OK, this is not actually a set of rules, more some observations from running communities. See engagement is perhaps one of the hardest and yet most crucial areas in which to be successful when using communities for primary research purposes. For most in the market and social research industry it means thinking outside of the square, ceding some (or in some cases a lot of) control and involving as many stakeholders as possible. Ideally this would include brand’s creative agencies and senior decision makers. When we fail to engage, community participation drops, responses become shorter and the ability to gather meaningful data fades.
It is important to remember that in almost all cases members do not come to a site to participate in research. It is paramount that the discussions which are being had are relevant and of interest to the members and to a large extent, driven by the members.
Typically, unless your brand is deemed in the "sexy" category (think Apple, Nike etc), conversations that generate the richest content are those where members have opposing views or group together out of want of achieving a common goal - as Seth Godin said "People eagerly engage when they want something to improve". Controversy can fuel great conversations, as does negativity, humour and to some extent, a “feel good factor”. Discussions initiated by and specifically around the brand broadcasting itself in a positive light are likely to be viewed as trying to pull the wool over the members eyes and may fuel anger. Members should be the ones to drive positive sentiment towards the brand. As we are discussing research communities specifically, it should be about gathering insights rather than positive PR and spin which can be left to "traditional" communication methods.
Allowing community members to talk about what may be deemed as “controversial” subjects is paramount in the brand gaining their trust. A good community always lets their members generate their own conversations. It allows the brand to discover what topics are important and relevant to the members and what are not so relevant, removing our need as researchers to make assumptions about who we are talking to and what is relevant to them.
No topic should be off limits except those that will cause harm or upset to community members. Any negative sentiment towards the brand should be discussed frankly and openly to build trust. If a member is heckling, the community should be the one to raise the issue to the community manager as being inappropriate rather than the brand trying to silence an individual.
It is worth bearing in mind the reasons individuals come to private branded online research communities:
Allowing community members to talk about what may be deemed as “controversial” subjects is paramount in the brand gaining their trust. A good community always lets their members generate their own conversations. It allows the brand to discover what topics are important and relevant to the members and what are not so relevant, removing our need as researchers to make assumptions about who we are talking to and what is relevant to them.
No topic should be off limits except those that will cause harm or upset to community members. Any negative sentiment towards the brand should be discussed frankly and openly to build trust. If a member is heckling, the community should be the one to raise the issue to the community manager as being inappropriate rather than the brand trying to silence an individual.
It is worth bearing in mind the reasons individuals come to private branded online research communities:
data from Your Source/@daniel_ahThese are just a few key items to ensure that engagement can occur and allow the community to thrive and the client to gather credible research findings. I am interested in what others have found to be successful in terms of building engagement without having to resort to financial incentives, whether it is for research or other purposes.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment