CONFESSIONS OF A MODERATOR1

18 & 19 March 2008,The Riverbank Park Plaza,London

Paper 14

CONFESSIONS OF A MODERATOR:HOw wEb COMMuNITIES FAIl AND HOwMARkETERS CAN STOp THAT HAppENINg

Tom Ein

Research International

CONFESSIONS OF A MODERATOR2

CONFESSIONS OF A MODERATOR: HOw wEbCOMMuNITIES FAIl AND HOw MARkETERS CANSTOp THAT HAppENINg

Tom Ein,

Research International

Introduction: Unintended Consequences

If I was allowed to dedicate this paper, I would dedicate it to a baby called Harry, who was born last July to friends of mine

who rst met on the web community I started in 2000

. When I started a music discussion board it’s fair to say that I wasn’texpecting, or hoping, that it would lead to a friend having a baby. Because online communities simulate and intersect with realcommunities, they are subject to the same laws of unintended consequences.Not all unintended consequences are as dramatic or delightful as a baby, but they are still what make web communities sofascinating to run. A simple example is ‘off-topic’ content. Online communities tend to come together for a particular purpose

– usually it’s talking about something its members have in common. But as members get to know one another they’ll nd

themselves talking about lots of other stuff too. At this point the people running the community have a choice – allow thepeople to talk about the other stuff or not. But any successful community automatically has the

potential

to generate off-topicmaterial.This sits outside the parameters of traditional market research - my day job while I ran and took part in web communities.Research is most often about the generation of intended consequences – answers to pre-set questions; the deliverables andoutputs our clients pay for. Its primary tools, like the quantitative survey or discussion group, are geared to minimize off-topicmaterial: its participants are not generally encouraged to take their interaction beyond the moment of research.Recently, marketers and researchers have become interested in web communities, in part because of the possibilities foropen-ness they offer. At last year’s conference, for instance, Mike Cooke and Nick Buckley presented the paper

“Right Brain,Weak Signals”

which strongly argued that researchers needed to embrace this open-ness, these unintended consequencesand ‘fuzzy outcomes’, and explore the use of communities as research tools.That paper indirectly inspired this one. It struck me that as I’d run a thriving online community for several years, I might havesomething to say about how they work. So this paper is written from a moderator’s perspective, offering a look not only at thepotential that web communities hold for marketing, but also the stresses and opportunities that arise within most, if not all,successful communities, since not all unintended consequences are positive.

Freedom And Control: Styles O Community

First of all, let’s dene our parameters a little more. The term “community” can refer to a myriad of web activities – fromauction sites to prole-based social networks.

For the purpose of this paper I’m talking about communities whose purpose isdiscussion – which tends to mean a forum, bulletin board or blog which encourages comments. These are also, I’d suggest,the type of communities most likely to directly provide the user-generated ideas and insights researchers are looking for.

CONFESSIONS OF A MODERATOR3

Even narrowing the denition down to this type of community leaves us thinking about sites with very different interfaces, feels,

and levels of content. One fundamental factor in determining the style of a community is the level of control its owners imposeover each of four elements:

•

User participation:

is the community open to all or invitation only? Do new members need community or moderatorapproval?

•

Topic

: does the community have a central topic subject and how tightly does it enforce that? (One important way ofcontrolling this, for instance, is to limit who can start new discussions.)

•

User content:

how much free speech are users allowed? What is the procedure for editing or deleting controversialmaterial?

•

Time

: is the community time-limited or is it expected to operate or grow indenitely?

These elements can change as a community evolves and there are no ‘right combinations’: different communities havedifferent purposes and needs.For example, the Guardian’s popular ‘Comment Is Free’ community

is designed as a space which celebrates and privileges

freedom of speech. It has a high level of freedom in terms of user participation and content, and is designed without a specic

expiry date. However the level of topic control is moderately high – users cannot suggest topics, they can only respond topostings by the site’s paid writers.

Research Communities

How do communities built for research purposes generally approach these design factors? There’s a split between project-led

and client-led communities – ones built for a specic research objective (like testing new concepts or products) and ones built

as a more general user or consumer panel for a client. In these, consumers of a client product or category are brought togetherand discuss their experiences: insights ensue.Project-led communities are generally time-limited with tight participation and topic control. Depending on the project,however, the level of freedom allowed for user content may be very high (certainly, censoring material produced in a researchproject would be counterproductive!).Client-led communities are often designed to be permanent and have a lot more open participation. The level of topic controlvaries – contributors are often allowed to start discussions but may well be required to stay on-topic. The level of freedomover user content will also vary – possibly depending on the brand the community presents a public face of. A family orientedbulletin board run by a food company, for instance, may have a stricter approach to censoring language than one run by MTVor Harley Davidson.The effectiveness of these research communities is becoming widely and publically accepted. A recent issue of MarketingWeek, for instance, quoted the example of Del Monte, whose dog owner community convinced the manufacturer that therewas a market for specialist ‘breakfast’ dog snacks.

Communities Create Cultures

The phrase “client-led” is a slightly loaded one to describe these communities, though. After all, aren’t they really “consumer-led”? Yes, but the use they are put to is based on a business agenda. As the website for community-building rm Liveworldputs it, “All communities form a culture, even if left to themselves. The best of them develop cultures pro-actively guided toengage the members, engage your brand ethos, and meet particular goals. 

There has been vigorous debate over the level of “pro-active guidance” needed for useful consumer communities to develop:

advocates of radical co-creation would argue that letting the consumer’s voice be heard uncensored is paramount. Theconsumer may be critical and angry with a brand, but that’s when she’s most productive to the attentive brand owner.But consumers can also be angry with one another, or more passionately involved with a competitor. They can be silly or

ippant. They can be entertaining enough that the quality of their rhetoric obscures the paucity of their insights. They can talk