If you’ve been following the social media marketing space/blogosphere over the last year or so, you’ve probably heard increasing chatter about the concept of ‘Social Business’.
So what IS a Social Business? Good question, and it seems one that not even the people chattering about it can agree upon. For example, The Wikipedia definition states “social business is a non-loss, non-dividend company designed to address a social objective within the highly regulated marketplace of today. It is distinct from a non-profit because the business should seek to generate a modest profit but this will be used to expand the company’s reach, improve the product or service or in other ways to subsidise the social mission.”
Ok…but here’s how @Armano describes it “At it’s core, it’s about connecting stakeholders who are critical to the success of your business. And as I’ve stressed before—it’s about executing initiatives leveraging the “3 P’s”—People, Process & Platforms.” David also has a nifty drawing that helps explain the process at that link.
And here’s Augie Ray’s definition: “A new form of commerce where consumers, empowered by new social technologies and behaviors, bypass traditional channels and acquire more information, goods and services directly from each other.”
Finally, here’s how the Social Business Forum defines a Social Business: “An organization that has put in place the strategies, technologies and processes to systematically engage all the individuals of its ecosystem (employees, customers, partners, suppliers) to maximize the co-created value”
Three things I see from the above and other various definitions I’ve found for the term ‘Social Business’:
1 – We can’t even agree on the definition of the concept. Which is no biggie, most of us can’t agree on the definition of ‘Social Media’ and it’s been around for 25 years in some form or another.
2 – The name ‘Social Business’ is terrible in that it immediately makes you think ‘Oh I get it, a business that does social media!’ Seriously, we marketers and business types put the ‘social’ modifier on waaaaay too many things.
3 – These definitions (and much of the discussion around the concept) seem to be focused on the companies that ‘get it’ when it comes to…whatever your definition of a ‘social business’ is. If you’re a business that doesn’t ‘get it’, is talking about how becoming a social business will help you ‘engage with and empower your customers to increase co-created value’ REALLY going to get you excited? I mean companies have been hearing about the potential of empowering and embracing their customers for at least 5 years now when we all got on a kick about how amazing social media is. Right? If that talk didn’t blow their skirts up, changing the name from ‘social media’ to ‘social business’ and trying again probably won’t either.
BTW here’s another interesting tidbit, the Wikipedia definition of the term ‘Enterprise 2.0‘: Enterprise 2.0 is the use of “Web 2.0” technologies within an organization to enable or streamline business processes while enhancing collaboration – connecting people through the use of social-media tools. Enterprise 2.0 aims to help employees, customers and suppliers collaborate, share, and organize information. Andrew McAfee describes Enterprise 2.0 as “the use of emergent social software platforms within companies, or between companies and their partners or customers”.
Ah we marketers do love to mark our territory by slapping labels on everything, don’t we?
But perhaps the biggest problem I have with most of the discussion around the concept of a ‘Social Business’ is that it seemed to be geared toward selling companies on the concept, versus the actual business benefits of integrating/embracing the concept.
Last month when I spoke at Bazaarvoice, I got to spend some time talking to CMO Erin Nelson and I learned more about BV’s offerings and how the companies is helping its clients. In general, Bazaarvoice is creating products and systems that let clients get more detailed and relevant (read: valuable) product information and feedback, and then helping them ACT on that feedback, both internally and externally, in order to improve existing business processes.
A very simple example: Erin noted that LL Bean tracked the reviews customers were leaving on their site for a popular sweater, and they noted that customers were asking for it to be produced in the colors green and purple. So LL Bean started offering the sweater in those colors as well, and sales doubled as a result. And the great thing about getting and ACTING on customer feedback is that it only encourages your customers to leave MORE feedback, which increases the chance that you can continue to improve existing business functions as a result.
That one small example to me does more to explain the possible reason why a company would want to become more connected internally and externally because it details a real-world business benefit from doing so.
As a result, I think those of us that are talking about the concept of a ‘Social Business’ need to stop talking about it as if we are selling a concept/product, and start talking about it as if we are selling the BENEFITS of being a Social Business. Because that’s what you SHOULD be doing, and besides, that’s a far more interesting conversation to be having anyway.
I agree. I wrote about this today on http://HRMargo.com It’s all about engagement, and building purposeful, and meaningful relationships. The old adage, people do business with people they like, and trust holds true here.
I love Armano’s viewpoint. Chris Brogan, and other social media marketing experts echo…identify the platform where you get the most buzz, and invest most of your time there. Build those relationships, and leverage them to get the meeting.
Great points, Mack. I’ve been thinking about this definition and discussing internally with my colleagues and we’ve come to many of the same conclusions. Overwhelming agreement with your statement: “[most discussion is] geared toward selling companies on the concept, versus the actual business benefits of integrating/embracing the concept.”
Definitions and labels matter. If not, we wouldn’t think twice about the wording of headlines about Jeremy Lin or trademarks and copyrights. I’ll have something to share publicly soon based on our internal discussions – hope you’ll provide feedback when I do.
Hey Pete, I’ll definitely want to see this report when it’s available. Definitions absolutely matter, but much of the current discussion about Social Business reminds me of much of the discussion about how companies could benefit from Social Media, circa 2006. IOW, both are/were based on theory more than practice, and heavy on fishbowl-related jargon and slim on real-world selling points that companies can understand and appreciate.
I love the idea of a ‘Social Business’, but I think we need to elevate the discussion around the concept so that it is more company-centric vs what will make a nice keynote address.
Mack — Great post! Again, way to take an oft-used concept and not-so-understood concept apart in a meaningful way. As you joked, we as marketers love to name things and often our own names fly around in the zeitgeist and have little meaning to the real world. To me, whether talking about Social Business or Enterprise/Web 2.0 the biggest take-aways are hard business results that can be realized through enhanced connection and collaboration both internally and externally.
As a blogger, this post also has a great structure and approach. Well done, as always.
I continue to find this term “social business” quite tantalising, Mack. Why I care, to answer the question in your title, is because on the one hand it provides a way to talk about how the social fits the business as a whole, not just as – say – another marketing tool, and on the other hand it is still being used in the Wikipedia sense, to describe not-for-profit business ventures/entities. My sense from reading your whole post and the comments so far is that the latter connotation (“business for good” as some would have it) seems to be relegated to the Inconvenient or even Irrelevant category.
So the confusion about terms is not just about how businesses work or don’t work in relation to social technologies but about a fundamental divide about business purpose – i.e, to make a profit or to make change for the better, without being for-profit.
It seems to me that the marketing/social media specialists have basically “claimed” the term, implicitly dismissing the not-for-profit business connotation.
Reminded me of the Alice in Wonderland exchange:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master that’s all.”
Des I was also struck by the fact that the Wikipedia definition describes a completely different model than what most of the other definitions of a Social Business detail it as being.
I wonder if Ben & Jerry’s would be an example of a ‘Social Business’ per Wikipedia? Can you think of any examples?
While I do agree with this article, I think the reason we are trying to change the moniker is mostly to help grow social media up. After 5 years of fluff, charlatans, unicorns, and double rainbows, businesses are demanding straight answers. They don’t want to hear that ROI is calculated in Likes and followers. They want solid business objectives.
As an industry, we’ve failed many businesses. They’re finally realizing this and demanding more. I don’t blame them. I think the idea of the terminology change is to help differentiate the snake oil salesmen from those who really understand business.
As for my definition, I say we just call it business. The good ones have done social well since the dawn of time.
Hi, Mack. Thanks for this post – I’ve got to explain social media vs. social marketing vs. social business to a client tomorrow and this is really helpful input into my thought process.
I think the distinction/label is an important one, but we get so caught up in our panties about the definitions sometimes that is obscures what matters. Completely agree – I’m not going to tell a client that it is about “systematically engaging all of the individuals in the ecosystem.” That’s a head-scratcher for anyone who functions in the real world.
Maybe I am just a simpleton, but to me, a social business is simply a business that has defined a social objective – along with a financial objective – as a driving force. I do often use Ben & Jerry’s as an example of this, because they define a social mission right up there with a product mission and an economic mission.
It comes down to WHY your business is doing what it does. If you are just using social tools as another communications channel IN ORDER TO retain or acquire customers, you are using social media. If you are using social tools IN ORDER TO impact your product, your customer experience or other elements of your marketing, you are doing social marketing. If you are using social tools – at least in part – to achieve a social mission, goal or objective – you are a social business.
Can it be that simple?
Spaight
Sue the funny part is, I had never heard of the Wikipedia version of the definition of a ‘Social Business’. And many people argue that Social Marketing (Cause-Marketing) is completely different from Social Media Marketing.
We marketers love to mark our territory, and I think so many people are so worried about being the next Tim O’Reilly to coin a term like ‘Web 2.0’ that we sometimes (often?) go overboard with the labels.
If someone claims that 2013 is the year of the ‘Social Interactions’, I’m throwing in the towel.
Upon further reflection, I think objective/intention is just PART of it. An important part that shouldn’t be overlooked, but just part. Beyond that, I tend to go with the Armano definition. Also, agree with you that we should be talking more about the benefits than the definition, but the truth remains that plenty of clients need to hear from us what it IS first.
Have a great week, Mack. Sue
Sue I agree completely. I think the process should be:
1 – Here’s what a ‘Social Business’ is.
2 – Here’s how implementing these processes will benefit your company.
3 – Here’s our terms for getting started.
Instead, the process seems to be:
1 – Here’s what a ‘Social Business’ is.
2 – Here’s our fee for having our ‘VP of Social Business Strategy’ come speak at your company event on what a Social Business is.