Cloud CRM Software Forum

Arguing Social CRM

Anyone who's ever looked at the statistics of his or her blog realized that one great way to get a spike in views is to say something controversial. For example, I once wrote in my other, way-less CRM-centric blog about scale model contests and why proponents of a change to judging were misguided in their basic assumptions. Oh, snap! There was a spike in viewers – primarily from people who were bent out of shape.

Getting people bent out of shape was not my intention, but at least my basic assumptions were right (non-nerds and people who don't build models, take my word for it). If you're going to boost your readership by saying something controversial, make sure that you stand on firm ground. Otherwise, you'll just attract more spectators to see you demonstrating your lack of understanding of a subject.

Last week, I saw an example of this – or, to be generous, an example of an argument so poorly structured that it looked as though the writer was deficient in his understanding of the subject he was writing about. But, if the subject's a good one, at least it can stimulate discussion that's worth listening in on.

Gabriel Gheorgiu penned a post called "Social CRM is Dead, Long Live Social Media Flavored CRM" which, by its title alone, is a clear attempt at provocation. But right out of the chute, there's an obvious issue with his argument. He starts by saying that CRM "is not and cannot really be social, since social means 'of, relating to, or occupied with matters affecting human welfare' (definition taken from The Free Dictionary). In my opinion, CRM does not really affect human welfare, since it brings advantages only to its users and to the customers of the companies using it."

Then, he asserts that social media "has a great impact on human welfare" and cites its availability, freedom and the amount of information it puts at its users' disposal. However, social media also accrues "advantages only to its users," to quote Gheorgiu, which by his own logic would suggest that social media is not social, which is of course ridiculous.

At its very core, CRM should be a social endeavor – if you're using it to actually manage your relationships with your customer and not simply using it to organize data and keep track of sales activities. As I have said before, there's been too much emphasis on the "M" and not enough on the "CR." Quite naturally, it's organizations with goals in mind that employ CRM, but the activities those organization engage in are as valid as social interactions as any entered into by private individuals

Later, he says, "…SCRM is nothing more than social media flavored CRM. My impression is that SCRM is just a buzz word used to set some CRM products apart from their competitors, without being different from regular CRM." This statement suggests the view of someone trying to look over the horizon from an old-timey CRM perspective toward what CRM is evolving toward. First off, there are no genuine Social CRM products yet, only what I would call components that organizations can use to build a strategy. Second, Social CRM demands that the "IT project" view of CRM finally slinks off into extinction while the "organizational discipline" view of CRM ascends. SCRM is not about products, and failing to understand that dooms your efforts before they ever start.

I invite you to read the post and, especially, the comments from Mike Boysen, Prem Kumar and Mitch Lieberman, who make very good points. And I look forward to reading more that illustrate how Social CRM (and basic CRM) concepts are still somewhat poorly understood. That by itself is helpful to know.