ZN

(This is a cross-post from Steffen’s blog)

Four words I’ve ruthlessly hijacked from a pamphlet I read this week. Four words which neatly explain a significant part of why the way in which organisations operate and communicate is so drastically different now compared to just a few years ago.

How? Power, influence and impact are not necessarily derived from how far up the proverbial food chain you are, but increasingly by how good your network is. The two are often aligned, but often not; someone can build and influence a network without having climbed too far up the traditional ladder. Meaning that the blogger who builds up a huge readership can be as relevant as a mainstream publication; or that the smart lowly employee who engages with the right people online can have as much of an impact on perceptions of his employer as the CEO.

What does this mean for organisations? It’s both a threat and an opportunity. A threat in that it’s harder to keep control if everyone has a megaphone. At the same time, it’s a stunning opportunity. An organisation’s combined talents are far more likely to be shared and harnessed in a world of networks; while an individual’s talent is far more likely to be exposed. Result? Potentially, a more creative, innovative and ultimately successful organisation.

And for the people tasked with communicating on behalf of organisations? Gone are the days of rigid messaging and press conferences. Added to the mix is harnessing the best of what the internal networks have to offer by handing them the mic. Don’t just use your CEO or Comms Director to represent you: use the intern, the engineer, or (even better) the guy who doesn’t actually work for you but loves what you do. Whoever has the best story to tell, frankly. But for communicators, networks go much farther than that. Whatever your sector or issue is, there’ll be a network of people engaging about it online in some way, and you’ll need to make sure you’re listening to what they’re saying and responding to it. That’s how you keep on the ball and avoid communicating in a void; and it’s how you try to make sure you’re engaging with the people who matter even if they’re not in the higher echelons of some hierarchy.

The McKinsey Quartely (a publication of the consulting firm) has just published a new report entitled Six ways to make Web 2.0‘.

They had previously written another article on the topic which we covered in this blog.  I always find these articles particularly useful, not because they uncover some hidden truth, but because they provide powerful arguments to convince senior management that ‘it is ok’ to go down a more adventurous route because McKinsey is saying so (and so are other big companies they are quoting).

The name of the article is a bit confusing as less and less people feel brave enough to use the word ‘Web 2.0′ as it has been so overused it has stopped meaning a great deal.  Social media seems to be the new term in vogue.  However it is better to say what it actually means, which is a collection of minor web tools such as blogs, wikis, rss feeds and numerous other ones that can be integrated into a campaign and are generally associated with online communities.

Other than that, the key learnings from the article (the so-called ‘Six ways’ to make Web 2.0 work) are the following:

1) Transformation to a bottom-up culture needs help from the top.  In a nutshell don’t count of these projects to happen exclusively through grassroot movements.  Agreed and reasonably obvious to anyone who has been involved in such projects.

2) The best uses come from users – but they require help to scale.  The idea of creating a communication or development approach that will evolve with user input is very correct and leads to the ‘permanent beta’ approach in which a project is never finished but is constantly evolving feeding on user input.

3) What’s in the workflow is what gets used. The point made here is that the tools need to fit ‘easily’ within the existing workflow of the users or add value to an existing one.  

4) Appeal to the participants’ egos and needs – not just their wallets.  I would stress needs and desires first, as it is often the simple desire to communicate and learn about each other that make these initiatives work and very rarely some sort of cash incentive (which can help with short term marketing campaigns but never achieves real community building).

5) The right solution comes from the right participants.  Again it links to the importance of ‘user adoption’ – people need to find a relevant use for the technology being introduced.  But then again, we hope that management or whoever introduced the technology, has put some thoughts into the purpose of the new technology before it started the roll-out and isn’t trying to find out what needs might be answered by the technology after the technology has been chosen.

6) Balance the top-down and self-management of risk.  In this point they raise the issue of legal and HR fears created in large companies by these initiatives.  It is a big obstacle but it is large a conceptual one as in practice very few companies find problems they cannot deal with using common sense (don’t post confidential stuff and don’t insult people).

So no great break-through insights but a useful summary of some critical thoughts that need to go into this kind of project.  I would however urge leaders to think about web 2.0 and web 1.0 as part of the same whole and not to think of them as distinct.  Web 2.0 is simply an evolution of web technology and shows how certain tools can be taking further and gain more ‘user engagement’ through innovative use of different channels and tools – but it is part of one strategy, and should be driven by a clear and integrated business strategy.

I’ve heard of twitter for quite some time now, and towards the end of last year, twitter seemed to be in all the ‘big things for 2009′ predictions. Although I liked the idea of the ability to communicate instantly to a group of ‘followers’, it seemed to me no more than a status update similar to the one you could use (and that I enjoy a great deal) on facebook. So I couldn’t understand what the fuss was about.

Then I came across this blogpost in mashable.com on whether European companies should or actually do twitter. I thought the question was a good way to start exploring the subject. I then posted the question on a forum on linkedin.com (something I am finding increasingly interesting) and got a number of comments (I think you might need to be a group member to follow the discussion) on the subject, as well as very interesting information.

The long and short of it is that it is a subject of great interest, and an increasing number of individuals and companies are starting to use twitter. What makes it so interesting is, like most things that make it big online, that it is simple. In fact, to a certain degree, it is a simple form of blog, or sometimes called ‘microblog’, and it enables you to update people on your thoughts and movements in less than 140 caracters.  The FT.com wrote a story about it (registration needed) called “ Twitter uses 140 characters to change the world”, which gives you a good idea of where they are heading.

There is also an article in the BBC online entitled “Why celebrities love Twittering “ which is pointing to a new phenomenon. Stars and celebrities are starting to use twitter, it gives you a real feel of ‘intimacy’ as you can track there movements. Some of the ones mentioned in the article include Stephen Fry and Jonathan Ross

Steffen (occasional contributor to this blog and team member of ZN) also wrote about this only few days ago discussing why he thought twitter was worthwhile. 

Clearly a topic worth following. In the meantime, you can check me out on twitter (http://twitter.com/pweiss) although I make no promise of being interesting or relevant (that will come later).