Why Most Online Communities Fail
Monday: July 21, 2008 6:56 AM
Recently, the Wall Street Journal published an article on why online communities fail. The author, Ben Wortham, quotes a study done by Deloitte on 100 companies that have attempted to build online communities. The research pointed out that around 35% of the companies reviewed had less than 100 members and 25% had fewer than a thousand members. What isn't clear is if these numbers only represented the number contributors or how big the reader population might have been. In some business situations, the contributor rate might be low but the readership rates are extremely high. The report concludes with three key areas of concern for these type of implementations.
1. Too much of a focus on the technology; bells and whistles
2. No fulltime employee engagement or subject matter expertise involved
3. No ROI or metrics used to measure progress
These three elements coincide with what we have seen inside the corporation as well. While #1 has not been as big an issue, #2 and #3 have shown how they can derail even the smallest community effort. That being said, let's add a few more that we have seen over the past few years.
Online communities seem to struggle when there is no real business reason to get involved. Focusing on the business environment, people need a reason to come to the community. This reason may include customer support, tips, techniques, best practices, news, or simple sharing of information. Communities that try the open end or "anything goes" approach will struggle to stay afloat.
The information needs to be updated frequently and by qualified members. Information can become stale real quick and without a constant flow of content, members will find better things to do with their time. How often and how much is up for debate but most blog experts say 2-3 times a week is adequate.
While not covered very often, rewards can be offered to encourage traffic and contributions. We give a book away every month to a random customer just to show our appreciation for the business. Rewards do not have to be physical; they can be emotional such as the ranking and rating of content. Everyone wants to feel needed or that they are helping in some way, so the rewards can be extremely valuable to the life of the community.
Finally, time is often overlooked in this instant gratification environment. While there is no set formula, you need time for the community to evolve. False starts and technology reductionism is a common within large and small groups. So be patient, time is on your side.
Recently, the Wall Street Journal published an article on why online communities fail. The author, Ben Wortham, quotes a study done by Deloitte on 100 companies that have attempted to build online communities. The research pointed out that around 35% of the companies reviewed had less than 100 members and 25% had fewer than a thousand members. What isn't clear is if these numbers only represented the number contributors or how big the reader population might have been. In some business situations, the contributor rate might be low but the readership rates are extremely high. The report concludes with three key areas of concern for these type of implementations.
1. Too much of a focus on the technology; bells and whistles
2. No fulltime employee engagement or subject matter expertise involved
3. No ROI or metrics used to measure progress
These three elements coincide with what we have seen inside the corporation as well. While #1 has not been as big an issue, #2 and #3 have shown how they can derail even the smallest community effort. That being said, let's add a few more that we have seen over the past few years.
Online communities seem to struggle when there is no real business reason to get involved. Focusing on the business environment, people need a reason to come to the community. This reason may include customer support, tips, techniques, best practices, news, or simple sharing of information. Communities that try the open end or "anything goes" approach will struggle to stay afloat.
The information needs to be updated frequently and by qualified members. Information can become stale real quick and without a constant flow of content, members will find better things to do with their time. How often and how much is up for debate but most blog experts say 2-3 times a week is adequate.
While not covered very often, rewards can be offered to encourage traffic and contributions. We give a book away every month to a random customer just to show our appreciation for the business. Rewards do not have to be physical; they can be emotional such as the ranking and rating of content. Everyone wants to feel needed or that they are helping in some way, so the rewards can be extremely valuable to the life of the community.
Finally, time is often overlooked in this instant gratification environment. While there is no set formula, you need time for the community to evolve. False starts and technology reductionism is a common within large and small groups. So be patient, time is on your side.
Comments (3)
Very precise comments, to my mind. In my own practice, I have seen all the reasons you mentioned result in communities not taking off quick enough, even failing.
Another reason I'd like to add: communities, in most cases, need to be supported by hierarchy. This goes in the same direction than your comment about ROI, but I go even further: when senior executives understand the value-creation potential of professional communities, most barriers are easier to overcome.
Posted by: Luis Alberola on July 21, 2008 07:49
I couldn't agree more that there needs to be a sound reason for customers to come to your community, and that customer support is one good driver. I've likened this to a "destination" retailer versus those that need others to generate the traffic.
More on my blog post here:
http://corpblog.helpstream.biz/helpstream-blog/2008/7/18/building-customer-communities-has-to-start-with-customer-ser.html
Posted by: Bob Warfield on July 21, 2008 10:53
Your comment on users needing a reason to get involved is good and it made me think. Unfortunately, it didn't give me the ability to convey my thoughts well. Here goes...
One of the problems with traditional communities is that purpose of the community was very explicit. Its members were either explicitly added (you SHOULD be a member of this community) or they explicitly elected themselves.
However, Web 2.0 technologies allow communities to evolve and grow organically. Membership in these communities can be suggested to non-members based on common interests, attributes, etc. The emergent nature of these communities also makes them feel more fluid and their purposes can change with the membership and changing attitudes of their members.
I speculate that in an Enterprise 2.0 setting, this means that organizational communities of practice can emerge based on the activities and interests of the organization's members. Once formed, the purpose of these communities becomes up to the membership - Will they identify and promote best practices? Will they self-select experts within their area of focus? Hopefully, these are the types of behaviors that naturally emerge - if not, perhaps they can be subtly injected.
At any rate, I'm hopeful that Enterprise 2.0 will create a more functional community model for many organizations that have had trouble with more traditional models.
Posted by: Tom Pierce on July 28, 2008 23:17