Organic vs. Inorganic Communities
Having been involved in on-line communities (social networks or forums/Yahoo! Groups, etc.) for a long time, I have a theory… well, I am sure there are already proven psychological, sociological, and anthropological theories that already exist about organic and inorganic communities from people who are much smarter than me, have PhD after their name and explain it with words that take a dictionary to decipher their meaning. So, I’ll keep it simple and focus on my thoughts (perhaps that’s a better word) from a marketing and social media perspective.
Both communities, from my experience, have several characteristics (and I am sure I won’t capture them all and mileage may vary based on individual driving experience):
Organic Communities:
- Are borne out of passion
- Seem to pop up overnight and attract “like” people that immediately provide conversation/content
- Don’t typically self promote and grow organically by word of mouth
- Have a culture that is specific to their community
- Feed off one another (self-induced psychological pressures, “I want that!” “I need to share this!”)
- Raise up people who contribute to and enhance the community
- Help one another via cross pollination of information
- Encourage sub-communities to form
- Don’t like to be controlled
- Get protective when people interrupt the natural flow of the community through disruptions (the community will self-heal in one way or another)
Inorganic Communities:
- Are created for a specific reason (i.e. to promote, sell, research, connect customers, listen, customer service, etc.)
- Need to work harder to attract members and need to create conversation/content to induce new conversation/content (that ol’ chicken & egg syndrome)
- Often rely on self-promotion to grow
- The culture is that of the company that created it (i.e. passionate about a particular company, cause, etc.)
- The organizers tend to be the experts
- Are more focused and controlled
- Have rules of engagement for members
Now, these might seem like extreme differences and I am sure companies like Communispace, HiveLive and Neighborhood America and community creators/managers probably won’t agree with my list of characteristics of inorganic communities. And that’s okay, they are the pros after all (please chime in, but please don’t promote your products/services). But, after trying to build a community* from the ground up as a company versus easing myself into an organic community on Twitter as an employee, I’d say the latter was much easier and led to natural conversations. I don’t mean to sound negative towards inorganic communities, that’s not my intention. I just think they are harder to produce and don’t typically have the same purpose, culture, need generation, or levels of evangelism. Overall that’s my completely non-scientific theory in a nutshell.
[*I am no longer employed by the company that started the forum.]
Here are a few thoughts for how businesses can leverage organic communities (they have been with me since I wrote about the Pepsi social media campaign back in October):
- Join the above forums/groups and listen to what the community, especially the evangelists, is saying about your brand (but don’t interrupt)
- After a listening for a while (maybe even a long while), join the conversation
- Know and respect the rules of the community (i.e. don’t force yourself into an organically established community)
- Be yourself, not ‘corporate’
- Do not be overtly promotional, but answer questions when they come up
- Take time to find out how the community feels about your brand
- Share some ideas about new product/service concepts and listen to the feedback
- Occasionally offer special deals to the community
- Understand that fragmented conversations happen and have the potential to leave the community – it’s your job to follow them.
- Continue the conversation…daily, on-going, as long as the community exists. (i.e. DO NOT use the community for your branding efforts!)
So what do you think? Have you experience both kinds of communities? Do you think companies would benefit from engaging an organic community versus starting an inorganic one?
[Added: This post has nothing to do with tribes or Seth Godin....haven't even read the book review. I have had these thoughts for years after being an active member of three on-line groups and experiencing first hand what happens within them and how companies don't engage or appreciate organic communities that embrace their products.]
[Image: eAccessII]
Even More Goodness! Related Posts:
Tags: communities, Marketing, Social Media
23 Responses to “Organic vs. Inorganic Communities”
The Harte of Marketing by Beth Harte is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at www.theharteofmarketing.com. [If you have a question about what you can use from this blog, click on the above Creative Commons link to learn more.]
Drawing a distinction between organic and inorganic communities I feel is a useful one – so thanks for highlighting that. I’ve been battling with this issue – see my recent post (http://tinyurl.com/7528oq) and feel free to comment!) – and came to the conclusion that you need both but for different objectives. But if you’re really in listening mode, which all marketers should be, then organic channels are more likely to give an unfettered view of your brand (assuming they’re motivated to discuss it!). Cheers.
Good and interesting post Beth!
It makes me wonder about “lifecycle” of inorganic vs. organic. Does that matter? Not sure.
If an organic group comes together for a cause, but then takes on more “structure” to work on other related “causes” then some folks would likely leave, but the group continues. Do they them become inorganic since structures, hierarchy and process then come into play?
Are organic groups more immediate and short term? Can they be long-term and still be inorganic?
Giles Crouch (Webconomist)’s last blog post..Passive & Active Social Media: High and Low Engagement
[...] (and great posts) -Finding and embracing your online evangelists in 5 minutes – Mack Collier -Organic vs. Inorganic Communities – Beth Harte -Humanizing Your Brand – One Customer at a Time – David Finch -Will Facebook Be The Death of [...]
Nice post, Beth. I actually agree with most of what you’ve written here. Inorganic communities are much harder to produce and the conversation can easily feel forced or unnatural, particularly when unrealistic expectations are placed upon the users: members are expected to find purpose when there is none, or excitement from some new social media tools that have been snapped in place.
Inorganic communities can indeed be successful – we see those results every day. But that success typically happens when those organic characteristics find their way in and enable that community to thrive.
We cover this subject in an eBook ‘Transforming Your Business Networks.’ It’s an easy read that explores how these inorganic communities succeed, and why it’s so important to the long-term survival of companies. (Sorry, you do have to register for it…I haven’t figured out how to bypass that, but the registration is simple and we won’t harass you!). You can find the piece here: http://www.neighborhoodamerica.com/e-books
Kristi Grigsby
Neighborhood America
Kristi Grigsby’s last blog post..Neighborhood America Leads Next Stage of Web 2.0 Marketplace, Meeting Enterprise and Government Needs for Results
I’m so glad you raised this issue, Beth, and spoke to it so thoughtfully. I’m the SVP of Innovation and Research at Communispace, where, as you noted, we recruit and run what you refer to as “inorganic,” and what I would refer to as “intentional” communities. As a member and facilitator of both forms, I think your observations about organic communities are dead-on. I also agree that inorganic communities tend to be more focused (because they are typically organized around some explicit and shared purpose), and generally do have rules of engagement for members. In the insight-generating communities we run, we don’t impose rules or controls around what topics can be discussed or sentiments expressed, but we do insist that members speak to one another in a respectful manner — a pretty essential rule when your objective is to create a safe, intimate environment in which to listen and share experiences. And while we do explicitly *recruit* community members (since when the goal is insight, our clients need to know not just what is being said, but need a deep and ongoing understanding of who is saying it) and drive some of the conversation with them, the typically small, intimate nature of the communities and the shared purpose of our membership tend to make community members *very* engaged and active. At the end of the day, the clearest articulation of the differences between the two forms of community tends to come from the people who belong to both (as many of our members do). What we hear from them is that the organic communities provide a forum in which to connect with the people they’d be seeking out and connecting with offline. In contrast, the “intentional” communities like those we run give them a chance to connect with the brands and decision-makers with whom they want — and have never previously had — a direct dialogue. Both needs are pervasive and valid, and each form of community serves different needs in slightly different ways.
Great post! I often try to think about when the two types of communities blend together, if they can at all. The first example I could think of was Target and their Christmas Wrapped blog. [I wrote about it here http://tinyurl.com/6oxhgg I hadn’t really thought of it as a blending of inorganic and organic until I read your thoughts. They embraced organic communities, with featured writers including dooce and prominent mommy bloggers, and brought them into an inorganic community. I think Target nailed it for this one, but am curious to know your thoughts on the blending of the communities and if brands should ever expect to see success from trying to do this?
I’ve joined organic communities on a personal/semi-professional (my freelance interests) basis. And I guess it could be said I’ve been part of an organic community as part of my job. But I found the organic/job-related community came with some struggles–likely inherent to some boundaries placed by the company.
Funny thing, my personal/semi-prof community has grown and flourished (in my opinion) as I’ve embraced its format, the relationships, and its communal nature. Conversely, I’ve felt the other gig (the corporate blog; no Twitter) not go as far in terms of generating conversations and general flow.
Not sure if this precisely fits in with your post’s purpose; maybe a bunny trail about how businesses can’t put up a blog and use a schedule for posting and simply expect things to happen. It’s only thought leadership if it matters to those outside, and they react and build on it.
Luv ya, Beth…Thanks for making me think.
Heather Rast’s last blog post..Do You Use Listening Ears To Learn and Grow?
Two rules that I have noticed about communities:
1 – They seem to form when a group of people share a sense of ownership in something larger than themselves.
2 – Communities don’t form around the idea of being monetized.
I still maintain that for most companies, they are much better off trying to become a contributing member of an ‘organic’ community, than to try to start their own. Very few companies can do this effectively, because they want to organize a community around what is THEIR best interests, instead of around creating value for others.
Great post!
Mack Collier’s last blog post..Finding and embracing your online evangelists in 5 minutes
Great and insightful post, Beth!
I feel inorganic communities definitely take a lot more work to implement and gain traction – though probably easier with big brands.
Organic communities thrive on passion. Having that behind any community or even a company, is contagious and definitely grows that specific community a lot faster than would an inorganic one, as passion (from those outside of the company’s payroll) is easily visible and is what helps recruit even more brand advocates.
Sonny Gill’s last blog post..Transparency – The Double-edged Sword
Agree 100% but you know that most brands– and the people who advise them– are still too stuck in the “push” mentality to consider the value of joining an organic community.
Way too much loss of control for them, combined with the fact that they really have not accepted that “Your Brand Is Not My Friend” and really do expect people to show up to their inorganic communities to chat about things that matter way more to brand managers than to consumers.
Which makes it that much easier for the companies that follow your advice to succeed.
Alan Wolk’s last blog post..Tipping Point
[...] is an interesting article on organic vs. inorganic communities by Beth Harte, very smart lady. It outlines her thoughts [...]
Hi Beth,
I think many of us are having the opportunity to think about this as we straddle the (fuzzy?) line between communities we join for fun and those we are intentionally building.
I compared it to childbirth
in a blog post awhile back (http://fantastic-machine.com/penina/?p=103).
Mack is more realistic than I am about it because it’s true most businesses are unwilling to let nature take its course. For now.
I believe those “inorganic communities” can cross the line and share in much of the vitality when they trust the natural process of community building, and the ability of users to participate in the process.
Great post, although I respectfully disagree (partially) with bullet 2, “After a listening for a while (maybe even a long while), join the conversation.”
While it can be important to prepare for the conversation by observing first to get a solid understanding of the issues before jumping in, withholding participation can be misinterpreted as being calculating and disingenuous. It’s perfectly OK to say that you’re just listening carefully so you can better understand the issues in order to better respond. However, you should add that, “in the meantime, don’t hesitate to reach out to me.” This at least makes you accessible and less of a lurker.
Remember, social media is about participation. If you’re not engaged, you aren’t participating.
Neal Wiser’s last blog post..Quick Status Update
You make an interesting and worthwhile distinction between organic and inorganic communities. For me the opportunity is in the organic communities because this is where the heavy category users are likely to be found, but marketers must tread lightly.
If marketers are willing to listen to, and empathize with the community’s passions, they can take advantage of this opportunity to reach this influential group. But, this isn’t the old marketing paradyme. They must consistently add value to the community, and it must be value from the community’s perspective, before they can expect a return. This will take time but is achievable.
Hobby forums are a good place to see this work. Smart retailers who sell to hobbyists become members of the forums, and actively contribute information and advice without actively promoting their wares. These retailers soon develop a loyal following among the hobbyists who frequent the form. Those that use the forum to shill their wares, well they aren’t nearly as successful.
James Hipkin’s last blog post..CPG Brands: Discerning your Website’s Audience
Beth:
Fantastic ideas presented here. Re: your assertion that you shouldn’t use organic communities to push your branding efforts, wouldn’t you say that even participating in the conversation in an organic way is building your brand? Maybe not overtly, but it definitely is creating value for your business.
Thanks for the great ideas!
Caleb Gardner’s last blog post..Messy is the new neat
Thanks Beth for another thoughtful post. An important conversation for sure. As I drafted out a comment to contribute, it rapidly turned into too much, so I’ve posted the details on my blog (http://snurl.com/av3so), and summarized here:
At HiveLive, we use the term “organic” for communities too (company-sponsored and consumer-facing alike). And “organic” — in the sense of being natural, being mutually beneficial to all members, being alive and self-sustaining — seems to be a success criteria for any type of community.
Our experience echos that of Julie’s of Communispace above: it is certainly possible to grow a thriving company-sponsored (or “intentional”) community.
As such, I would propose identifying criteria for successful (living/thriving) communities, independent of source or origin… here’s a start to such a list (http://snurl.com/av3so), building on many of the criteria mentioned above.
Regarding life-support vs. self-support: another key dimension we’ve identified is community maturity. Assuming a community is designed and aligned to member motivations, our hunch is that the energy required to energize and maintain a community is most tightly correlated with the community’s stage of development (e.g., founding > forming > critical mass > self-sustaining).
If both shapes of community (shouldn’t there be more than two?) can exist, and in our experience they can and do, the next question we get asked is how can they most effectively interact and work together in the broader ecosystem?
John Kembel’s last blog post..jkembel: blogged today: Organic Communities? Thoughts on the attributes of thriving communities and on community maturity… http://snurl.com/av3so
@JonathanBetts, Exactly! It’s the ‘unfettered view’ that I would think brands would want. I think people understand when they are in a controlled and constructed environment.
@GileCrouch, great questions! Wish I knew more about sociology, because I am sure there is an answer there. I was thinking of inorganic as being built by a company or a provider like Communispace. I think organic groups tend to be more long-term and inorganic being more short-term (once the company has that data they need, there isn’t a need for the community any more…or perhaps a new brand manager takes over & decides the community is unnecessary).
@KristiGrigsby, @JulieWittesSchlack, @JohnKembel, thank you so much for taking the time to add your insights from a professional perspective. It will be interesting over the next few years to see if companies will begin to embrace organic or inorganic (intentional) or the mix of the two, as Julie mentioned.
What I am wondering and will outright assume is that companies feel “safer” in an intentional community because there are controls and a goal. I would think organic communities are still a bit like the Wild West for them. Any thoughts from that perspective?
@HeatherRast, it works for you because you understand how to participate within the organic community and as people like Geoff Livingston pointed out, sometimes for blogging efforts to be successful a community is needed first.
@SonnyGill, I scratch my head on a daily basis wondering why some brands (mainly luxury) don’t embrace the organic communities that have formed around them.
@NealWiser, respectfully disagreeing with your comment. It’s always important to take the time to listen the community as a first step. Otherwise, how will you know if the community you’d like to be involved in even exists (i.e. a company monitoring to see if there are conversations being had about them, their competition, their products/services, etc.)? As well, without taking the time to listen, there is a chance that one may be engaging the community in a way that they are not comfortable with (i.e. controlling them, spamming them, broadcasting, not contributing, etc.). It’s not lurking or being calculating. It’s taking the time to get a sense of the community, learning what’s important to them, what they talk about, what they share, etc. and that’s just smart.
It’s like being invited to a cocktail party…you don’t just hover around people who are talking waiting to be asked into the conversation—or worse—jump into the conversation and trying to control it with your own agenda. You go, you talk to those you know, you observe the people around you and what they are talking about, you attend the next party and then introduce yourself. Etiquette is the same offline as it is on.
Like @JamesHipkin said, “If marketers are willing to listen to, and empathize with the community’s passions, they can take advantage of this opportunity to reach this influential group.” Bingo!
@CalebGardner, and that’s the beauty of social media…indirectly building your brand by building relationships through conversation first.
Beth – Love the post. I’m not a marketer but communities have been popular in my field (knowledge management) since about 2000. The distinction you note – between organic/emergent/grassroots communities and inorganic/institutional/topdown ones – is pretty commonly observed one. It’s possible for a group to shift from one pole to the other (I’ve seen officially founded communities apparently die by the activities of their members and then be reborn as something else entirely and then emergent comunities become more formal to get access to institutional resources).
Some observations I would reinforce:
- Always look to see what people are doing unofficially before coming in with your official community. I believe that companies need to understand the social ecosystems in which they operate. This probably involves multiple communities and networks.
- Communities have a high “failure” rate. The odds against your formal community succeeding are tough. This is partly due to the problem of invisible failures – we don’t see all the organic communities that never took off, we just see the successes.
- You cannot manage communities from on high as an outsider – only as a participant. There’s a lot of useful stuff here from complexity theory but that’s getting a little out there for a blog comment…
Great post. This is one of the most important distinctions that I can think of as we are awash in this wave of communities and groups. Brands/people see the value in the community and work hard to manufacture one themselves. Inevitably they fail because anything inorganic has ulterior motives and agendas. Organic means, as you point out, passion and the ability to mobilize and act without centralized control. Centralized control supposes hierarchy and immediately eliminates the possibility of true participation (it’s oversight). I can’t express how strongly I agree with you.
Nick’s last blog post..Who’s Gonna Tweet When I’m Dead?
Beth, I agree completely with your premise that organic communities are much easier to engage in than manufactured communities.
It really comes down to doing it right in either type of community. Everyone has something to sell or derives their living from someone who sells something. Thank goodness because we all like to buy things.
How the people in a company interacts with the community is the key. I would guess that even an inorganic community can be successful if the engagement is pure, great useful content is provided and the content provider is genuine.
This is exactly what works well in an organic community. Thanks for the post.
Beth,
Spot on with the post! Just thinking out loud, but it would seem that engagement from organic communities can often come from having a common thread, i.e. a topic that everyone is truly passionate about and invested in.
There’s also the dynamic of the community leaders. Sure, the essence of community is that every participates, but on with most social networks I’m on, there are usually members who communicate with more reach, rising to the top with new innovative ways to get the community engaged. This is especially true with LinkedIn groups and local Twitter communities.
@jimcanterucci commented that: “…an inorganic community can be successful if the engagement is pure, great useful content is provided and the content provider is genuine.”
Jim’s hit the head on the nail as well. I believe that inorganic communities (even if their started by companies to engage their audience), can be successful if they’re created with the intention of really connecting community members to build relationships and create opportunities.
Customer communities can have a significant effect on client retention if all the ingredients are present. An example would be a corporate User Group for a software company. Leadership of the company could engage with customers to work on improving software features and fixing bugs. Educational content and discussions on best practices could take place between members if seeded right. All of these members would have a common thread – they all want to use the software as efficiently and effectively as possible. The company could reduce training costs by fostering discussions and then letting community members train each other based on their experience.
I absolutely agree, the goal of the community CANNOT be to sell, but in a down economy when the cost of acquiring a new customer is far greater than retaining your existing customers, I think private corporate-managed customer communities like this can be a leveraged as a very valuable tool. Retention is the new acquisition.
Thanks for the great post!
[...] Brand Using LinkedIn ————– Do You Have A Marketing Plan For Yourself? ————– Organic vs. Inorganic Communities ————– 100 Personal Branding Tactics Using Social Media ————– Tracking Twitter [...]
[...] Organic vs. Inorganic Communities | Harte Marketing & Communications – [...]