Why social media sites want "users," not just "customers"

What if you own and operate a social media property, like recent commentor C.H. Low of Orbius?  Well, it's true that people will always be "people."

But owner/operators are actually looking for "users."  Some people detest the term user, but the analogy fits.

O'Reilly's Jimmy Guterman blogs, "...there are only two industries that refer to their customers as users:  high tech and illegal drugs."  Now, I've never dealt illegal drugs.  (Except for playing Dope Wars on my old Palm Pilot.)  But I can surmise how the industry works, primarily from watching American Gangster and reading Malcolm Gladwell:

• A dealer uses the product, but only to ensure that it works
• Mavens provide peer-level affirmations of quality.  Connectors help publicize and expand distribution.  Salesmen are, naturally, salespeople.
• A dealer must protect the franchise.  They set up territorial boundaries and reselling only happens with authorization.
• Users do not share in the profits of the operation.  Their benefits are limited to product use.
• A dealer wants a user to become addicted, i.e. locked in.  But not to a point of overdosing and thus generating zero future value.  However, if this happens, markets are large enough to find new customers.  Sometimes territories must expand to fuel the franchise's growth needs.

Brands must be careful to not become unwitting distributors of dealer content.  That's why you don't need a "Facebook strategy" or a "Twitter strategy."  You need a business plan and marketing strategy instead.

Individuals must be careful to not develop addiction to either technologies or applications.  Unfortunately, addiction is very real and not limited to grey areas like gambling; can you step away for a full day from your Blackberry, checking your blog stats, or jumping on Twitter?  Staying focused on utility will help.

And owner/operators must stay in tune with their users to create a positive environment.  We've already seen examples like Facebook changing Beacon's opt-out approach, MySpace working with state AG's to protect children, and Twitter curbing spam accounts.

Sites having users works, as long as a healthy value exchange ensues.  I'm a grocery store customer and a potato chip consumer.  But I'm a social technology user, and I'm OK with that.

Comments

[Nelson Bruton]

Peter,

Interesting thoughts. I agree with most of the points you make. I think inSocialMedia has a group of "users" that constantly gets "value" from other users.

I would like to invite you to come participate and see.

www.inSocialMedia.com

Regards,

Nelson Bruton

[Peter Kim]

Hi Helge - there were plenty of businesses around 1999 - 2001 that were great at marketing and innovation and ended up bankrupt and out of business. Kozmo, Webvan, Cuecat, Pets.com.

Being a "low cost airline" is a strategy decision. Classic pricing strategy drives penetration or skimming approaches, i.e. high-margin/low-volume vs. low-margin/high-volume. Southwest is the latter - price and cost certainly factor into brand.

You point out a very important fact - the onus here is on brands. Brands care about participants - operators care about users.

[Helge Tennø]

I agree Peter, I’m sure we are talking about the same thing from two perspectives, but I would love to ad two thoughts to your comment :o)

1. There is a reason for the “use”. And my point is that we have to identify this reason and use it to understand the context of it so that we can tailor the application and site for it.

You say a player plays a video game in order to win, that is a motivation. “Player” is an excellent description in this context, but “user” leaves out the whole motivation to win.

Regarding Facebook: Facebookers want to connect, and stay updated on friends and family. Playing individual games or advertising for Skittles has little to do in this context. How do you get them to spend more time there? New content has to ad to the existing structure of the “social economics” or the “Social object”.

I claim that describing a Facebooker as a “user” doesn’t help us understand this, it doesn’t add value to the discussion. But identifying and defining the users roles do. It ads context and enriches our understanding of relevance and use.

2. I disagree with the statement that businesses are in the business of making money, if they were they wouldn’t make any. :o)

Two reasons:

First: As Peter Drucker says: The business enterprise has two and only two basic functions: Marketing and innovation.

In order to do both of these we need to understand the context of our users conversation with our brand, so that we know our own role, and how to expand on it.

Secondly: Chip and Dan Heath defines a “Commanders Intent” as the ONE goal that should define and govern any decision inside a company. “Make more money” isn’t really a good Intent as it doesn’t help us choose between A and B, it doesn’t give us direction that makes sense to the customers. “Making money” wouldn’t give our brand a consistent direction. But as an example: “The low cost airline” (as used as an example from SouthWest Airlines in the book) does.

So, we need context, we need roles, and being a bit overly difficult on this point I would say that “user” doesn’t pull all the way through. :o)

[Pete]

Helge, I agree with the quote you reference - the application is a goal. Goals are achieved by USING an application. Who USES an application? A USER. People USE applications as a means to an end, as you point out.

Depending on point of view, a company may very well want to create an application in order to have people spend as much time as possible with it. Why? To make money.

Think about a coin-operated video game. The player tries to achieve a goal of "winning" the game and keeps pumping quarters into the machine to get there. If the player thinks that winning is impossible, then they will disengage and not spend any more money. User stops = fail for the company.

It's the same with many web applications today. Take Facebook or MySpace. They don't want users to achieve a goal as quickly as possible; so you connect with an old friend and never log in again? That user is useless to the company. They need people to spend time on the site, so the company can sell more advertising and stay in business.

I think you point out a very important issue Helge. We are talking about two sides of the same issue. Sites want "participants" to achieve their goals, thus improving their brand affinity/loyalty and investing time into "using" the sites, so an operator can generate a return on the capital invested to build the site.

Businesses exist to make money and by making money, because users can be monetized in some form.

[Helge Tennø]

Hi Peter

Very interesting set of thoughts, but I would have to disagree with you. The reason being simple.

Now I hope I understood your metaphor concerning content/strategy/dealer/user and I do like it - but I can't see that it is relevant outside of theory.

If I reference Robert Hoekmann on this:
“The application itself is not a goal at all, it’s an obstacle between the user and their goal”

So we are not creating applications just because people want to spend time on applications, we are designing them in order to fulfill a goal, to support an activity.

If people where to use solutions just for the sake of using solutions I would agree with the term “user”, but they don’t, and we have to stop talking about them as if they do. “Users” strip our discussion concerning target groups of content and context by removing an understanding of the target group’s values, by giving them a generic meaningless name.

We have to start talking about “users” as what they are, by implementing their ROLE and motivations into our discussions, every discussion. And by that having a conscious and subconscious understanding of the motivation, needs and desires of the end-users when defining and designing the application itself.

I'm sure it's absolutely possible to build a community site for dog lovers by constantly referencing them as “users”, but I find the conversation enriched by a long stretch by calling them by their roles: veterinarian, teenager, dog trainer, dog lover, dog etc.

Now, many discussions on blogs are very general, and by that it is often impossible to identify a group or a role, but still I find that the term “user” in this instance does a poor job in reference to the brand.

Where a “user” not only uses a brands application but should be titled with participating on it. And since users are the ones reflecting, defining and spreading a brand, “participant” is even more relevant.

Or if on feels like being a bit crazy: MEmans, a self-constructed word for self-centered Humans :o)

[Pete]

Hi Christine - good to hear from you. I believe it's important for a brand to have a solid marketing and customer relationship strategy in place. That will help guide you to places like Facebook, Second Life, or Twitter to help execute on the master plan. The opposite would be to view sites with momentum and feel as if you must be participating there. Even if some of your competitors are active on "hot" sites, getting involved doesn't make sense until you know how your brand presence integrates with other marketing initiatives. That thought process may even lead you to the conclusion that your time and budget are better spent elsewhere.

I think there's another familiar digital maketing example in search. Marketers have a search strategy, which they execute on different search engines, which have different rules and formats.

[Christine Morrison]

Hi Peter,
As you know, I'm a big fan of yours. That said, I don't understand the leap you're making from this sentence:
"Brands must be careful to not become unwitting distributors of dealer content."

to this one:

"That's why you don't need a "Facebook strategy" or a "Twitter strategy.""

Would you please explain what you mean a little more?