Tagged with 'adoption'

As social media marketing gets a grip on your attention and wallet, its seeds of failure are already sown. Now I am very much of a wind-at-my-back kind of person. And if ever there was a powerful wind, the gale force of social media marketing certainly seems like it. So why such negativity?

As a lifelong early adopter I’ve jumped on a lot of bandwagons that have either stalled at the starting line or tanked altogether. Back in the days, I sold – or tried to sell -  the Apple II computer with 4K of internal memory and a cassette tape recorder for loading programs (yes, you read that right – no disks, no harddrives) and the original Odyssey video game. I skydived the first internet bubble without a parachute and went splat. It is not unusual for some things to start with a bang and end with a whimper. Yet, today, Apple makes great computers, video games rival movies for entertainment dollar spent. And the Internet, well, it’s back. And that’s why I think your social media marketing initiative is going to fail

I just reviewed my friend Chris Rollyson’s article on the Web 2.0 adoption curve. It is déjà vu all over again.

Chris Rollyson's Web 2.0 Adoption Curve

I’ve been here in a different life. And based on my current experience working in the trenches of Web 2.0 implementation, I’d say he’s right on. Here’s what I believe is happening.

Social media gained traction with kids who are both more naturally social and technically savvy. While there were many small initiatives, the ones that have entered our consciousness include MySpace and Facebook. MySpace remains segmented into the youth culture. Facebook made a strategic move, breaking from its students-only membership policy to become the most visited social media website. Yahoo gobbled up the social photo site Flickr and Google absorbed the social video site YouTube. Game on. LinkedIn, a social medium for business folks grew 150% year over year 2007-2008.

The role of social media marketing in the captivating 2008 presidential election not only increased visibility but also provided a clear case study of demonstrable success. Today you can’t avoid a news story about the micro-blog tool, Twitter. The battle cry has gone forth, “I gotta get me some of that social media stuff.” And here’s where it begins to crack.

Expectation is great. You know, if it worked for Obama, it can work for me. But for most who don’t have the proper coaching or understanding it won’t. Social media marketing is disruptive. It requires new skills, new tools, new tactics and an entirely new strategy. And, on a mass basis, we’re not ready for that. So initiatives are going to fail. The failure will feed on itself. Enthusiasm will wane. Momentum will disappear. Disappointment will be pervasive.

But Web 2.0 won’t go away for the simple reason that it’s a great idea. Chris calls this the “triumph of determination.” We’ll pick up the pieces and attack the project again. This time we’ll be a little more prepared; a little wiser. We’ll learn from our mistakes and mass adoption will succeed.

So am I suggesting you sit this round out? Not hardly. There are definitely benefits to be gained and learnings to be achieved. And you won’t get these by staying away. In fact the opposite it true, the most successful Web 2.0 implementers will be the ones who gain experience in this first round. Just go into this with your eyes open and know that this is not business as usual. But then, right now, what is?

When we think about the usability of the products that we sell, it’s because we have come to recognize that usability affects user perception of our products and, ultimately, sales. When consumers don’t find a product usable, they have unfavorable reactions that range from not using the product to returning it, to blogging about their complaints to steer others away from buying it. We’ve learned to take usability seriously, and put a certain amount of effort into making sure our designs are well thought out. When it comes to bringing products into the organization, can we make that same claim?

The implications of implementing a content management system (CMS) not vetted for its usability can make it a disruptive and costly endeavor. The idea that users will simply adopt a technology implementation is idealistic, but often does not bear out. Human nature is to take the path of least resistance, and when an application puts barriers in the way of accomplishing a task, a user is likely to fall back on tried-and-true ways as the means to a speedy end. When a naturalistic system is presented, i.e., the system is made to work in a way more natural to humans, users are far more likely to adopt the system. I’ve watched users, particularly when under pressure to get something done “right now,” or by quitting time on Friday, to bypass technology with system-based processes, in the interest of expediency. They may even intend to redo their little shortcuts “the right way” when they return Monday morning, but of course, by the time Monday rolls around, they’ve either forgotten or gotten caught up in work-a-day pressures that deprioritize the correction of a process they see as inherently broken.

Ultimately, system non-adoption or non-adherence costs the organization in several ways: loss of time, loss of content accuracy, and ultimately loss of the very efficiency that the system was put in place to address. That can translate into lost hours, lost productivity, and, in organizations sensitive to the possibility of potential lawsuits arising from content irregularities, an increased risk factor.

Testing a content management system for usability before its implementation is not unusual, and should be part of the standard due diligence undertaken by any organization considering a move to content management. System usability can be tested at several steps during the presale phase.

The first usability test can be done as early as during the demo, where you can watch for obvious usability problems, such as illogical sequencing of steps in a process, or interface buttons or commands that require jumping around or opening multiple windows at odd times during a process. The next test can be done once you’ve developed your use cases to present to the shortlisted vendors. In the ensuing discussions, the vendor should be able to demonstrate how you would accomplish specific tasks, based on your use cases. Because a CMS may have significant customizations for your organization, a coherent, end-to-end test is not likely, but the vendor should be able to isolate common tasks for testing. The last, and most extensive, test should be during the proof-of-concept, when the system you’ve chosen has been customized and installed for testing. This is the last chance to get any usability kinks worked out of the system. At this point, you shouldn’t be testing for the obvious – that should have been done before signing on – but you should still have the option to put the application through its paces to ensure that internal users can get their work done with ease.

Putting effort into getting a usable CMS goes beyond the obvious need for driving efficiency and accuracy. It says that you value your internal users enough to ensure that they have a toolset that works for them. Usability in a CMS creates a win-win situation, and that goes a long way in the workplace toward system adoption.