Lessons learned from Social Content 2.0 Circle of Life – Part 3

My outside your firewall, shared listening and engaging Community Product Manager service offering for social software vendors/providers.

Sharing
Sharing does have its advantages

According to wikipedia

Shared Services refers to the provision of a service by one part of an organization or group where that service had previously been found in more than one part of the organization or group. Thus the funding and resourcing of the service is shared and the providing department effectively becomes an internal service provider. The key is the idea of ‘sharing’ within an organization or group.

Background

As the title suggests, this is the third and final part of my Lessons Learned series and where I’ll propose the business model I’ve come up with. Here’s my previous related posts:

  1. How to infuse Social Content 2.0 into your social software lifecycle
  2. Trial offer to test the Social Content 2.0 Circle of Life
  3. Lessons learned from Social Content 2.0 Circle of Life – Part 1
  4. Lessons learned from Social Content 2.0 Circle of Life – Part 2
The Business Model
  1. I will assume the overhead costs associated with:
    1. Monitoring the social software market. Using Radian6, I would create a Topic Profile including keywords for social software vendors / providers like Socialtext, Atlassian, Blogtronix, MindTouch, Cynapse, Liferay, Vignette…
    2. Filtering out and tagging relevant buzz about product features and directions across the market
    3. Offering free service exporting tagged content and publishing on blog
  2. Offer monthly fee-based services where I would:
    1. Net out tagged content with respect to product features and publish on permission-based site (Say for example there’s a few posts about “permissions”. I would then write a 1-liner describing the “permission feature” and link to the original supporting content published Step 1.3)
  3. Offer hourly, or, tiered fee-based services where I would:
    1. Collaborate with respective social software vendors’ / providers’ (Customers’) Product Managers to determine which features described in Step 2.1 should be elaborated
    2. Engage with original content authors and elaborate on product features selected in Step 3.1
    3. Privately share results of Step 3.2 with respective Customer Product Managers
    4. Collaborate with respective Customer Product Managers to determine which features described in Step 3.3 require further assistance / services

Other variations
I could resell Radian6 Seat licenses – governed by certain permission restrictions and share my Topic Profiles for those:

  1. Customers whose only pain is the cost of Radian6 (who can then determine later on if they want Steps 2 and/or 3)
  2. Potential colleagues who would collaborate on Steps 1, 2 & 3
Thoughts?

What do think? If you’re a social software vendor/provider, is this a service that may be of interest to you? Do you currently have a Product Manager? If so, is your Product Manager able to keep up with the social content? Do you see the any value in consolidating the redundancy? Do you see where it really is just a matter of per·spec·tive? Where …

one piece of content can yield dividends for many investors 

I’d love to hear from you folks in the field & prove there is a way we all could succeed at doing more with less.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

5 Replies to “Lessons learned from Social Content 2.0 Circle of Life – Part 3”

  1. The concept is logical. The devil is in the details. I’m not familiar with Radian6, heard of it, but that’s all.

    The question I have, and assume everyone else would have, is how competitive is the information that your selling. Is the data that Radian6 provides better than other sources such as Google?

    What is the depth and breadth of Radian6? Does it monitor Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn …. along with everything posted on the web?

  2. Hi Val,

    Saw your comment and with Steven’s permission, wanted to reach out. The short answer is that we cover the breadth of the social web that’s public – so Twitter, blogs, FB and LinkedIn public areas (like LI Answers and such), online news, photo and video sharing sites, etc.

    Would be more than happy to chat with you about our capabilities and what makes us unique. Feel free to contact me anytime at @AmberCadabra on Twitter, or via email at amber.naslund@radian6.com.

    Thanks, and thanks Steven for your hospitality. 🙂

    Cheers.
    Amber Naslund
    Director of Community, Radian6

  3. @ValWorkman
    Thanks for your thoughts. In trying to stay logical, I asked Amber to respond directly to your Radian6 questions.

    I just want to reiterate that my hopes are to go beyond simply sharing relevant links. As Amber pointed out, Radian6 is quite capable of filtering the buzz. However…

    “As a Community Product Manager, I would like to sift through those results, net-out content that may be of interest to Software Product Managers, potentially engage with the Most Frequent Contributors and elaborate on their ideas, so I can contribute as an outside Stakeholder in the product development lifecycle.”

    So just as Radian6 filters the buzz, I would filter the context and then build on it.

    @AmberCadabra
    Thanks, for your – as always, timely help!

  4. * I would think that social content filtered by an expert would be a research data point. I am not sure the stakeholder label really applies here.

    * I would speculate that there is probably a lot of rich data on the words customers use to describe things that could inform product labeling and branding. The hard part would be to determine whether these users whose data you are capturing are part of the product’s target audience. In other words,”the target audience for the product is network security analysts but I am not sure whether the data I am filtering is from system administrators or network security analysts.” This is where the data is only as good as the expert that is filtering it.

    * As Val said, I think it is important that the system be able to take feeds from all social content tools and make the system flexible enough so that it can be easily configured to take feeds from future social content tools.

  5. @Gibbs Barrow
    I’d like to clarify on the Stakeholder label. In my opinion, the Stakeholder would not be the customer posting about labeling and branding. PR / Community Managers would most likely be interested in with their content. The Stakeholder would also not be the administrators or network security analysts.

    The Stakeholder would be the person filtering out the content, determining whether the source is an administrator or network security analysts and then potentially engaging that source to better understand the issue.

    Actually, given your background in contextual inquiry, in-depth interviewing and Voice of the Customer (VOC) techniques I would think you fit the persona of a Community Product Manager. (Peruse the Background links.) If so, that would make you The Outside Stakeholder. (See So surprising, it is worth noting | outside-in-thinking)

    And as The Outside Stakeholder, I would also imagine the business model proposed above could serve you well. So if you’re interested in social software development from a product manager’s point-of-view then maybe look back at the model – specifically Other variations.2.

    If your product management interests are in other areas, then maybe you should get in touch with Amber (Comment above yours).

    Thanks for socializing!

Leave a Reply