What is community relations?

[Morgan]

The Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA) has a very good introduction to word-of-mouth marketing. And since I'm not interested in reinventing the wheel, at least in terms of communicating what I do, WOMMA provides some nice descriptions:

Community Marketing: Forming or supporting niche communities that are likely to share interests about the brand (such as user groups, fan clubs, and discussion forums); providing tools, content, and information to support those communities.

Grassroots Marketing: Organizing and motivating volunteers to engage in personal or local outreach.

Evangelist Marketing: Cultivating evangelists, advocates, or volunteers who are encouraged to take a leadership role in actively spreading the word on your behalf.

Influencer Marketing: Identifying key communities and opinion leaders who are likely to talk about products and have the ability to influence the opinions of others.

In the simplest terms, combine those and you'll get branding. In my opinion, community relations involves all those things.

[Calandryll]

In my opinion, community relations involves all those things.

Again, that's true. But saying Community Management involves all of those things and defining Community Management by those things are two totally different statements. So I still don't agree with the statement that Community Management equals Branding. Again, having done both, they're quite different.

You are defining Community Mangement like this: Community Rep ---> Existing Community ---> Potential Community.

When Community Management actually looks like this: Community Rep <---> Community <---> Potential Community.

The feedback in the other direction is a vital part of Community Management and it goes far beyond the four things you outlined.

[Morgan]

Again, that's true. But saying Community Management involves all of those things and defining Community Management by those things are two totally different statements.

I'm defining Community Relations as the system of activities that develop consumer loyalty to the brand. I'm characterizing the processes of Community Relations by the "phenomena" (e.g., word of mouth, memetics) that supports Community Relations activities. And I'm claiming that branding drives, or should drive, the Community Relations system of activities.

When Community Management actually looks like this: Community Rep <---> Community <---> Potential Community.

I'm very much in agreement with you. Feedback is extremely important. (I created a diagram that illustrates the basic communication cycle awhile back.)

But I'm not defining Community Management as a system of activities. I'm defining CM as a CR activity, CR as a function of PR, and PR as a branding activity. I'm using the term "public relations" as Joe Marconi describes in his book, Public Relations, "Public relations is an umbrella term that covers a variety of areas and functions, including communications, community relations, customer relations, consumer affairs, employee relations, industry relations, international relations, investor relations, issues management, media relations, member relations, press agentry, promotions, publicity, public affairs, shareholder relations, speechwriting, and visitor relations."

[Xilren's Twin]

I'm defining Community Relations as the system of activities that develop consumer loyalty to the brand. I'm characterizing the processes of Community Relations by the "phenomena" (e.g., word of mouth, memetics) that supports Community Relations activities. And I'm claiming that branding drives, or should drive, the Community Relations system of activities.

Speaking strictly in terms of games, do you consider the "Brand" to be the game itself? the development house? the publisher? what exactly?

And on that note, do you really believe there is or can be significant brand loyal gamers in a subscription based world?  I wouldn't think so;
Brand loyalty implies a willingness to stick with a brand even though there may exist a cheaper or better, alternative.  Apple vs Microsoft, Coke vs Pepsi, etc,

Games are an entertainment business and as such are disposable, trendy, and a very fickle market.  Even though it seems like there are a lot of MMORPG's out there, I wouldn't call the market well established yet.  Which means we are very much still in the "first to market wins!" for a lot of new ideas.  Whether it was EQ's first 3D ORPG status, or WoW's casual play to 60, being first a something in this genre means a LOT, but doesn't guarantee you any brand loyalty.

Community management for mmorpg's at least seems to be about only two things:
a. Communicating what your game is about so people who already like that sort of thing know about it and are interest enough to try it.
b. Keeping existing customers satisfied enough to continue to pay for their monthly service, even when bad stuff happens, and that is mainly beating the development team into giving the customers more stickyness to each other.

But no matter how good your CM is, it's a moot point if the game service you offer is lousy, else Star Wars Galaxies and the Sims Online would be the biggest games ever.  Brand names are most valuable for well developed markets with many interchangeable choices or products/services.  I don't think games fit that mold yet.  Hell, I'd argue people have much more Guild Loyalty than Brand Loyalty at this point.

And as a side note, for pity's sake please stop spouting business school jargon.  It's even more devoid of meaning as most semantic oriented discussions on Terra Nova.  I swear if i start seeing phrases like "we've got to think outside the box", "we need to empower our cusumor partners to develop creative synergy", or "we need a new community management paradigm" I'm going into Dilbert-goes-postal mode.

[WindupAtheist]

This thread...  It fills me with something...  What is it?  What could it be?  Oh yeah, now I remember.

[lamaros]

This Morgan character seems to be a rather grasping wannabe overachiever. That's snide jargon for "wanker".

Calandryll, when was is in your years of Marketing/CM that you lost the ability to communicate with people? (That first post was a shocker, you have to admit)

This thread saddens me.

Edit. Because I thought we could do with some more humor in here:

When Community Management actually looks like this: Community Rep <---> Community <---> Potential Community.

I'm very much in agreement with you. Feedback is extremely important. (I created a diagram that illustrates the basic communication cycle awhile back.)

[WindupAtheist]

basic communication cycle

Oh god, it's a chart!

CHART THREAD!!!  Fuck yeah, here we go!



Yes I know that what Morgan posted was more of a diagram than a chart.  Don't piss on my fun.

[Venkman]

So now that the defintion is down, what is it that you'd like to discuss Morgan? Where the barriers exist and could come down? Where things go wrong and could be righted?

[Calandryll]

I'm defining CM as a CR activity, CR as a function of PR, and PR as a branding activity.

Quotes from books aside, I think this is the crux of our disagreement. You see Community as a subset of PR. It's not. Community is it's own function. It supports PR, just like it supports development, QA, customer service, etc. Limiting OCR to a function of PR is just that - limiting. It misses a lot of opportunities.

Oh and WindupAtheist - that's still my favorite chart of all time. :)

[Grimwell]

I'm not sure we can salvage this with any discussion. That said, Vader would like to know more about CM if you are willing to show him.

[Morgan]

Speaking strictly in terms of games, do you consider the "Brand" to be the game itself? the development house? the publisher? what exactly?

Brands represent the experiences of every person who has interacted with the brands since its inception. Branding connects these experiences to engage, empower, and encourage people in conversations. These conversations are relevant and useful to the people involved with the brand, and, by a lot of poking and prodding, lead to a certain five-sense perception of branded offerings. In a sense, the brand is the spirit of the game, developer, and publisher, and that spirit is communicated by the people involved with the game, developer, and publisher, to other people.

And on that note, do you really believe there is or can be significant brand loyal gamers in a subscription based world?

Yes. Frank Magid Associates unveiled its research at the MI6 Game Marketing Conference in 2006 that identified brand loyalty as the leading purchase motivation for gamers. comScore Media Metrix, along with several other market research groups, confirmed these findings. A good parallel to MMOG subscriptions are magazine subscriptions. The content of each magazine affects the spirit (brand) of each magazine, and subscribers are affected by the spirit of "their" magazine in terms of whether they want to continue subscribing, or write a letter to the editor expressing their outrage or thanks. How often do you hear gamers talk about the games they play as "my games" and "your games", or the characters they create in virtual worlds as "my characters" and "your characters". In shooters, "You killed me!" "I killed you!" With recent psychological research suggesting that what happens in virtual environments is very emotionally real to the users, I have no doubts that there is, and can be, significant numbers of brand-loyal subscription gamers.

Which means we are very much still in the "first to market wins!" for a lot of new ideas. ... being first a something in this genre means a LOT, but doesn't guarantee you any brand loyalty.

I feel that this is mostly due to the level of sophistication in this industry's marketing practices, and part of the reason why I want to establish a Marketing SIG of the IGDA. Being first is a way to set what you're selling apart from the competition, but it's not the only way. Jack Trout, who fathered the Positioning concept with Al Ries, wrote a book, Differentiate or Die: Survival in Our Era of Killer Competition. It's a very well-written book; that is, you don't need a marketing degree to read it. He describes a number of ways to add unique flavor to offerings. I like this one quote he references in regards to being first, "As Thomas Edison advised, 'Make it a habit to keep on the lookout for novel and interesting ideas that others have used successfully.'" There he's referring to "borrowed firsts", such as TelePizza in Madrid whose founder used Domino's home delivery pizza concept to successfully launch a chain of restaurants in a different part of the world. I'm thinking of all those MMOG developers who are looking at World of Warcraft as a model for their products.

I don't think games fit that mold yet.

For the most part, I agree with you, but I don't think games will always not be that way. I'm looking to the future.

And as a side note, for pity's sake please stop spouting business school jargon.

Terminology is jargon to people outside the field in which terminology belongs. I think I've used a lot less terminology than I could have used. And I don't want to assume that you don't understand what I'm talking about. That'd be much ruder than assuming you do understand.

You see Community as a subset of PR. It's not. Community is it's own function. It supports PR, just like it supports development, QA, customer service, etc. Limiting OCR to a function of PR is just that - limiting. It misses a lot of opportunities.

I don't think it's limiting. I think it's... empowering. (Sorry, Xilren's Twin.) Look, the CEO is the primary spokesperson for an organization. He's the public relations chief, or at least, he's supposed to be. When you're your own function, like consultants, you're overhead. You're not necessary to the operations of business, and in an economic downturn, the rug can be swept out from under your feet in an instant. But when you're a component, a function, of public relations, you're vital and necessary to the business. The CEO needs you, wants you, even. And you'll get that much more support, and possibly even a chair in the boardroom. I just don't see the logic in embracing a secondary position (a la Will Stronghold in Sky High) when you have available to you a larger, primary role where you can do so much more.

[lamaros]

Can someone ban him already?
 
I thought there might be more pictures or charts, but all we get is walls of meaningless text...

[Signe]

I would post some hobbit pr0n but I've been FORBIDDEN.   

[WindupAtheist]

Brands represent the experiences of every person who has interacted with the brands since its inception.

Kill me.

[Strazos]

Yeah, that makes no fucking sense. I'm not part of a brand.

[schild]

Brands represent the experiences of every person who has interacted with the brands since its inception.

Kill me.

That sentence really did take it to the XXXXXXXXXXXXXTREEEEEEEEEEEEEEME.

[Cheddar]

I am so confused now. 

[Lt.Dan]

That sentence really did take it to the XXXXXXXXXXXXXTREEEEEEEEEEEEEEME.

X13 - usefully eXtreme commentary.  Maybe we can have an EXTReMe week - a cross between Raging Douchebag Week and Festivus.

[Calandryll]

I am so confused now. 

You're confused? I don't even know what I do for a living anymore.

[palmer_eldritch]

You can't define a brand by saying it is the experience of every person who has interacted with the brand. Interacted with what?

If people identify with their character in an online game, it doesn't mean they are loyal to the brand (whatever the brand actually is). It certainly doesn't mean they are loyal to the game, dev house or publisher. It might mean they want to keep on playing the game, but I don't think that's the same thing (incidentally, Bartle says identifying or caring about a character is not enough to keep someone playing - yeah I read Bartle's big book).

It's not an insult to think I have no idea what "a certain five-sense perception of branded offerings" means.

In an effort to be vaguely constructive, I'll give my vote to the idea that it is hard to encourage brand loyalty in entertainment. Personally, I think South Park is still hilarious but I don't watch it any more unless it happens to be on when I am flicking through channels. When it first started, I watched it religiously. I actually think it is funnier now, but I want new shiny. However, when it comes to boring old shampoo, I always buy the same brand and I don't even know why.

I think community relations in an online game is less important than we sometimes imagine. I almost never read the WoW boards or have any contact with the people behind WoW except logging into their game. It works, I enjoy it - I guess the fact that the servers usually work and the game does what it is supposed to is a form of customer relations, but in a very nebulous way. I know nothing much about Blizzard, never played Warcraft, and I bought Diablo but didn't like it. None of that makes any difference to me.

On the other hand, I hated Verant and SOE from the EQ (first EQ) beta. They hyped up the fact that there would be an open beta which "everyone" would be able to take part in. Everyone was what they said. In those days, these games were quite new and that seemed very cool and exciting. I was an EQ fanboi.

Then the time comes, the e-mail arrives "welcome to the Everquest beta!" or something, and there's a little note at the end - north America only. What did they think their customers would take "everyone" to mean?

Rightly or wrongly, it pissed me off. And we all know what their customer relations was like once the game launched, at least at first.

But it didn't stop me giving them money for two years, as I liked the game. I'm pretty sure I won't stick with WoW as long, as right now there is more shiny on the horizon and I like trying new things. I want to try Vanguard, just to see what it is like, and if I do like it I'll probably subscribe for a while and close my WoW account, nevermind Brad McQaid (sp?) and SOE's involvement.

Customer service is obviously important - the game must work, the bugs must be bearable, the company musn't charge your credit card twice, but I don't know if that's the same as community relations.

In MMORPGs community relations might play a role in getting people on board before the game's launch - setting up a message board for people to chat on, etc. Getting some guilds involved. But when Vanguard, for example, comes out, what is going to determine how well it sells? Personally I suspect it will be reviews in magazines and the big gaming websites, adverts in magazines, whether the box looks nice, where the shops actually place the boxes and the usual boring stuff. The overwhelming majority of potential buyers will not know or care what FoH or the people on this board or even the people posting on Vanguard boards over the past few months thought about the game (although I suspect a more significant number will make a decision during the kind-of-open beta period they now have going).

[schild]

X13.NET is already taken. (Click Here for Details)

Maybe you would like...

X13ONLINE.NET
X13WEB.NET
X13HOMEPAGE.NET
WHATISCOMMUNITYRELATIONS.NET

[tazelbain]

F13thebrand.net

[Trippy]

I am so confused now. 

You're confused? I don't even know what I do for a living anymore.

You are a facilitator that maximizes the synergistic potential of multiple communications channels for a brand.

[Lum]

I am so confused now. 

You're confused? I don't even know what I do for a living anymore.

You create synergy among possible high value brand identifiers in massively social spaces.

Personally I want to know if UO really has negative 55 thousand subscribers.

[schild]

Personally I want to know if UO really has negative 55 thousand subscribers.

I've been on the EA payroll for years.

[schild]

This is for Morgan. I don't want anybody else to respond to this. I repeat. I do not want to see a response to this from anyone but Morgan.

Morgan, do you know what that image is from? If Yes, say what it is from and give me a description of the game. If no, just say no.

Edit: I just have to assume - now that I've seen you refresh a couple times, that you have no clue what it is. And that's ok. It is sort of embarrasing for you if you don't though. As it's one of those completely unique moments in gaming history - or really branding history (in any market). Nothing like it had ever been created. And trust me, that screenshot really says everything except the title. If you know, it's instantly recognizable.

[UnSub]

Yes, gamers have relationships with game brands, dev studio brands and publisher brands, among others.

However, due to the very fluid nature of the gaming industry, most brands don't hang around all that long - it might be one game, or a few years at most. Then they die due to various reaons and leave only nostalgia behind. Or get bought out and what the brand means is changed (as a new example: EA Mythic... or maybe not...) or perhaps the brand means very little overall in the first place (eg EA).

But then there is also GTA, Blizzard, HL, Fallout - names (brands) which mean a lot more than just a game to a lot of gamers.

As for "what is CR" - you are currently arguing long on semantics, Morgan. Imo, PR and CR might overlap in some cases, but are quite different creatures due to their targets.

[Evangolis]

Okay, Schild, I can not respond to that, I think.

Jargon is bad.  The point of highly technical words is to make things clear within the field of discussion.  The terms are shorthand for years of experience.  That terminology works in the technical environment where people have that experience or the education in that experience, but outside that environment, it fails badly.  Worse, it makes people feel dumb, and nobody likes that. If you can't say it in non-technical terms to a non-technical audience, don't say it.

I do think brand loyalty is an important issue in this industry, but the best example is negative. SOE.  At this point, SOE could release a game that caused spontaneous orgasm for anyone with fifty feet of the player's computer, and it would still get bad buzz.  A lot of that was bad CR, and a lot of it relates to design choices.  Just as there has been a failure to incorporate other aspects of CS and CR into the basic design of games, so too has there been a failure to consider marketing as an integral part of the game.  I don't mean in game advertisements, I mean creating games that have broad appeal, that create positive experience.  That doesn't just mean making games with good technical functions, but making games that begin with ideas in the common consciousness, that are broadly understandable.

Most folks here hate that idea, since we don't want broad appeal, we want narrow appeal, we want our game, that validates our vision.  I think that part of what Raph is trying for with his 'dinosaur' arguments and his new company is that.  And I think that that is probably something like what Morgan is driving at.  But, dude, you need to sell it better.  You're the college boy talking to the guys at the gas station here, and that never works.

[schild]

Actually, part of the big problem with what he's selling is he's selling it to a bunch of people who DO KNOW about branding and ESPECIALLY know about community relations. And somehow, he's confusing us. I'm pretty sure I speak for everyone when I say "Yer not smart enough to be talkin' like that HURRR HURRR HURRR and we can smell it."

[lamaros]

Actually, part of the big problem with what he's selling is he's selling it to a bunch of people who DO KNOW about branding and ESPECIALLY know about community relations. And somehow, he's confusing us. I'm pretty sure I speak for everyone when I say "Yer not smart enough to be talkin' like that HURRR HURRR HURRR and we can smell it."

Aye.

There are people here competent enough to enter into jargon filled discussions in a variety of fields

It's not that he's using jargon, it's that he's using it to hide the fact he's not saying anything (probably due to not understanding much). If you rewrite what he has said w/o the jargon it just adds up to a lot of insipid nothingness, so why do we want to get involved? Trying to use jargon to hide the fact you don't understand much only works when you're speaking to the ignorant (and in such situations it's pretty much fruad).

We're not ignorant. We're just poking fun and the fraudster who picked a bad spot to masturbate.

edit: Engrish.

[Morgan]

You can't define a brand by saying it is the experience of every person who has interacted with the brand. Interacted with what? ... It's not an insult to think I have no idea what "a certain five-sense perception of branded offerings" means.

Representation isn't definition. Brands represent the sum of the experiences of the people who interacted with them. What is perception? Perception is the system that produces experiences using the five senses, or processes, of sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell. The products of perception are unique experiences. Everyone sees, hears, tastes, touches, and smells their own perception of reality in a way that makes every one of us an individual. We're set apart by our history, our approach to living, the people we know, and the things we do.

Yeah, that makes no fucking sense. I'm not part of a brand.

You're right. You're not part of a brand. But every time you communicate your views about other people, products, services, etc., you're contributing to brands by allowing other people to share your experiences or at least understand how they fit into the bigger picture.

If people identify with their character in an online game, it doesn't mean they are loyal to the brand (whatever the brand actually is). It certainly doesn't mean they are loyal to the game, dev house or publisher. It might mean they want to keep on playing the game, but I don't think that's the same thing (incidentally, Bartle says identifying or caring about a character is not enough to keep someone playing - yeah I read Bartle's big book).

What I'm getting at, both here and with my article, is that there are a lot of opportunities where community relations can encourage people to take a game and say, "It's my game, and through my involvement I'm going to make my game into something I've always dreamed." That's what people are doing with Second Life. And further into the spectrum of games, that's what people have done with the games that have spawned GameSpy Planets communities. I want people to feel good about their decisions, about their purchases, and I want them to know they are getting something truly of genuine value in return for their hard-earned money. Community relations can do this, and the opportunities are there.

As for "what is CR" - you are currently arguing long on semantics, Morgan. Imo, PR and CR might overlap in some cases, but are quite different creatures due to their targets.

I never said that CR is PR. PR shares CR goals because CR is a form of PR. It's just PR for different stakeholders just as IR is PR for investors.

Morgan, do you know what that image is from? If Yes, say what it is from and give me a description of the game. If no, just say no.

No. Looks like a pie chart made to look like a watch made to look like a countdown to global domination. Pretty cool.

But, dude, you need to sell it better.

I'm not trying to sell anything. schild brought up the topic about what I do, not me. I just wanted to talk about community relations with a group of people who have strong opinions about community relations.

Actually, part of the big problem with what he's selling is he's selling it to a bunch of people who DO KNOW about branding and ESPECIALLY know about community relations.

That's interesting, schild. You do realize that you are now celebrating F13 as a community of marketers, right?

[slog]

I knew it.  Sir Bruce Gimmick account.

[schild]

I don't expect most people to know what that image is, particularly not the PC Gamers around here. BUT when you combine PC Gaming with your claims of knowledge in the branding field, there's simply no excuse. To put it simply, and without any jargon, you don't know enough about the history of your field if you don't know what that image is from - thankfully someone has summed it up better than I could. So I'll leave it to Hardcore Gaming 101 to lay down some knowledge. You may have some interesting things to say about games, but the sort of masturbation you've dropped on us thus far isn't really in the style of F13. It's more the type of shit you'd overhear at Terra Nova Avenue or Bruce Woodcock Lane or HRose's Engrish Emporium.

[Morgan]

You may have some interesting things to say about games, but the sort of masturbation you've dropped on us thus far isn't really in the style of F13. It's more the type of shit you'd overhear at Terra Nova Avenue or Bruce Woodcock Lane or HRose's Engrish Emporium.

Well then, I suppose I chose the wrong community, and I will be leaving. So long, and thanks for all the fish.

[Strazos]

I want people to feel good about their decisions, about their purchases, and I want them to know they are getting something truly of genuine value in return for their hard-earned money. Community relations can do this, and the opportunities are there.

In English, you want to give people a pat on the back for purchasing either A) something that's actually a PoS, but you'd rather people didn't catch on, or B) a product that actually is good...but if a product is good Anyway, why would the purchaser need your reassurance that it's good? The good qualities of the product should speak for themselves.

If your client is a game dev, and I've already purchased the game...what are you trying to do for me again? You already have my money.


Also, we're not marketers. We're not trying to sell Anyone Anything; there's nothing in it for us. If anything, the way things have been going around here lately, we're the anti-thesis of marketing - we're like negative marketing, raining down blows upon games from on high. And also calling bullshit wherever someone notices.