Please define “Community”
I need some help. I am getting some requests internally from some people about wanting to build out a community. I have my own definition of what a community is and should be, but I would love to know from folks like you what your idea of a community truly is.
I would like to keep this discussion centered around software. So lets for instance, a .net or SAP or Oracle community. What truly does a community involve and what would be expectations centered around a community based feel.
Technorati Tags:
online communities, communities, software communities, software, marketing, social networks, professional networks
Amanda, and 
The Scrappy Software Marketer 
Amanda 11:43 am on July 25, 2007 Permalink |
Virtual communities! Since days of the WELL, people have been trying to define what that means. To me, the simplest definition for an online/virtual community is a group of people with a common interest who communicate via the internet or Web.
Put another way, an online community, regardless of the interest or theme (in this case software), is a social network. In my studies, research and personal experience, there are very few differences between an online community and a RL (“real life”) one. Just as in RL, there are varying degrees of engagement or types of participation with online communities – and this may be the crux of your question. I.e. – it’s not “What is a community?” but “What kind of community is it?”
Meaning – a blog is an online community, however it has a different level of engagement than, say, a message board where members are free to create and comment to posts and threads at will. Both unite people around a common theme or interest, but engage people in very different ways. A file sharing site like Flickr has a very different engagement level/type than Wikipedia, where something of a wiki-cult has sprung up uniting people around the task of maintaining and contributing to the site.
So where Quest is concerned, I think the questions need to be: What is the purpose of X community? (Where X = Foglight, SQL Server, etc.) Is it to disseminate information, look for feedback on products, help customers with questions/issues, or attract people with a common interest or profession? Agreeing on the purpose of the community would help decide the vehicle (blog, message board, portal, etc.) to best reach that goal. And it would then be the responsibility of Quest to maintain that goal – because that is the expectation set for the community’s visitors and the reason for them to return.
This is turning into a novel – sorry. 🙂 But one last thing…. I think it’s easy for people with limited experience to downplay or disregard the power of online communities. Not always, but often, there is a strong bond and mutual respect between community members – and to me this is one of the keys to a successful community and something the community owners need to always be mindful of. And in my opinion, the largest pitfall of online communities is setting up/maintaining one without the customer in mind – i.e. blatant marketing tools, poorly moderated or unresponsive community “owners”, promising to be one thing and not delivering, etc. I imagine the later is something that many companies jumping on the online community bandwagon are struggling with. It is an ongoing commitment – sometimes a full-time one – to run and maintain a successful, thriving community. If any of our competitors have successful communities (and I can think of one), it’s most likely that they “get” all of the above, or that they’ve patterned themselves on other successful communities.
thescrappysoftwaremarketer 11:47 am on July 25, 2007 Permalink |
thanks amanda for your post. I am wondering if the response to a company sponsored community with company branding talking about its products etc..is a better/worse than one which provides an general transparent experience to a common interest. My guess that the latter would be more popular.
Amanda 12:03 pm on July 25, 2007 Permalink |
Totally agree. I think it’s all in the approach and maintaining the original, transparent intent. Along these lines, Sql Serv Cent’s message board is an interesting beast. Clearly branded as RG since the purchase, it’s still thriving and active – and offers visitors the opportunity to comment on/recommend competitor tools… and conversely, leave honest feedback about RG’s products.
However, it also opens up a whole other can of worms – i.e. this thread. Which may be the root of the pushback/fear you’re getting from our folks when working toward a “community” – they fear full disclosure, honest feedback or the possibility of competitor confrontation.
Thoughts?
Amanda 12:04 pm on July 25, 2007 Permalink |
Sorry – link didn’t work in the last post:
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/forums/shwmessage.aspx?forumid=340&messageid=347558
thescrappysoftwaremarketer 12:13 pm on July 25, 2007 Permalink |
That is the new economy and either people need to learn to collaborate and become transparent or the reputation or pseudo reputation of the company can be destroyed. These are new times and new times require new things. The book wikinomics does a great job illustrating this. Collaborate or die. Adapt or die. Companies that hold things close to their chest and only want to beat the branding/product drum will falter. A new mindset and shift needs to happen in every company. Some do it better than others and some don’t do it at all.
Amanda 12:20 pm on July 25, 2007 Permalink |
Ever heard the expression, “teaching an elephant to dance”? 😉 I think that’s where we’re at with our somewhat *cough* conservative company. Changing behaviours and attitudes here, as I’ve seen, is like pulling a hairpin turn in a bus. That’s hauling a trailer full of other busses.
The positive is that it seems that a lot of our folks are more willing than others to make that scary change in approach (i.e. opening ourselves up and making ourselves “vulnerable” through honest, transparent customer and competitor feedback). I think it’s just going to take a lot of hand-holding, guidance and examples of other companies wins in this area to drive the point home that this is actually a good thing in the long run – it will shape and foster more positive relations with our customers.
thescrappysoftwaremarketer 12:27 pm on July 25, 2007 Permalink |
i just hope that people take pause and not jump on the bandwagon to jump on the bandwagon and give some careful thought as to where they want their stance to be 12, 18 and 24 months out. I am totally optimistic but kinda scared as well.
Amanda 12:43 pm on July 25, 2007 Permalink |
I’m right there with ya. I think as with all new things, it’s a learning process. I’ve realized after working on the SQL blog the need for a requirements doc, or something, that outlines the commitment from the team, what their goals are, the lifetime of the community, etc. It’s taking a lot longer than I expected to bring a project like this up to speed, and mainly because of the time it takes to educate folks on the nuts and bolts of the project. (And surprisingly, fielding questions like, “What is a blog?”) On the positive side, it’s awesome that we’re not afraid of trying new things. On the downside, I realize now just how much education is needed to help people understand the purpose behind these projects.
Have you or Eric ever considered doing a training session on blogging, message boards, etc.? My experience so far is that most people I work with barely understand “Web 1.0” let alone when/how to consider building a community, and all the efforts and approaches that go along with that goal (gain a positive online reputation, earn trust… and that all online activities do not equal direct response/lead gen. ;-))
Stock Investment information blog 8:13 pm on February 25, 2008 Permalink |
Stock Investment Information
Stock Investment information