If you are not thinking C2B, then you are not thinking Social.
Of course, I'm only a self-proclaimed social media expert, so what do I know?
:^)
ronploof
· 11 months ago
People buy from people...whether its B2B or B2C.
DMPR
· 11 months ago
Great post - crazy that the entire PR industry is built around this divide. If you've only repped B2B, 'they' surmise, you could never do the same in B2C. Balderdash. Solid marketing pricinples extend across the board. Open up the social media floodgates to drive winners in!
Bill
· 11 months ago
Great food for thought as usual Chris!
The thing I see that could happen within the B2B arena, when social media can be capitalized upon, is a fast-tracking of the sales cycle. At my previous engagement, we heavily utilized the "webinar" and "live demos".
Now imagine B2B companies engaging a group of potential buyers through the use of social media tools to create an online, collaborative sharing environment during these webinars, demos or engagements. Literally 10's, 100's and potentially 1000's could be reached at once, and they could collaborate amongst their peers to share thoughts, ideas, and questions about the products all at the guidance and direction of the product representatives in real-time - think of the CNN/Facebook collaboration on the Inauguration: millions watched it live, and shared with friends and peers in real-time - what could that do for the B2B market and the sales cycles involved?
virtualimpax
· 11 months ago
Chris, Actually, Neil Rackham has done a lot of research in this area and it's less of a "B2B vs B2C" than it's a "major sale vs minor sale".
For example, buying copy paper is a minor sale. It doesn't matter if it's a business or a consumer making the purchase - there's little risk of consequences if we make a poor purchasing decision regarding copy paper. If I buy a ream of the "wrong" copy paper - my kids will have a new toy for the next few weeks.
On the other hand, there's the major sale. Major sale purchasing mistakes have MAJOR consequences. It doesn't matter if you're a business or a consumer, the purchase of real estate is a major purchase and can have long term consequences.
If you view the sales process through Rackham's lens, then the line between B2C and B2B tends to blur considerably, because both arenas have their fair share of major and minor sale items.
However, and here's where social media comes into play, the defining element between the major sale and the minor sale is TRUST. Major sales require a LOT more trust on behalf of the purchaser! See how social media comes into play?
You can't develop "trust" with a faceless entity - but you can develop trust with a person who WORKS for the faceless entity.
Tony Santos
· 11 months ago
I think you touched on the core of all B2C vs B2B marketing efforts here, and that is that you very rarely get impulse purchases in B2B, there are usually too many people to run the idea by (at least for anything significant, I guess maybe fancy pens for the office or something like that may get to slip by on a credit card). You're also facing, for the most part, the same two touch points between buyer and seller in B2B, which changes the nature of the sales relationship to benefit even more from real "human" contact. I.e. I'm much more likely to recommend a purchase to my boss from a company that is spending time and money connecting with me enough to anticipate my needs and it will be obvious to me if they are or not. The mostly retail face of today's B2C sales creates an almost unlimited number of touch points between producer and consumer, meaning it may not be Company X's lack of engagement that turns me on or off but Retailer Y's. In other words in B2C there's a much better chance that I as a consumer won't notice you're efforts (or lack there of) to really connect with me, because the people physically selling your product to me might make up for it (or kill it completely). Sorry if that was rambling, it turned out to be a much longer train of thought once it was out of the tunnel :-p
Ria
· 11 months ago
I'm not a self-proclaimed social media expert. I just use social media and happen to be a "C" sometimes. The justification of purchases happens internally first and then getting buy in from whoever it is that you need to get buy in from, whether it's your spouse or your boss. But was it in Blink that Gladwell said you've already made the decision, and most people don't even know why? I'd venture to say it's from some "brand contact," some feel good that you associate with a product or service. Where the social media comes in is in creating those feel good, human moments/connections that is then associated with the brand, either B2B or B2C.
Justin Rasmussen
· 11 months ago
I agree with Ron, at the end of the day it's all about people. Too many people get hung up on platforms and technologies but really who cares as long as your goals are accomplished. I think people want to define B2C/B2B and how they should interact in social media but really every company is different and every company is looking for different results. It seems that B2C needs to be constantly reinventing itself in short, compact, consumable packages that are here today and gone tomorrow because often times a B2C product changes at the same pace. A B2C/B2B relationship is still anchored in how you the company interacts with their customers but what differentiates them is that B2B relationship is with the company more than the product and B2C relationship is with the product and in a lesser aspect, the company that sells it.
Todd Defren
· 11 months ago
Wow, you have some really intelligent and thoughtful readers, my friend: the comments lately have been just awesome, including on this post.
I've always been of the "people buy from people" mindset. Having said that, in the "old days" the distinction between B2B and B2C prompted PR firms to be targeted in their outreach. B2B tech? Call Computerworld. B2C tech? Call USA Today. And so on.
In the Social Web Era, those distinctions are breaking down. Which means we get to have more fun and sweat a whole lot more, as what used to be pretty cut-and-dry is now crazy and ever-changing.
Anyway, thanks, Chris, for the "top-notch" reference to SHIFT. ALWAYS appreciated.
Ken Kadet
· 11 months ago
I was ready to argue, but I agree completely with this take. The B2B company's role is not to control the conversation 'out there' but listen, participate in human ways, as you put it, and, at the right times, engage in ways that invite participation in efforts to help the industry that happens to be your market.
Unfortunately, today at least, this is a soft argument. When the typical channel-focused B2B marketer looks at his marketing investment, he looks first to direct-to-channel communications via literature and other sales tools, and next to PR -- which, at least, gets you on the web -- and advertising -- of far more limited value, and their own website. Being seen online as human would be something to get to when there is time... and there isn't time.
The challenge for organizations is that the marketing communications teams feel like they have no time to get what they see as "the basics" done, let alone do "technology stuff" in social media. What they need to do is step back and reassess how their organizations view the basics of communications. That reassessment has to happen across marketing, sales, product management and at the executive level.
The question they need to ask themselves is whether they want to be there as social media begins to grow in importance as part of the B2B sales process, or spend massive amounts of human capital catching up once it gets there.
Matt Biegacki
· 11 months ago
What is the adoption rate of social media at B2B companies? On an enterprise-side of IBM (~relatively high) compared to the industrial automation business of an ABB (~relatively low). (Just some overreaching assumptions that I'm sure will get me into trouble)
It still comes down to where your leads hang out.
If your B2B guys are out there talking, you better be willing to listen...
Alasdair Munn
· 11 months ago
I understand your message here and what you are getting at, however it is not as simple as that. Sure philosophically, there is an argument, but when it comes to approach and detail it gets more complicated.
When you say at the end "Never get hung up on the B2B/B2C thing. Instead, focus on the ways you want to use these tools to reach a business objective." I agree with the second part of your paragraph but not the first. In order to use the tools to reach your business objective you need to be hung up on the B2B/B2C thing. As you put it the two have different approaches.
We need to look at how we define social media. The way we use social media tools alters with our audiences and objectives. Using social media sites such as twitter can be very effective for brands looking to target both for B2C and B2B customers but when you go beyond that to using social media tools in order to turn corporate websites into business tools your approach can change completely. Social media tools such as tagging, permission based profiles, rating content, message boards etc all take on different roles, objectives and nuances.
When we conduct power profiling, our aim is the same yet our approaches to these two segments are entirely different. For example, understanding how people value brands and indeed, which brands they identify themselves by has great value for profiling a B2C customer but less value for a B2B profile.
So yes, use the appropriate tools and use them correctly. In order to do that we need to understand not only the differences in approach to B2B and B2C, but also what is right for the particular brand and their audiences.
Leslie Pagel
· 11 months ago
Thank you for another great post. It is timely from where I sit.
What you've termed "continuous touch" is similar to what I've been calling 3C, which stands for constant customer connection. 3C is the idea that at any given time a company has a connection with their customers and can seek input, ideas, and guidance from them. Your post 'How I Use Twitter at Volume" prompted me to start thinking about the concept because it seems like you've established "continuous touch."
Thanks again for your insights Chris!
Batman
· 11 months ago
Ok, my take is, that you're right. However, for me, I'm simply selling, if that's the right word, my ability to make people laugh. What's my model? Or, better, am I the flashy front man that people need to bring people to the booth at a trade show, which I did recently, Or, the guy that's in the ad, talking about their product? I don't know.... Someone with more experience than myself should be answering these questions, as I continue to do what I do, and hope people notice....
M Maney
· 11 months ago
Whether you sell to businesses or to consumers it's all about having a conversation with your audience. The B2B arena is slow to catch on to this and to change their way of thinking. But for those B2B companies that realize that social media isn't just for consumer companies like Nike and Pepsi and can use it to create a relationship with their audience before their competitors do, will come out ahead in the marketplace. It's a great and relatively inexpensive way to increase market share in a down economy.
Steven Woods
· 11 months ago
@Kathy has a great way of summarizing it on Major vs Minor sales. Looked at the opposite way, there are a few Major sales in B2C (houses, investments, etc) where the long education cycle dominates the buying process.
We work with a lot of B2B marketers, and many/most of them use a wide variety of social media tools to join conversations, contribute content, educate the market, etc. It also depends on where they need to focus; Exeros, with a new approach in master data management, put a lot of effort into education-oriented content, while NetQoS, used an entertaining viral video to build general awareness.
With a broad set of awareness, discovery, and validation challenges, and a long buying cycle B2B marketers have a lot to gain through the use of social media. I'm noticing a big upswing in its use within the last few months.
Craig Huffstetler
· 11 months ago
I think a lot of this has to do with the difference between knowing your customers (inputting their demographics in SalesForce) vs. understanding your customers (actually understanding them). You have the competitive advantage when using various social media tools (analytics, basic Twitter search, etc.) and the upper hand at actually understanding your customer if you want to.
Now-a-days there is not much need to make assumptions in these types of marketing communications. Social media and the social web at large has opened an entirely new door way for marketers that needs be taken advantage of.
The entire concept is simple: listening. And beyond that it is understanding what your customer is about. After that the choice is up to the business, but a lot of this is if the business chooses to leverage social media properly and to their advantage.
Listen. Understand. Succeed.
Tony Santos
· 11 months ago
My question as I read all these comments is, how many B2B customers are there using social media? With B2C you're generally casting a larger net (so to speak) so twitter's 6million users (for example) is likely to hold many more quality leads for you than a B2B sales/marketing person. Or at least I would think, I don't do much work in the B2B space currently so I'm making lots of assumptions on this one.
Katherine Ventres Canipelli
· 11 months ago
So much good stuff to comment on. I'm going to focus on the premise that "The biggest discernible difference in business communications between those two groups is the justification of purchases." Whoa, it's not that simple!
As another commenter noted, the impact of the purchase decision (major versus minor) pretty much defines the buying process and who's involved--therefore, the sellers' channel strategy, lead gen, sales process, and , yes, marcom. And while this does distill to the P2P concept--that ultimately comes down to trust factors even in elaborate RFPs--there's something else going on in B2B that alters how and where social tools work. The "economic buyer" and even "influencers" that marketers target are often not the end user(s), as the goods and services they spec and select are inputs to another step in the value chain. Moreover, the most critical business communication often flows in reverse, from buyer to seller, particularly in technical industrial product and service sectors. What we find is that making the people-to-people connection that is far more complex in these B2B contexts. And this doesn't address the generation gap that still represents a big hurdle to social tool adoption. (This too shall pass -- quickly, I believe.)
Nevertheless, the richest opportunity for "socialization" of industrial B2B may emerge in guise of enhancements to vertical market transactional systems with collaborative features and through knowledge management tools that extend from internal users to upstream and downstream supply chain partners.
Jodi Kaplan
· 11 months ago
I think generally the differences between b2b and b2c are:
1) the amount of money involved - a few dollars for a tube of toothpaste, vs. $17,500,000 for say, an oil tanker
2) the number of people involved in the decision - usually one person can buy toothpaste; many people may be involved in buying a tanker
While I agree with most of what you have written Chris, particularly with regard to the importance of the ongoing dialogue to the B2B sale, and social computing as an opportunity to strengthen that dialogue. I think we shouldn't overlook that enterprise buyers often have a very personal agenda when making purchases on behalf of their business. Put simply, "how will this product/service help me do my job better and advance my career?" It doesn't get much more personal than that and effective B2B marketers are always keeping that very close to top of mind.
Tony Santos
· 11 months ago
Jodi, I would argue that your example ignores the consumer purchases of durable goods and real estate. While the numbers might not be as huge, $40K plus is an equivalent expenditure for a household to $17.5M would be to a large company. I do agree that the number of people involved is a key difference, esp. in big ticket capital purchases, like an oil tanker.
Wendy Peters
· 11 months ago
Chris, I always love what you bring up because 9 times out of 10, it's a pretty accurate account of the protests I get from middle managers and senior managers in my company when I talk to them about social media. They deal more with B2B and think of it as a B2C. I think looking at any communications tool as merely a tool is a far more effective approach than categorizing it's use. I think it depends on its integration with other communication methods and departments to effectively handle the relationship with your customers whether they be the general public or other businesses.
TimWalker
· 11 months ago
Good stuff, Chris. Last week I was talking with someone about this very thing, and broached my idea that there's at least one slot between B2B and B2C, which we might call B-to-mass-B. In other words, there are B2B markets that act *more* like B2C markets because of the size of the audience, the complexity of the sales cycle, etc.
Having read the comments here -- especially Kathy @5 and Jodi @20 -- I want to nuance that some more. It's not like a lightswitch with a binary choice between B2B and B2C. (I know you know this, I'm just addressing the oversimplified terms we all sometimes use.) It's more like a polydimensional grid, with many factors including:
--size of purchase (major vs, minor, whether in relative or absolute dollars) --complexity of options (chocolate bar vs. huge Oracle install) --speed of delivery (a soda from the machine vs. a tailor-made suit) --specialized knowledge of buyer (think high-end fly-fishermen, or CIOs) --number of decision-makers (like Jodi said) --how the purchase will be amortized in the buyer's budget (capital expenditure vs. operating budget, or one-time buy vs. installment/subscription plan) -- . . .
Et cetera through many other dimensions I'm sure I'm forgetting.
What made me think of all this in the first place was GE's aircraft-engines business. How long is their list of *potential* clients -- dozens? scores? However many aircraft makers there are in the world who could buy from them, it's not as many steady customers as your average busy greasy-spoon diner has. For that GE business, social media in any outward-facing sense might not make sense, because the issues they face aren't related to awareness: every single potential customer of theirs *on earth* knows that they exist and knows how to get in touch with them.
So, the challenge -- in that case and every other case, based on where your business lives in this polydimensional grid I'm proposing -- is to parse it out: how will I use Technology X to build my business? Technology X could be a white-label social network. It could be geolocation sensors. It could be accounting software. It could (hypothetically) be pencil-and-paper (though I'll bet they've got that one nailed down by now). The list goes on and on, and the savvy business will regard social media tools in light of its own situation and the needs of its customers -- just like it should any other technology.
Wow, maybe I should have just put this on *my* blog and pointed back here. ;)
Have a great weekend, Chris.
David King
· 11 months ago
I think you have to market different to both and treat both of them differently.
It's to seperate organizations.
one is personal, one is business.
knowing the most effective way to market to them in those positions will be more efficient and bring your more money! that's the bottom line! (in my opinion... that is)
Thanks...
DBK
Arthur Germain (@ArthurGermain
· 11 months ago
Chris, Thoughtful post as always. Everyone here keeps using examples that are apples and oranges to represent B2C and B2B, and then applies some metrics for comparison. That makes some sense (toothpaste for consumers, oil tankers for companies), but I wonder what the maker of a product sold to BOTH consumers and businesses would have to say about their use of social media. For example, Ford sells cars to consumers and to Hertz, local Police Departments and other companies for their fleets. What does Scott Monty and Ford say about social media, PR and marketing outreach to these very different buyers? Do they see a difference between B2B and B2C that challenges the thinking here? Thanks! ahg3
Fran Gaspari
· 11 months ago
Chris, Great post! Early on, I decided to keep my blogging simple and universal...ALL business people are consumers...but ALL consumers are not business people...hence I concluded that if it's good for the consumer, it MUST be good for business...!!! Thanks, Fran
Scott Manley
· 11 months ago
It's interesting that most people still view B2B as selling to the huge corps. Granted, that's where the big money is but when you look at large corps as a percentage of all businesses out there, it probably is less then 30%. We see a majority of B2B being small businesses and entrepreneurs that are out there looking for a good web hosting site, accountant, IP lawyer, project management software, etc., and we beleive a majority of those professionals are touched and reached via social media just as in B2C. Anyone have a take on that?
Bill
· 11 months ago
@ Scott Manley - It's very interesting you bring this up - having been in the VAR/Solution Provider business in the past, one of the most under-served segments was the SMB market. These SMBs are generally looking to compete in highly competitive markets, save money and generally are more apt to embrace new technology much more readily than a larger business or corporation would. I think the SMB market would be key to jump into social media mixing to try and reach them, collaborate with them and find out who these SMBs truly are: their needs, desires, competitive atmosphere and pitfalls they face - in essence gain an understanding of the customer as never before through social media - then when they feel valued, you get your value back.
TimWalker
· 11 months ago
@Scott Manley -- You make a very good point. Most of the jobs in the United States are created by small businesses (not even medium-sized), and the SMB sector represents a huge chunk of the economy. Of course, these companies also have different needs, and they can't afford the mondo-sized products / service packages that the big dogs can. In other words, selling to SMBs (which, by the by, has been a specialty of my employer for many years) can be un-sexy, but the value there can be huge.
Going back to my comment @24 above, the size of the client enterprise (expressed in # of employees, revenue, total IT budget, whatever) would be another important dimension to add to the grid.
Jeremy Epstein
· 11 months ago
I think Ron hit it on the head, "people buy from People."
Godin posted on this a while back. His conclusion was that "the only difference was in who signs the check."
Kate Brodock
· 11 months ago
Chris -
We've been talking to our clients about this a lot lately (they're mostly B2B) and we say pretty much the same thing.
To add on to your point of "getting them before the sale," often times, B2B companies wonder how something like Facebook would benefit them. Another great thing about popular and niche social networks is you have like minds congregating somewhere online, talking about like interests etc. Some of them have access to decision-makers in their companies (or may be them!), or may be in a position to refer a colleague. You touch point in what may be considered a B2C community (but even that generalization is being challenged) still has many B2B consequences.
Great conversation, kate
Ken Kadet (@KadetComm)
· 11 months ago
Great discussion here...I appreciate the direction that I believe, Tim was taking this ... that many B2B purchase decisions are based on a far different matrix than consumer purchases. This affects the kinds of social media where you can effectively be involved. In the tech world, if I'm selling an enterprise software system, for example, I'd avoid a venue as personal as Facebook -- IT and IS managers I've worked with brook little BS on tech. Would I blog about pertinent issues? Yes. Would you build a following on Twitter? Participate in TechTarget forums? Create a user/technology community around issues we're passionate about? Yes, yes, and yes. In a commodity/supply/distribution business, you take a different tack -- more local, for a start.
Commonalities? Seems to me that ever business could benefit from more engagement with the folks to who buy their products. As people, they can care about the things their customers care about -- whether it's the need to establish standard communications protocols between automation systems or the best way to make lasagna. The opportunity to bring organizations and people together is one of the cool things about social media -- and what makes it worth our while at work.
Lawrence Liu (Telligent)
· 11 months ago
Chris, you forgot one: B2E. That's Business-to-Employee. :-) You're too focused on the marketing angle. What's much more important is a community mindset of openness and sharing. If a partner doesn't understand how you sell to customers, they won't be a partner for long. Want your employees to come up with better ideas for products and services? Get them out there engaging with customers and partners.
A community (and teamwork) mindset is what will transform organizations and entire industries (e.g. pharma is leading the way). What/how/where/when to use tools like social media is secondary.
I like the B2E angle even if it isn't part of the post. ;-)
It helps engage employees for teamwork, ideas, and in so doing encourage innovation in these rough economic times (morale is a biggy). Social media can do a lot for companies looking to lift up their employees spirits, bridge international gaps, and just bring people together. It can also help to decrease costs in various areas such as telecommunication.
On a high level, it has the ability to increase an individual's productivity and thus allow corporations to monetize on this. Social media is not just for knowledge management anymore in the corporate environment. We've gone beyond that.
Linda Forrest
· 11 months ago
As a fairly new reader of your site, I just wanted to comment that your posts always get me thinking. Thinking not only about where we sit on the marketing spectrum as public relations professionals in the B2B technology realm, but also as an individual consumer. There are differences in the sale to and in the execution of marketing to businesses versus consumers but in my opinion it's challenging to make generalizations as nuances always play in, whether it's the dimensions of the sale, the market size, the state of the economy, etc.
Katherine Ventres Canipelli
· 11 months ago
To complement our marketing view, Dave Stein's blog post today cuts the issue from the B2B strategic selling perspective. Same hurdles, same opportunities, different angle, a different urgency. As Dave puts it: "If a salesperson’s buyers have really embraced social media as a way to establish and build relationship with those who would provide them with valuable products and services, great. Those companies do exist. But in general, and regretfully for some I’m sure, we’re just not there yet." Read the full post: http://davesteinsblog.wordpress.com/2009/01/28/...
Lindsay Willott
· 10 months ago
Chris, you couldn't be more right. I run a B2B marketing agency. We market enterprise software and services. Our clients' average sales cycle is often measured in years and not months. We invented our own process for taking such solutions to market and called it "continuous customer capture". Continuous (a word you've used in your post) is hugely meaningful in this context. This B2B marketing process is ALL about selling the "next step" - read this white paper, read that blog post, come to this event, learn more about the subject - and eventually the lead goes from nuture phase to a lead you can work on selling to. But timing it critical and so a process that gives you multiple bites of the cherry is the best type of B2B programme. In B2B you have to become a resource for the potential customer. Social tools are bang on for this.
Nicky Jameson
· 10 months ago
I have to ask myself - does it really matter? I wonder are B2B companies getting too hung up on "it's different for B2C and we can't do it because (insert excuse here)? The B2B sales cycle and buying process is indeed different. For one thing, the focus is on getting qualified leads for sales people to make the eventual sales. Yet everyone seems to forget about the sales people - a prime group companies can target using Social Media marketing - alongside existing marketing channels - to make their lives easier. No leads = No Sales. At the end of the day, regardless of sales process as Seth Godin so aptly put it on Amex Open Forum, having thousands of "friends" on Facebook or "followers" on Twitter are pretty useless to a B2B company if they don't somehow work towards signing that million dollar contract in good time for it to add to the bottom line. However - if you are a B2B company or any company you want to do business. To do that you need customers. Many B2B customers may not be using Social Media - there's an opportunity for the B2b company to educate by leading the way. It goes back to this "What is the business problem the company needs to solve? Is it getting more clients? More people to know about you? Advocates? Innovation, market share? More qualified leads? Social Media can help B2B companies in doing all these and more. But, as I always say, it isn't about the tools. It's about the approach. And about how it's going to improve the bottom line. Every business person's job depends on that bottom line, no matter how fluffy we want to get about "conversations."
Here's a suggestion for B2B companies. Why not start from the inside out? Ask sales people what they need. Do they need info so they can bring in more qualified leads? Then why not start with an internal wiki? Or an internal blog? Does the company need to innovate/ (what a question) Why not establish a private community or forum to enable your customers to contribute new ideas, suggestions? I can guarantee they will have more than you ever will. Same goes for improvements to all your channels.
B2B companies need to listen to their markets, just as their B2C counterparts do. So why can't they set up Google Alerts to see and measure what is being said about the company - and not just by your customers? Why not use Twitter as a listening and learning post? Why not survey your customers? Most are usually very happy to be asked for their feedback most companies never bother, or never do anything with it if they do) if it means you're making it easier to do business with you. Encourage ratings of online content. Do B2B companies need recommendations? Advocates? Influence? More customers? More leads? Referrals? Then B2B companies should be engaging their key audiences and social media provides a way to do it. They need to use Social Media for lead generation. Do B2B companies want to be aware of marketplace threats or do they want to discover them only when their customers of many years have switched to the savvier competition? Oh, and one other thing... as with anything new, be prepared to fail at least at first. No one is exempt from that. But marketers can do small pilots to mitigate the risks.
Bottom line - It's a waste of time getting distracted by B2B vs B2C differences - so I agree "don't get hung up on the B2b/B2C thing." Companies are not personal entities so why pretend they are? Not all B2C efforts have been successful anyway. Regardless of the selling process and the diverse needs of B2B marketers they need to start where they are, change their approach to being two way, be strategic and start engaging their people. Look for what they can do, even if small, rather than what they can't.
Nicky Jameson
· 10 months ago
For those interested, here's a blog post I wrote recently to help B2B marketers get started. It's called 7 practical tips for B2B Social Media Marketing. http://nickyjameson.com/2009/02/07/7-practical-...
John Varlaro (@jdvarlaro)
· 10 months ago
Lawrence Liu (Telligent), Craig Huffstetler, Nicky Jameson touch upon the B2E element as well: In B2B the illusion still exists that you are selling to a company, not people. This illusion allows a company functioning in that capacity to overlook social media as a viable strategy, while relying on the safe, ROI-trackable methods of Mar Comm. Where social media can be revolutionary when implemented, is it gives companies the ability to empower employees to be the faces of the company. First, however, companies need to be revolutionary in their approach to employee empowerment. As leaders in business, we should be salivating at the opportunity to empower each of our employees to be champions of the company and lead innovation - in sales or otherwise.
Nicky Jameson
· 10 months ago
@ John Varlaro "As leaders in business, we should be salivating at the opportunity to empower each of our employees to be champions of the company and lead innovation - in sales or otherwise." Excellent point. I believe empowering employees would be the making of companies. And not just B2B. 99 percent of the time employees know exactly what should be done and how to do it. They are on the front line with the customers. They are the ones often on the receiving end of customer complaints and, yes, praise. But they need support from the top down. They cannot do it alone. Can you imagine a company that empowers its employees to champion the company and lead innovation? It's a beautiful thought. Some might be in a much better place than many we are reading about daily. Sadly, many companies would figuratively rather cut off their right arms before they empower their employees, (including those who pay lip-service to employee "empowerment") so all the innovative sparks will go out or get short shrift.
When it comes to Social Media, there are so many options that no one person can do it all, and no one department can do it justice. Every facet of a B2B company can benefit...but not w/o the employees. I like to look on the bright side. The opportunity for bright sparks who understand how it works inside and out to become Social Media consultants to their past employers. It wouldn't be the first time.
b2cmother
· 5 months ago
The biggest discernible difference in business communications between b2b and b2c groups is the justification of purchases.
All Comments
Of course, I'm only a self-proclaimed social media expert, so what do I know?
:^)
The thing I see that could happen within the B2B arena, when social media can be capitalized upon, is a fast-tracking of the sales cycle. At my previous engagement, we heavily utilized the "webinar" and "live demos".
Now imagine B2B companies engaging a group of potential buyers through the use of social media tools to create an online, collaborative sharing environment during these webinars, demos or engagements. Literally 10's, 100's and potentially 1000's could be reached at once, and they could collaborate amongst their peers to share thoughts, ideas, and questions about the products all at the guidance and direction of the product representatives in real-time - think of the CNN/Facebook collaboration on the Inauguration: millions watched it live, and shared with friends and peers in real-time - what could that do for the B2B market and the sales cycles involved?
Actually, Neil Rackham has done a lot of research in this area and it's less of a "B2B vs B2C" than it's a "major sale vs minor sale".
For example, buying copy paper is a minor sale. It doesn't matter if it's a business or a consumer making the purchase - there's little risk of consequences if we make a poor purchasing decision regarding copy paper. If I buy a ream of the "wrong" copy paper - my kids will have a new toy for the next few weeks.
On the other hand, there's the major sale. Major sale purchasing mistakes have MAJOR consequences. It doesn't matter if you're a business or a consumer, the purchase of real estate is a major purchase and can have long term consequences.
If you view the sales process through Rackham's lens, then the line between B2C and B2B tends to blur considerably, because both arenas have their fair share of major and minor sale items.
However, and here's where social media comes into play, the defining element between the major sale and the minor sale is TRUST. Major sales require a LOT more trust on behalf of the purchaser! See how social media comes into play?
You can't develop "trust" with a faceless entity - but you can develop trust with a person who WORKS for the faceless entity.
You're also facing, for the most part, the same two touch points between buyer and seller in B2B, which changes the nature of the sales relationship to benefit even more from real "human" contact. I.e. I'm much more likely to recommend a purchase to my boss from a company that is spending time and money connecting with me enough to anticipate my needs and it will be obvious to me if they are or not. The mostly retail face of today's B2C sales creates an almost unlimited number of touch points between producer and consumer, meaning it may not be Company X's lack of engagement that turns me on or off but Retailer Y's. In other words in B2C there's a much better chance that I as a consumer won't notice you're efforts (or lack there of) to really connect with me, because the people physically selling your product to me might make up for it (or kill it completely).
Sorry if that was rambling, it turned out to be a much longer train of thought once it was out of the tunnel :-p
I've always been of the "people buy from people" mindset. Having said that, in the "old days" the distinction between B2B and B2C prompted PR firms to be targeted in their outreach. B2B tech? Call Computerworld. B2C tech? Call USA Today. And so on.
In the Social Web Era, those distinctions are breaking down. Which means we get to have more fun and sweat a whole lot more, as what used to be pretty cut-and-dry is now crazy and ever-changing.
Anyway, thanks, Chris, for the "top-notch" reference to SHIFT. ALWAYS appreciated.
Unfortunately, today at least, this is a soft argument. When the typical channel-focused B2B marketer looks at his marketing investment, he looks first to direct-to-channel communications via literature and other sales tools, and next to PR -- which, at least, gets you on the web -- and advertising -- of far more limited value, and their own website. Being seen online as human would be something to get to when there is time... and there isn't time.
The challenge for organizations is that the marketing communications teams feel like they have no time to get what they see as "the basics" done, let alone do "technology stuff" in social media. What they need to do is step back and reassess how their organizations view the basics of communications. That reassessment has to happen across marketing, sales, product management and at the executive level.
The question they need to ask themselves is whether they want to be there as social media begins to grow in importance as part of the B2B sales process, or spend massive amounts of human capital catching up once it gets there.
It still comes down to where your leads hang out.
If your B2B guys are out there talking, you better be willing to listen...
When you say at the end "Never get hung up on the B2B/B2C thing. Instead, focus on the ways you want to use these tools to reach a business objective." I agree with the second part of your paragraph but not the first. In order to use the tools to reach your business objective you need to be hung up on the B2B/B2C thing. As you put it the two have different approaches.
We need to look at how we define social media. The way we use social media tools alters with our audiences and objectives. Using social media sites such as twitter can be very effective for brands looking to target both for B2C and B2B customers but when you go beyond that to using social media tools in order to turn corporate websites into business tools your approach can change completely. Social media tools such as tagging, permission based profiles, rating content, message boards etc all take on different roles, objectives and nuances.
When we conduct power profiling, our aim is the same yet our approaches to these two segments are entirely different. For example, understanding how people value brands and indeed, which brands they identify themselves by has great value for profiling a B2C customer but less value for a B2B profile.
So yes, use the appropriate tools and use them correctly. In order to do that we need to understand not only the differences in approach to B2B and B2C, but also what is right for the particular brand and their audiences.
What you've termed "continuous touch" is similar to what I've been calling 3C, which stands for constant customer connection. 3C is the idea that at any given time a company has a connection with their customers and can seek input, ideas, and guidance from them. Your post 'How I Use Twitter at Volume" prompted me to start thinking about the concept because it seems like you've established "continuous touch."
Thanks again for your insights Chris!
We work with a lot of B2B marketers, and many/most of them use a wide variety of social media tools to join conversations, contribute content, educate the market, etc. It also depends on where they need to focus; Exeros, with a new approach in master data management, put a lot of effort into education-oriented content, while NetQoS, used an entertaining viral video to build general awareness.
With a broad set of awareness, discovery, and validation challenges, and a long buying cycle B2B marketers have a lot to gain through the use of social media. I'm noticing a big upswing in its use within the last few months.
Now-a-days there is not much need to make assumptions in these types of marketing communications. Social media and the social web at large has opened an entirely new door way for marketers that needs be taken advantage of.
The entire concept is simple: listening. And beyond that it is understanding what your customer is about. After that the choice is up to the business, but a lot of this is if the business chooses to leverage social media properly and to their advantage.
Listen. Understand. Succeed.
As another commenter noted, the impact of the purchase decision (major versus minor) pretty much defines the buying process and who's involved--therefore, the sellers' channel strategy, lead gen, sales process, and , yes, marcom. And while this does distill to the P2P concept--that ultimately comes down to trust factors even in elaborate RFPs--there's something else going on in B2B that alters how and where social tools work. The "economic buyer" and even "influencers" that marketers target are often not the end user(s), as the goods and services they spec and select are inputs to another step in the value chain. Moreover, the most critical business communication often flows in reverse, from buyer to seller, particularly in technical industrial product and service sectors. What we find is that making the people-to-people connection that is far more complex in these B2B contexts. And this doesn't address the generation gap that still represents a big hurdle to social tool adoption. (This too shall pass -- quickly, I believe.)
Nevertheless, the richest opportunity for "socialization" of industrial B2B may emerge in guise of enhancements to vertical market transactional systems with collaborative features and through knowledge management tools that extend from internal users to upstream and downstream supply chain partners.
1) the amount of money involved - a few dollars for a tube of toothpaste, vs. $17,500,000 for say, an oil tanker
2) the number of people involved in the decision - usually one person can buy toothpaste; many people may be involved in buying a tanker
3) specifications needed - toothpaste: cleans teeth (check), freshens breath (good), fights cavities (sold!); tanker - capacity, engine, speed, length, tonnage, flag, etc. etc.
I would argue that your example ignores the consumer purchases of durable goods and real estate. While the numbers might not be as huge, $40K plus is an equivalent expenditure for a household to $17.5M would be to a large company. I do agree that the number of people involved is a key difference, esp. in big ticket capital purchases, like an oil tanker.
Having read the comments here -- especially Kathy @5 and Jodi @20 -- I want to nuance that some more. It's not like a lightswitch with a binary choice between B2B and B2C. (I know you know this, I'm just addressing the oversimplified terms we all sometimes use.) It's more like a polydimensional grid, with many factors including:
--size of purchase (major vs, minor, whether in relative or absolute dollars)
--complexity of options (chocolate bar vs. huge Oracle install)
--speed of delivery (a soda from the machine vs. a tailor-made suit)
--specialized knowledge of buyer (think high-end fly-fishermen, or CIOs)
--number of decision-makers (like Jodi said)
--how the purchase will be amortized in the buyer's budget (capital expenditure vs. operating budget, or one-time buy vs. installment/subscription plan)
-- . . .
Et cetera through many other dimensions I'm sure I'm forgetting.
What made me think of all this in the first place was GE's aircraft-engines business. How long is their list of *potential* clients -- dozens? scores? However many aircraft makers there are in the world who could buy from them, it's not as many steady customers as your average busy greasy-spoon diner has. For that GE business, social media in any outward-facing sense might not make sense, because the issues they face aren't related to awareness: every single potential customer of theirs *on earth* knows that they exist and knows how to get in touch with them.
So, the challenge -- in that case and every other case, based on where your business lives in this polydimensional grid I'm proposing -- is to parse it out: how will I use Technology X to build my business? Technology X could be a white-label social network. It could be geolocation sensors. It could be accounting software. It could (hypothetically) be pencil-and-paper (though I'll bet they've got that one nailed down by now). The list goes on and on, and the savvy business will regard social media tools in light of its own situation and the needs of its customers -- just like it should any other technology.
Wow, maybe I should have just put this on *my* blog and pointed back here. ;)
Have a great weekend, Chris.
It's to seperate organizations.
one is personal, one is business.
knowing the most effective way to market to them in those positions will be more efficient and bring your more money! that's the bottom line! (in my opinion... that is)
Thanks...
DBK
Thoughtful post as always. Everyone here keeps using examples that are apples and oranges to represent B2C and B2B, and then applies some metrics for comparison. That makes some sense (toothpaste for consumers, oil tankers for companies), but I wonder what the maker of a product sold to BOTH consumers and businesses would have to say about their use of social media. For example, Ford sells cars to consumers and to Hertz, local Police Departments and other companies for their fleets. What does Scott Monty and Ford say about social media, PR and marketing outreach to these very different buyers? Do they see a difference between B2B and B2C that challenges the thinking here?
Thanks!
ahg3
Great post! Early on, I decided to keep my blogging simple and universal...ALL business people are consumers...but ALL consumers are not business people...hence I concluded that if it's good for the consumer, it MUST be good for business...!!! Thanks, Fran
Going back to my comment @24 above, the size of the client enterprise (expressed in # of employees, revenue, total IT budget, whatever) would be another important dimension to add to the grid.
Godin posted on this a while back. His conclusion was that "the only difference was in who signs the check."
We've been talking to our clients about this a lot lately (they're mostly B2B) and we say pretty much the same thing.
To add on to your point of "getting them before the sale," often times, B2B companies wonder how something like Facebook would benefit them. Another great thing about popular and niche social networks is you have like minds congregating somewhere online, talking about like interests etc. Some of them have access to decision-makers in their companies (or may be them!), or may be in a position to refer a colleague. You touch point in what may be considered a B2C community (but even that generalization is being challenged) still has many B2B consequences.
Great conversation,
kate
Commonalities? Seems to me that ever business could benefit from more engagement with the folks to who buy their products. As people, they can care about the things their customers care about -- whether it's the need to establish standard communications protocols between automation systems or the best way to make lasagna. The opportunity to bring organizations and people together is one of the cool things about social media -- and what makes it worth our while at work.
A community (and teamwork) mindset is what will transform organizations and entire industries (e.g. pharma is leading the way). What/how/where/when to use tools like social media is secondary.
- http://twitter.com/lliu
It helps engage employees for teamwork, ideas, and in so doing encourage innovation in these rough economic times (morale is a biggy). Social media can do a lot for companies looking to lift up their employees spirits, bridge international gaps, and just bring people together. It can also help to decrease costs in various areas such as telecommunication.
On a high level, it has the ability to increase an individual's productivity and thus allow corporations to monetize on this. Social media is not just for knowledge management anymore in the corporate environment. We've gone beyond that.
However - if you are a B2B company or any company you want to do business. To do that you need customers. Many B2B customers may not be using Social Media - there's an opportunity for the B2b company to educate by leading the way. It goes back to this "What is the business problem the company needs to solve? Is it getting more clients? More people to know about you? Advocates? Innovation, market share? More qualified leads? Social Media can help B2B companies in doing all these and more. But, as I always say, it isn't about the tools. It's about the approach. And about how it's going to improve the bottom line. Every business person's job depends on that bottom line, no matter how fluffy we want to get about "conversations."
Here's a suggestion for B2B companies. Why not start from the inside out? Ask sales people what they need. Do they need info so they can bring in more qualified leads? Then why not start with an internal wiki? Or an internal blog? Does the company need to innovate/ (what a question) Why not establish a private community or forum to enable your customers to contribute new ideas, suggestions? I can guarantee they will have more than you ever will. Same goes for improvements to all your channels.
B2B companies need to listen to their markets, just as their B2C counterparts do. So why can't they set up Google Alerts to see and measure what is being said about the company - and not just by your customers? Why not use Twitter as a listening and learning post? Why not survey your customers? Most are usually very happy to be asked for their feedback most companies never bother, or never do anything with it if they do) if it means you're making it easier to do business with you. Encourage ratings of online content.
Do B2B companies need recommendations? Advocates? Influence? More customers? More leads? Referrals? Then B2B companies should be engaging their key audiences and social media provides a way to do it. They need to use Social Media for lead generation. Do B2B companies want to be aware of marketplace threats or do they want to discover them only when their customers of many years have switched to the savvier competition?
Oh, and one other thing... as with anything new, be prepared to fail at least at first. No one is exempt from that. But marketers can do small pilots to mitigate the risks.
Bottom line - It's a waste of time getting distracted by B2B vs B2C differences - so I agree "don't get hung up on the B2b/B2C thing." Companies are not personal entities so why pretend they are? Not all B2C efforts have been successful anyway. Regardless of the selling process and the diverse needs of B2B marketers they need to start where they are, change their approach to being two way, be strategic and start engaging their people. Look for what they can do, even if small, rather than what they can't.
http://nickyjameson.com/2009/02/07/7-practical-...
In B2B the illusion still exists that you are selling to a company, not people. This illusion allows a company functioning in that capacity to overlook social media as a viable strategy, while relying on the safe, ROI-trackable methods of Mar Comm.
Where social media can be revolutionary when implemented, is it gives companies the ability to empower employees to be the faces of the company. First, however, companies need to be revolutionary in their approach to employee empowerment.
As leaders in business, we should be salivating at the opportunity to empower each of our employees to be champions of the company and lead innovation - in sales or otherwise.
"As leaders in business, we should be salivating at the opportunity to empower each of our employees to be champions of the company and lead innovation - in sales or otherwise." Excellent point.
I believe empowering employees would be the making of companies. And not just B2B. 99 percent of the time employees know exactly what should be done and how to do it. They are on the front line with the customers. They are the ones often on the receiving end of customer complaints and, yes, praise. But they need support from the top down. They cannot do it alone.
Can you imagine a company that empowers its employees to champion the company and lead innovation? It's a beautiful thought. Some might be in a much better place than many we are reading about daily.
Sadly, many companies would figuratively rather cut off their right arms before they empower their employees, (including those who pay lip-service to employee "empowerment") so all the innovative sparks will go out or get short shrift.
When it comes to Social Media, there are so many options that no one person can do it all, and no one department can do it justice. Every facet of a B2B company can benefit...but not w/o the employees. I like to look on the bright side. The opportunity for bright sparks who understand how it works inside and out to become Social Media consultants to their past employers. It wouldn't be the first time.
There. Am I wrong?
Yeah,you're right