5 Tips For Managers of LinkedIn Groups: It Takes More Than Tools!

Spammers and overt sales people peddling low-end transactions -- "buy my thing" -- are a plague that has overrun LinkedIn Groups. The groups feature is a good idea -- let small(er) cohorts of people with shared affinities or interests exchange information with each other. But when a large group of people can interact online, the opportunity always seems to bring out the worst in some people. Spammers around the globe have swamped the discussions and turned a useful collaboration tool into a shameless (and worthless) marketing platform.

However, LinkedIn seems to have realized the Groups function has taken a wrong turn. The site recently deployed a set of technical tools to help group managers reestablish control of their collaborative content. Case in point -- today I received an email from LinkedIn announcing new tools for group managers:

The ability to delete inappropriate content and share group management are great first steps to reducing spam and inappropriate use by members. But the key to better collaboration in a LinkedIn group (or any group for that matter) is a more strategic approach to member engagement.

Here are five steps any group manager can take to improve the quality of exchanges among the members of their group. Better engagement quality provides greater value for group members and also warns off spammers by signaling this group means business - literally!

Step 1: Define a purpose for the group. The best groups are those that function intentionally - with intention - meaning each member knows what the group is about, what its express purpose is, and what is expected from their participation or membership in the group.

Step 2: Lead by example. Especially in the business world, where the majority of senior executives are far too busy leading a department or company to take the time to become a social media "expert", the act of actively moderating a group can demonstrate to members the best practices of online information exchange.

On a tactical level, a group manager should start a new topical discussion with a detailed, explanatory post about the topic. This includes a well-formed idea about the nature of the question or topic and some specifics or details to help others understand the topic and why it is important. This will also socialize how members might engage around the topic.

Here is an example from a LinkedIn group:

Notice how Jack, the discussion leader, raises the topic he would like to discuss clearly. This allows others to have a better understanding of how to respond and what information might be shared.

Step 3: Outreach to support the exchange. People do not naturally respond online to discussions. Often, especially with newly-formed groups or those whose members do not have a great deal in common, it is a true act of faith to put ones ideas "out there" for all to see. However, when asked and encouraged to provide input individually, members will typically respond. Group leaders who use the messaging function on LinkedIn can reach out to certain members and ask for their point of view, thus jump-starting a new discussion or reviving an older one. Like follows like in discussions - the more people who participate initially, the more comfortable people will feel in jumping into the topic. The example above on "Who owns social media?" has garnered hundreds of replies and there is no end in sight.

Step 4: Strike the right balance. When thinking about which topics offer the most active and rewarding exchanges, find a balance between what we like to deem "low risk", "mid risk" and "high risk" discussions. A low risk discussion topic is one that asks very little of the participants emotionally but enables them to successfully participate online.

One example could be asking the group to list their Twitter handles, or taking a poll. The participants are not professionally exposed but are enabled to participate. With groups, the hardest post is the first one! Once someone crosses that threshold, they are more likely to post in the future.

A "mid risk" topic might be one that requires the participant to share an idea or point of view. A great example is a question that is transactional in nature such as top efficiency tools or "what organizations do you belong to and why?"

The most valuable -- and risky -- content contributed by members is a true collaborative knowledge exchange. This kind of discussion involves participants sharing a professional dilemma and how they resolved (or failed to resolve) the problem, or showcases a personal approach to something. These are the lifeblood of any true community of practice.

Step 5: Acknowledge and reward all valuable participation. Leading a group takes commitment and staying power over time. The best groups and discussions grow out of a sense of belonging, of community. Be sure to respond to participants individually with thanks and encouragement. This validates their contributions and confirms their time was well spent responding to the group and to their peers.

Bad Social: Impact of Social Media on the IPhone 4 & AAPL Stock

By Ryck Lent

"It's the antenna, stupid!"

Well, sure it is. But Apple's (AAPL) handling of this product problem in the new world of social media and social commerce is worth considering in detail. Here's the key statistic:

During seven trading days, from the Friday (July 9th) prior to Consumer Reports' confirmation of the antenna problem and the "Not Recommended" review (Monday July 12) through Monday, July 19th, AAPL stock dropped around $15 per share. With a little over 900M shares outstanding, this means AAPL lost $12 BILLION in market capitalization -- a 5% decline. For comparison, the DJII and NASDAQ indexes for same period were essentially flat. Here's the picture:


Some highlights from the timeline:

Consumer Reports (CR) posted its "Not Recommended" blog post Monday July 12. First comments on that blog are timestamped around 11:30am.

Reports surfaced on Twitter Monday afternoon that Apple tech support moderators were deleting threads linking to the review. NPR's Marketplace radio broadcast Monday evening included this news along with a mention of the Twitter traffic on the issue. On Monday, AAPL closed at 258, $3 below Friday's close.

On Tuesday July 13, as word of CR's bad review spread -- a blog post only available online -- the stock dropped sharply to around 248, then recovered to 251 at the end of the day.

The combination of the CR online review and the accompanying social media distribution of that news moved the stock price down $10 over two trading days.

Later in the week, as the groundswell of concern continued to grow, AAPL tersely announced a news conference for Friday, July 18. On Friday, Steve Jobs explained that, although there was nothing wrong with the iPhone 4, Apple would be offering protective rubber bumpers free to iPhone 4 purchasers.

Keep in mind that news of the antenna problem with the iPhone 4 had been in the market since the first day of availability (June 21), when the stock hit a high of 270. The stock had been moving down since then, more or less in step with the overall market. Check the one-month chart below:


But the last 7 days have been very expensive for AAPL -- and Apple's stockholders -- in no small part due to the impact of social media. Consider:


The CR blog post offered independent confirmation of the problem -- picked up immediately and redistributed by 1,000s of Twitter and blog followers.

• Point to ponder: Once in the social media stream, a news item takes on a life of its own, spreading ever more widely.

The whisper of censorship on Apple tech support forums boosted the visibility of the story many-fold, and encompassed trusted mainstream media such as NPR's Marketplace.

• Point to ponder: Once in the social stream, trying to limit distribution only spreads the item further, and trying to correct an error is an uphill struggle. Does Apple -- or your organization -- have a realistic policy on managing social media during a business crisis or other event?

Ignoring the social channel is no cure for a missed opportunity. The social media sphere had already determined that Steve Jobs would offer free bumpers for the iPhone 4 at the news conference on Friday July 16. Had Apple not done so, the fallout (on both a PR and financial front) would have been even worse on Monday July 19th. With gag fixes like an "Antenna-Aid" and other items, the damage has been limited, but not undone.

• Point to ponder: In this great blog post -- "Antennagate" -- former Apple exec Jean-Louis Gassée imagines a (sci-fi) alternate past with Steve Jobs offering social transparency about the antenna issue at the product launch. If only it were so. But in a socially-connected news and commerce world, a company's leaders can no longer stay inside the walls of a PR and legal fortress. The social forces are too plentiful, and too powerful, for a firm to withstand a such a siege. Better to step out through the gates and begin talking to those social forces directly.

To be sure, the strong earnings news released Tuesday, July 20, has driven AAPL's stock price up near pre-CR review levels today. Maybe Steve Jobs was counting on that in his less-than-fulsome acknowledgment of the antenna problem last Friday. The point is not the stock price moves alone, but the speed and power of socially-driven digital distribution of information -- good, bad or simply engaging -- to capture attention, influence perceptions and trigger decisions. Business leaders of all stripes ignore this new dynamic at their -- and their organizations' -- peril.

Here are just a few of the posts that help create the social tsunami around the iPhone 4:

• A timeline of the iPhone 4 launch
• "Lab tests: Why Consumer Reports can't recommend the iPhone 4"
• Another CR blog post: "Why Apple—and not its customers—should fix the iPhone 4"
• NPR's MarketPlace item: "Apple's perfect image, broken"
• Huffington Post Twitter feed includes tweet on this: "Apple DELETES Thread On Consumer Reports' Negative iPhone 4 Review " plus the story item.
• TUAW's "Apple drops Consumer Reports/iPhone 4 threads down memory hole [updated]"
• An undeleted thread on the Apple support forums: "Topic: Are the moderators removing threads about the Consumer Reports findings?"

Moderating Communities Of Purpose (How To Help Professionals Collaborate Online)

Hurray! We are reaching a point in the evolution of social media where clear definitions are starting to emerge in support of our practice. I have often blogged about the differences within online community building – how there are different types of communities and each unique flavor deserves its own strategy and operational plan in order to succeed. In other words, not all online communities are alike and shouldn’t be treated as such.

Recently, my friends over at eModeration in the UK wrote an in-depth research report that addressed the details of creating and supporting Communities of Purpose. I think this is one of the best explanations of the topic out there and I was fortunate to have been a part of the research. This paper focuses on what communities of purpose really are and who is using them (and how); questions brands should answer before setting up a specialist community; the issues facing community managers; and how to overcome those issues, and manage a community of purpose effectively.

I was curious as to why they chose to focus specifically on communities of purpose – or what I call collaboration communities. So I reached out to them to learn a bit more...

Question: What was the reason you chose to focus on this specialized kind of community – are you seeing more of these kinds of communities cropping up at eModeration?

eModeration Answer: Certainly we are. We currently work on quite a few such communities: for example, one focusing on diet and weight loss, another couple for people taking control of their medical conditions, a large community for new parents. And we are seeing short-term, goal-focused communities springing up all the time - the recent UK election was a good example where a single event gave rise to a host of campaigning communities. It's so easy to set up a website - or even just a Facebook group - that communities of purpose are springing up en masse from the grass roots level, and brands can make intelligent use of that need for communication and empowerment.

Question: Do you find that they are more difficult to manage from a moderation point of view than the more consumer focused communities?

eModeration Answer: I'm not sure that 'difficult' is the right word: it's just that they have their own special challenges. In one sense, such communities are a gift to run, because it's likely that you will attract people who really care and rely upon the information, support and contact which it will give them. But you are dealing with a potentially higher degree of churn, often a very high level of sensitivity (for example, Breast Cancer Care, whose community manager Leah Williams also contributed to the white paper), and with goal-focussed communities, the problem of managing its natural lifespan. Add that to the normal challenges of community management and brand participation within a community, and yes, I suppose it does take some specialist care.

Question: What do you think is the best staffing ratio for communities of purpose and how does this differ from consumer communities or what I would call Information Dissemination communities?

eModeration Answer: One of the great things about communities of purpose is that the members are usually very motivated and engaged and as a result there is a propensity to self-govern. The moderation and community management of these types of communities is usually less hands-on and less worrying about low level issues such as swearing, spamming and illegal activity. Having said that if the particular subject matter is very emotive or perhaps there are very different viewpoints (the different styles of parenthood springs to mind here) then flame wars can happen. This is where a consistent and open approach to community management comes in to help de-ruffle feathers.

Question: What are some of the key performance metrics for measuring the success of a community of purpose from your point of view?

eModeration Answer: I don’t believe this differs too greatly from other online communities. The main KPIs for any community performance are member registrations, member engagement (how many are actually participating in the community beyond merely reading the community), member rate of return; loyalty (how often are they returning to your community), and number of active users with a certain time period (within the last week, month, year). It’s always also worth looking at your moderation statistics such as the total number of flagged incidents (flagged up by members), total number of violations, and the types of violations. This will help to inform your community management strategy in order to help better educate members about the House Rules that are most often being violated.

Question: I know that moderating communities of purpose require a specialized skill set – what do you think are some of the key behaviors or best practice for moderation?

eModeration Answer: At eModeration, we always try to 'match' our moderators to the projects they work on: we assign moderators to projects using our large database of their experience, interests, likes and dislikes because we find (not surprisingly) that people will always perform better when working within an area that interests them and they have experience. This is even more important with Communities of Purpose, where often there is a need for a high level of involvement with the users, sympathy for their situation, and knowledge about the subject. For example, on our site for new parents, we have a resident pregnancy and childbirth expert working, and therefore we can be sure that if any advice is given on the site it will be correct. As for other skills, all people involved in online communities need to develop a very thick skin. They also need to be able to apply guidelines fairly and consistently, have exceptional communication skills, good judgment, empathy, passion and the ability to nurture the community whilst also ‘letting go’.

Leader Networks Summary: Thanks to the smart people at eModeration for taking the time to share their expertise (they have lots of great resources in addition to this one on their site)! Skilled moderation is the lifeblood of any successful online community. While business needs to drive the formation of an online community – the business goals and outcomes driven performance – the execution of online communities is best managed by the guiding hands of a moderator or, in the case of larger online communities, a moderation team. The art of knowing how to cultivate and nurture community members’ ideas is a critical differentiation of most b2b online communities – from welcoming new members to cultivating a leadership team. In some cases, community moderation is best managed by the organization especially when there is deep subject matter expertise required and in other cases, a moderation partner helps companies support the community with hard to find skills and programmatic process. But in all cases, online community moderation is quickly being recognized as a specialized role best conducted by an experienced professional! Here is a recent blog post where I have described the role of community manager in detail. And here are some top tips for moderating online communities from my book "Fostering Reflective Practice" on moderation (download required). And, of course, be sure to check out the eModeration research report "Moderating Communities Of Purpose"  for more nuggets on best practice.