1) Change is Hard
I had overlooked the fact that many of my constituents had been running their “social media strategy” organically. The fact that someone else was coming into their territory and changing their business practices was not received well. In fact, many of them question my strategy, even though our divisions had never written a plan or given much thought as to why they were using social media. Other than other companies are on insert social channel and we should be too. Yay for differentiating.
Change is hard and no one raises her hand and say, “ yes, I like to lead a project in which no one is interested in. Sign me up for that!” Instead of giving up, I used the first 6 months to getting our corporate channels in running order. It was lesser of the two evils as I was able to make immediate changes. I evaluated what channels we used based on what allowed us to be successful in terms of our goals: engagement and brand awareness not what was the new shiny object. We increased brand mentions, followership and influenced in 6 months by double digits. This increase began to intrigue our internal folks. By building our credibility, I was able to leverage this into working with our stakeholders on their channels.
My organization at the beginning of our social media experiment had more than 45 channels and growing. I evaluated social media channels on simple measurements: 1) are we actively using this 2) do people react or post comments 3) is it worth our time?
Using this logical approach, we began to shed social media channels in which we 1) were not active or 2) no one was actively engaging. Now, in the beginning, I receive a lot of resistance on delete accounts that were not active. My rationale was simple: If no one has posted any content in a year or years, do you really think people are still actively looking for what you post or say? Most people couldn’t answer yes.