community. Marketing folks are looking for the quick and easy ways to leverage community interaction for the betterment of the short-term bottom line. I fear the unintended consequences of this desire to skip the hard, long-term work of building honest relationships.

History shows us that unintended consequences are all too common. Prohibition was establish to reduce drinking, but in turn lead to the explosion of organized crime. Pro football added modernized pads and the sport became more dangerous rather than less. The creation of low-tar cigarettes drive smoking rates up significantly. It was hoped that the digital office would reduce or even eliminate the use of paper, but instead drove paper consumption through the roof.

It’s not unrealistic to think that there may be a significant long-term effect on business by these short-term, marketing research driven community efforts. After all, social media, customer communities, and the demand for consumer control has largely stemmed from the mass marketing approach of past decades.

Will we look back in 5 or 10 years and wonder why customers are rejecting “community” like they are currently rejecting “marketing”?


Building Community, Business/Marketing
Email This Post Email This Post

Related Entries

Viewing 8 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    You're a smart guy Jake. I know more of the story here than I'm probably allowed to share (I worked in market research after all), but suffice it to say that research, especially with INCENTIVIZED participants, is a far cry from creating community. They are two separate entities that overlap on occasion.

    I'm not too worried about the consequences of imitation community, however. I think time is actually on our side here. The financially motivated research community will disperse after the research is completed. The client will have immediate action items, but they won't have mastered community development, and they'll make errors as a result - probably in the online public timeline where we can all point to their mistakes as examples of what not to do.

    Side note about Hilton. I'm an HHonors members, but because I lost my membership card and can't seem to login to their HHonors website, I've been told that I've lost all my accrued points - which were quite substantial (for me). I only found this out because I booked a room over the phone and the CSR asked if I had my HHonors number. I had assumed she could look me up via the wealth of data I know they're storing on me, but alas after a few months of inactivity your HHonors benefits vanish...unless you have your membership card. I'm not sure if they got this data through their "community" research, but just in case they didn't (and just in case they're listening) here it is.
    • ^
    • v
    Great great great great great post, Jake.

    I think some companies are so desperate to say that they are participating in the Web 2.0 world that anything that has a even remotely seems like a two-way conversation + technology makes them feel like they are participating.

    I'm with you, Communispace provides a great service to their clients. But let's call a spade a spade, shall we? It's not community. It's not long term. And it sure as hell isn't sustainable.

    Did I mention GREAT post?
    • ^
    • v
    I've been doing some work in the space. As a researcher, I understand the benefits of working with a group over a long period, rather than just point in time interactions. As a marketer, I understand the potential for confusion and backlash should people feel burned.

    I think there are ways to work with research panels and forums so that you can build and test community elements you may want to use in the full-blown space - identity, hierarchy, etc. - in addition to the general research questions you may have to put forward. There are members who may cross borders and interact with you in several places - research and community focused. So long as you can ID, if necessary for research purposes, who is interacting where, this can be managed to the benefit of both sides. And so long as those in the research forum understand its true focus (transparency!).

    I don't think the short-term mis-classified "community" is only happening in the research realm. I think there are marketers with similar misunderstandings/ blatant misguided behavior - and I worry that THOSE will be areas where resistance will grow rapidly. There are so many times where people tell me of "communities" where members can't even interact.....
    • ^
    • v
    Scary - the agency I'm working for now finished launching an "imitation community" shortly before I arrived: Hyatt's http://yattit.com .

    These "imitation communities" are the web equivalent of that voice that asks you to "Tell me just a bit about your account" on the customer service 800 number.
    • ^
    • v
    You raise some interesting points, but I think you are not giving Communispace enough credit. Have you ever been in a Communispace community? If not, do you really know what you are talking about? This is a company that has a stellar reputation. From what I can tell, lots of Communispace communities have been going on for YEARS, and so they are not short-term projects. The members are united as insiders who are truly helping client companies move forward. Why is that not community? Let's be real here. You are taking stupid electronic suggestion boxes like Dell and calling that community, but you don't think that highly engaged private groups that interact intimately can be community? I think that might be a better version. To me, the question would be whether the members of a Communispace community (or some other community like theirs) feel that their interactions are both with the company AND with each other, whether they feel some connectedness, and whether the purpose of the community is clear. Why would that not be community? And, aren't there lots of people at Communispace who could weigh in and help us answer the question? Can we reach out to them and learn instead of slamming a high-integrity company? We should also ask them about incentives. If they have been doing this for a while, they must have a reason to give incentives. Why not ask them and be open to their experience instead of slamming the idea?
    • ^
    • v
    Sarah, it's late so more content-filled response tomorrow. But I have to ask: Do you work for or represent Communispace?

    (Your IP and email address connect to the Boston area, Communispace's home town)
    • ^
    • v
    Hi Jake. I'm Julie Wittes Schlack , the Sr. VP of Innovation and Design and a founder of Communispace. I don't know who Sarah is (though I appreciate her spirited defense of us), but welcome this chance to speak on our behalf.

    I appreciate your posting, because I think you adroitly capture much of the important debate swirling around the whole concept of "community." But I think that communities, like families, come in many forms -- organic vs. intentional, comprising brand fans or brand foes, formed for the purpose of mutual support, mutual enlightenment, generating word of mouth, etc. So let me respectfully suggest that before debating what is "real" vs. "imitation" community, we step back and, as Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff from Forrester suggest in their book, "Groundswell," first look at objectives, specifically at what companies are trying to achieve through social media, at what ordinary people are trying to achieve, and then at where and how those objectives intersect.

    Communispace is in the business of helping companies listen and achieve insight into the lives and needs of their customers, engaging customers as co-innovators, brand advisors, and honest critics. To classify this pursuit exclusively as "market research" is, I think, taking a rather narrow view. Ultimately, brand fans and foes are borne from the quality of a company's products and services; our mission is to help brands develop and effectively market high quality products and services informed by ongoing discovery and feedback from their customers.

    "Community," as we define and practice it, is one way to achieve that objective. We define community as "any group of people who share common interests, interact with one another and form ongoing, reciprocal relationships over time." That's precisely what happens in our very engaged, highly participatory, and highly democratic environment. And through those ongoing, reciprocal relationships, our clients learn much more and are able to offer and share much more than they can through focus groups, through mall intercepts (a term I cringe at every time I hear or say it!), and yes, even through large, public, self-forming, organic groups of brand fans or foes.

    So contrary to your assertion, our communities remain active for years, and for the duration of their membership (which may be months, may be years, depending on the interests of both clients and members) members' relationships with one another and with us are authentic and candid, in part precisely because the group is small, private, and actively faciitated. We (on behalf of our clients) and our clients themselves spend many, many hours each week interacting with our members, enabling direct conversations between them and key players within our clients' organizations. In short, doing the "hard, long-term work of building honest relationships" -- something you note as being essential -- is our raison d'etre.

    Are there other valid and valuable forms of "community" besides the form that we offer? Absolutely. The open source community of developers (manifested through sites like slashdot), the niche sites for enthusiasts of specific products or product categories -- these are all examples of positive ways in which consumers come together -- sometimes on their own, sometimes under the auspices of specific companies. But the purpose they serve is not necessarily that of helping companies achieve insight and relationship with some of their customers. Often their purpose is to provide peer-to-peer customer support, or ratings and reviews, or to enable viral marketing campaigns. All are valid purposes; all represent varying degrees and intensity and form of "community."

    So to argue about real vs. imitation communities is, I think, besides the point. The question is, or should be, whether all participants are interacting openly, reciprocally, and achieving mutual benefit. Our members feel heard, feel that they're contributing to improving the lot of consumers like them -- and they are. Our clients benefit, because our communities provide them with a forum in which they can securely introduce new ideas very early in their product lifecycle, iterate multiple times in an attempt to improve on those communities, and develop long-term relationships with a group of trusted (and relentlessly candid) advisors.

    So to criticize Dan Comenduley for acknowledging that it's difficult to break through silos and help the voice of his customers truly penetrate the broad organization frankly strikes me as lacking in empathy. Surely as a maverick yourself, you can appreciate the challenges that mavericks like Dan face in large companies like United Airlines, a company that is nonetheless funding Dan's efforts to more directly engage with his customers. I also think your statement that Andy Hessabi from Network Solutions is "generating customer insights, yet believing he's creating long-term community" is a little shortsighted, as it's missing a piece of the puzzle. The reason Network Solutions and many of our other clients seek customer insights is precisely to learn how to be more successful in their attempts to sponsor and/or participate in others' long-term, public communities, to be more effective in engaging their larger customer base and/or prospects.

    The Hilton speaker who you heard at WOMMA was, I think, making a similar point. Her regret at having to churn and replace community members was sincere, precisely because she felt a personal connection with and gratitude towards those members who had invested their time and energy and ideas -- hardly the sentiment of someone engaged in"fake community," just the sentiment of someone facing the financial and resource constraints that everyone in business faces.

    Again, I thank you for so passionately raising these questions, but think that the real question we should be addressing is how can companies and customers come together to, using Bernoff and Li's rubric, "Listen, Talk, Energize, Support, and Embrace" in an authentic and ultimately productive manner. Dogmatic debates about the One True form of community run the risk of obscuring or derailing that important conversation.
    • ^
    • v
    Hi Julie, welcome to the site and thanks for your thoughts. There's a lot of good stuff and I'm just back in the office after a day in meetings. I want to take some time over the weekend to digest and respond.

    A couple of quickie response points though:

    1. This is not about Communispace as much as the industry (if that's the right word) that Communispace is probably the leading provider.

    2. Fundamentally, we probably agree on most things. That said, the devil is in the details and I'm proposing that the unintended consequences of doing such a good job of pushing clients to one type of community activity is actually going to cause longer term problems for us all.

    3. I'll also add that I am in NO way opposed to the idea of small, private groups. I build them (and love doing so) and convince clients that smaller interactions are a better way to engage...as part of a larger strategy that uses those small groups to reach out to the larger groups. With United, for instance, what about the rest of us who are United FFs but not part of the 600 select people?

    More on all of this soon, and thanks again for the depth of discussion and the engagement overall.
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus