ComBlu State of Online Communities 2010

The State of
Online Branded Communities
A Study of Community Performance and Integrated
Social Media for America’s Top Brands
December 2009
PREPARED BY:

ComBlu The State of Online Branded Communities 2
© Copyright 2007-2009. All Rights Reserved. Communications Blueprints, L.L.C. All copyrighted
and trademarked material presented herein is the sole property of Communications Blueprints,
L.L.C. (d/b/a ComBlu).
Table of Contents
Introduction……………………..3
Community With Purpose…………………………………...3
Lessons Learned…………………………………………………..4
Strategic Conclusions……..5
No There There…………………………………………………...5
Key Findings……………………...6
Experimentation Most Prevalent………………………...6
Inconsistent Best Practice Adoption…………………….6
Social Media Integration Lags……………………………...6
The High Performers…………………………………………...7
The Contenders………………………………………………….. 7
The Outliers………………………………………………………...7
Missed Opportunities…………………………………………..7
Methodology…………………….8
The Approach…………..………………………………………..8
Calculating Brand Score……………………………………..9
Selected Findings……………10
Appendices
Industry Detail…………………………………………………..20
Company Details……………………………………………….25
Community Sites Reviewed……………………………….26
Brand Score Methodology………………………………...27
List of Best Practices………………………………………….28
Glossary…………………………………………………………….29
Bibliography……………………………………………………...31
Contact Info……...……………32

The purpose most often cited for building an online
community is ‘customer engagement’ – a term that
marketers toss around like Frisbees at a dog beach. Yet
despite the fact that the art and science of community
building has advanced considerably in recent years,
most brands fall short when it comes to actualizing this
key goal. The marketer’s mindset has evolved from
“build it and they will come” to “scaling and measuring
business impact,” but reality does not reflect these in-
tentions. To succeed, community planners need a cohe-
sive strategy, a grounding in best practices and an un-
derstanding of how to truly engage with stakeholders.
This ComBlu research project was designed to closely
examine the community and social marketing programs
of 45 companies, all of which are major brands across
nine different industries.
Specifically, the research evaluates their effectiveness in:
1. Providing a meaningful experience for members,
2. Integrating their brand strategies across multiple
communities and social media, and
3. Taking advantage of best practices to strengthen
customer engagement.
The importance of these factors cannot be overesti-
mated. The Gartner Study predicts that more than 50
percent of companies that have established an online
community will fail to establish mutual purpose, ulti-
mately eroding customer and company value.
Brands have wholeheartedly embraced the concept of using online communities and social marketing to engage their
customers and stakeholders. Even in the midst of a recession, the 2009 Tribalization of Business Study found that 94
percent of respondents planned to maintain or increase their investment in online communities. A recent Gartner
Study projects that, by 2010, more than 60 percent of Fortune 1000 companies will connect to or host some form of
online community. However, according to Forrester Research’s latest report, Three Steps to Measuring Social Media
Marketing, when asked how effective their efforts were in properly measuring and planning their social marketing
efforts, the average was a failing grade (4.5 out of 10). Poor measurement and planning leads to poor results. Forres-
ter’s report, published October 29th, 2009 shares not only this conclusion, but also outlines a path for improvement.
Introduction
Community With PurposeCommunity With PurposeCommunity With Purpose

Our research found many examples indicating brands
do not understand what people want or expect from an
online community or the role the brand plays in fulfill-
ing those needs. They also fail to realize that engage-
ment is both personal and multidimensional, which
requires a serious commitment by the brand to be in-
volved. It’s not just hiring a team of mom bloggers or
having a Facebook page or even building a branded
community. These and other stand-alone tactics ulti-
mately are dead-ends unless they are linked to a
broader brand purpose. The brand needs to be an ac-
tive participant in the community and interact in ways
that resonate with members or visitors.
Another key finding was that the majority of communi-
ties in our study offered only a limited number of ways
for members to engage. This lack of channels overlooks
the fact that different types of people prefer to interact
with communities in ways that suit their personalities.
Without giving members multiple ways to participate, a
community can quickly become a ghost town.
The high performers in our study were on the other end
of the spectrum. In fact, the four who achieved a
“Cohesive Strategy” Brand Score on average used 17 of
the 23 best practices being evaluated. What makes this
especially important is that almost all of these best
practices are tools or pathways for engagement.
High performers also provided more opportunities for
purpose-driven conversations on topics of genuine
interest to both the company and its customers. It is
imperative that brands have a strategy for leveraging
the feedback, ideas, and insights they gain. According
to the 2009 Tribalization of Business Study, “to realize
the full benefit of social media and online communi-
ties, business leaders must move beyond viewing them
as ‘bolt-ons’ to their corporations. Companies need to
integrate the new information flow associated with
communities with those that already exist inside their
corporations.”
Engagement is a process, not a destination. Although
the brands in this study were in various stages of this
journey, all could have benefited by adopting a more
systematic and strategic approach to community build-
ing. The real purpose of online communities is to cre-
ate closer and deeper relationships with customers.
And the rewards are not just higher loyalty and in-
creased lifetime value, but customers who are active
participants in defining the brand and helping the busi-
ness grow.
Introduction
Lessons LearnedLessons LearnedLessons Learned

With a few exceptions, urban planning is
lacking in brands’ approach to integrated
social marketing.
Industries with multiple brands are missing the oppor-
tunity to use an integrated approach to social market-
ing to cross-sell and extend the umbrella effect of the
“mother brand,” or conversely, to extend the halo ef-
fect of individual brands to other brands and to the
mother brand. Most notably branded communities
often:
► Lack a consistent user interface across commu-
nities geared to the same audiences.
► Offer little integration of communities geared
to same audience by the same company but
different brand or product groups.
► It seems that many brands create a community
tab without first determining the real need for
and mission of its community program.
It’s unclear what brands are doing with the feedback and
input captured in their communities. There’s little visible
active community management so the interactivity
borne of true engagement is truncated.
► No obvious acknowledgment of feedback or
ideas. Part of the reason people offer ideas is
because they want to feel a part of the brand,
or want to help it thrive.
In some instances the brand has absolutely no presence
inside the community. There is no human face of the
brand. And, when there is, often there is no easy way to
communicate. It’s almost as if the brand thinks it needs
a community but doesn’t want to be bothered with actu-
ally engaging. This is a huge missed opportunity.
Strategic Conclusions
Common wisdom today is that the entire web is social
and brands are doing a good job of incorporating social
tools into websites, often putting many of them behind
a “community tab.” In reality, most of these are good
examples of social web but not true communities. They
lack the sense of destination and in most instances
display no compelling reason to return frequently.
► Many brands seem to be using a community
tab to jump on the bandwagon. But there’s no
”there there” when the visitor registers and
gets behind the community tab. Instead of
engaging the visitor, the brand drives them
away because they offer little of value. Con-
sumers today are sophisticated users of social
tools and seek out communities to learn,
share and interact. If these elements are miss-
ing or there is no obvious organizing structure
that fulfills specific needs, the “faux” commu-
nity will be quickly abandoned.
No There ThereNo There ThereNo There There

Most brands are still in the social marketing experi-
mentation stage. These brands exhibit lots of social
activity with little connection or integration with each
other. The next largest segment is community ghost
towns, which are basically void of members, engage-
ment or return visitors. Not surprising, ghost towns
displayed the fewest best practices in community de-
sign and/or engagement tactics. Only nine percent
showed evidence of community overload, which di-
rected multiple efforts at the same audience. These
brands may be confusing their customers or prospects
and may be dissipating efforts. Community overload
most often occurred with brands that have multiple
products that are targeted to the same or similar mar-
ket segments. Twenty percent of brands showed a
cohesive, integrated approach to their community and
social media programs. These brands typically had ro-
bust engagement tools and multiple activities that had
healthy participation levels.
Since most brands are either still experimenting or
have built ghost towns, it is not surprising that
slightly more than a third use more than 10 best
practices or have high levels of activity. On average
only 36 percent of the communities studied lever-
age a majority of the defined community best prac-
tices and 36 percent of the communities have high
levels of activity.
A number of brands that have more than one com-
munity program are inconsistent in their use and
application of best practices, bringing mixed results
across their social marketing programs.
► Many have one “shining star” that demon-
strates many best practices and active commu-
nity management. The remaining community
properties are underperforming or orphaned.
► Brand teams either are not deploying best
practices consistently across the brand’s eco-
system or have yet to form a Community Cen-
ter of Excellence to share best practices, learn-
ing and insights in a cross-team or cross-
functional manner.
Key Findings
Social experimentation:
Lots of one-off effort but no evidence of a cohesive strategy
Community ghost town:
No evidence of recent member growth or activity in the community or
communities
Cohesive strategy:
Existence of a solid community foundation with integrated brand presence
across social assets
Community overload:
Multiple communities and initiatives competing for the same audience
The final result is a comprehensive audit of the
prevalence of community best practices and
state of community and social marketing integration.
Experimentation Most PrevalentExperimentation Most PrevalentExperimentation Most Prevalent
Inconsistent Best Practice AdoptionInconsistent Best Practice AdoptionInconsistent Best Practice Adoption
Social Media Integration LagsSocial Media Integration LagsSocial Media Integration Lags
Most brands in the research sample use social
media and community as separate initiatives.
► Overwhelmingly, 90 percent of brands re-
searched have an official presence on popular
social media platforms.
► Fifty-six percent of the brands have some evi-
dence of social media integration with their
communities, but only 32 percent of the 135
branded communities reviewed are integrated
with social media.
A majority of the communities that integrated
community and social media were among the top
scorers.

Only five of the 45 brands scored 35 points or more
using ComBlu’s community scoring methodology to
be classified “high performers.” None scored above
43, which means no brand in the study achieved the
highest performing “black belt” level.
Four of the five high performers placed in the Cohe-
sive Strategy category; specifically, AT&T (43), Sony
(43), YouTube (39) and Sears (37). Only Best Buy (40)
was categorized as in Experimentation stage.
This finding implies that even if a brand does not ex-
hibit an overall cohesive strategy, it can still be a high
performer if it incorporates a significant number of
best practices into its community model and inte-
grates it with its social media initiatives, which was
the case with Best Buy.
A number of brands scored just short of the 35 points
that would have put them in a high performing cate-
gory.
► In most cases, there is some evidence of strat-
egy but one key element is lacking. Specifically,
Bank of America lacks social media integration
while eBay and Wells Fargo have limited best
practice adoption.
► P&G, which was classified in Experimentation,
also demonstrated limited best practice adop-
tion.
Key Findings
The High PerformersThe High PerformersThe High Performers
The ContendersThe ContendersThe Contenders
Walmart and Target, both also in the Experimentation
category, were found to be outliers, because they had
active communities with low best practice adherence.
Despite their low best practice adoption, they surgi-
cally applied the ones most closely aligned with their
community mission and integrated them with social
media.
The OutliersThe OutliersThe Outliers
There were a few brands with missed opportunities,
which impacted their scores:
► Mini Cooper: Lacks key best practices such
as rewards and recognition, content search
and syndication, and rating and ranking. The
brand team also missed an opportunity to
interact with its organic fan base and leverage
their passion.
► Bravo: Active community, but lacks user-
generated content tools. Social media initia-
tives are separate and inactive.
► Sprint Nextel: Active social media presence,
but overall community experience is not
seamless or obvious.
► Novartis: Successful in social media cam-
paigns, but no integration with community
and very limited in best practice adoption.
This may be because of the highly regulated
nature of the industry.
Missed OpportunitiesMissed OpportunitiesMissed Opportunities

ComBlu analyzed the community and social
marketing programs of 45 companies dur-
ing the spring and summer of 2009. Selection criteria
included:
► Large enterprise
► Industry leader
► Diversity in its marketing approach
The sample included companies from nine sectors:
auto, entertainment, financial services, healthcare,
online services, packaged goods, retail, technology
and telecommunications. With one exception, all sec-
tors included at least four companies. None of the
companies were aware that we were analyzing their
community sites and social media initiatives. Further,
ComBlu did not contact these companies prior to the
analysis of the data it collected.
Each company was analyzed using a comprehensive
auditing tool that was designed to draw quantitative
rating and ranking data as well as qualitative reac-
tions to community experience. Once all scorecards
were complete, they were tabulated to determine the
aggregate score of each rating capture.
The auditing tool was used to:
► Identify and capture attributes of multiple
company or brand sponsored community
sites. In instances where one company had
dozens of community sites, a representative
sample was selected for scoring. Each site was
analyzed using a scorecard that indicated
which of 23 community best practices were
present. Observations about overall experi-
ence in interacting in each community were
also recorded.
► Capture data about overall community health
and wellness, when available, including com-
munity size, activity levels, frequency of en-
gagement by community members and recent
activity.
► Evaluate social media integration with com-
munity sites. Specifically, what is the brand’s
presence on Facebook, MySpace, Twitter,
YouTube, Flicker, Hulu and other social media
presence was also noted. While the primary
focus was community/social media integra-
tion, detailed observations about branded
social networking sites that were being used
in lieu of a traditional branded online commu-
nity were recorded.
√ To determine social media presence and
integration within the communities, re-
searchers specifically sought evidence of
an official brand presence in popular so-
cial media sites available for public ac-
cess. However, to be deemed integrated
with social media, a brand must:
» Drive traffic between social media
properties and online community.
Methodology
The ApproachThe ApproachThe Approach

» Indicate a shared vision and pur-
pose through common graphics,
verbiage, community managers or
theme.
» Share user-generated content be-
tween properties while using the
strength of each property for a de-
fined purpose to demonstrate the
highest level of integration.
► Assign each company’s community marketing
efforts a primary and, where pertinent, a sec-
ondary classification. These included:
√ Community overload: Multiple com-
munities and initiatives competing for
the same audience.
√ Community ghost town: No evidence
of recent member growth or activity in
the community or communities.
√ Social experimentation: Lots of one-
off effort but no evidence of a cohesive
strategy.
√ Cohesive strategy: Existence of a solid
community foundation with multiple
activities rolled into a single community.
► A literature search provided additional in-
sights about the overarching strategy of a
company’s social marketing efforts.
Once all data was captured, analysts applied an algo-
rithm that yielded a Brand Score.
► The community scoring algorithm overlays
multiple data points from the data capture to
yield a score for brand community perform-
ance. A detailed description of the filtering
process is included in the Appendix.
► Resulting scores could range from 0 to 60.
√ Scores between 0 and 34 were consid-
ered “low performers” and were in the
“red zone.”
√ Scores between 35 and 49 were “high
performers” and were placed in the
“green zone.”
√ Scores of 50 or above were considered
“best practice leaders” and were given a
special “black belt” designation.
Methodology
Calculating Brand ScoreCalculating Brand ScoreCalculating Brand Score

Selected Findings
Community Classification by Industry
Technology and online services’ use of com-
munity is likely driven by the social approach
applied to the development of their product
and service mix.
Healthcare provides a number of community
venues but most lack any form of meaningful
interaction and community best practice tools;
this is likely due to a lack of understanding of
how to deploy community tools effectively
within a highly regulated environment.
Branded content still monopolizes most health-
care community properties.
Retail’s community approach follows a tradi-
tional channel bias towards marketing, transac-
tional demand generation and promotion.
Packaged goods use of community likely emu-
lates the approaches taken in offline demand
generation, many of which are similar to those
tactics used by retail.
Financial services takes a more focused and
conservative approach to community. This dis-
ciplined approach seems to have curtailed inno-
vation and activity within the various venues
they have established.
Auto’s approach seems to lack true utility and
relevance, with a higher degree of focus on
product rather than use or lifestyle.
Cohesive strategy:
Existence of a solid community foundation
with integrated brand presence across
social assets
Community overload:
Multiple communities and initiatives
competing for the same audience
Social experimentation:
Lots of one-off effort but no evidence of a
cohesive strategy
Community ghost town:
No evidence of recent member growth or
activity in the community or communities
Classification by IndustryClassification by IndustryClassification by Industry

Selected Findings
Many of the least used best practices are the
ones that potentially can give a community the
greatest lift in terms of engagement, recruitment
and growth. A few examples follow.
Community manager’s lack of active commu-
nity management was a big red flag. The commu-
nity manager is the face of the community and
provides the coordination between the commu-
nity sponsor and its members.
Faceted search allows users to continuously
customize their community experience.
Social bookmarking gives community mem-
bers a tool to personalize and aggregate their
online experience at the brand’s destination site.
Content aggregation allows the brand to col-
lect a variety of pertinent content, conversations
and tools in a single place, making the experience
at the destination site richer and more engaging.
Social networking gives members the tools to
find others inside the community who share in-
terests or needs. While brands may not want to
get into the social networking business, having
social tools for creating and interacting in groups
is an important community technique.
Community Best Practice Use
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
88
77 73 72
66
58
53 53 52 51 51 50 49 48 46 44 44
35 32
19
14
9
Best Practice UseBest Practice UseBest Practice Use

Application of Best PracticesApplication of Best PracticesApplication of Best Practices
Community Best Practice Adoption Rate
Industry Score
Selected Findings
The application of best practices is limited.
► Only 36% of all brands used 10 or
more best practices in their commu-
nity approaches. Finding the best mix
of tools and tactics that align with the
community mandate and member
needs will generate higher perform-
ance levels than are evident today.
► The industries with the highest adop-
tion of best practices also had the
highest average industry score.
The brand score was created by overlaying
several key data points that were captured
during the research. (See Appendix for full
description of the scoring methodology.)
► These same industry groups yielded
the highest scoring companies that
were reviewed as part of this re-
search. These included:
Technology: Sony
Online Services: YouTube
Telecommunications: AT&T
Auto
Entertainm
ent
Financial Services
Healthcare
Online
Services
Packaged
Goods
Retail
Technology
Telecom
m
unications
Auto
Entertainm
ent
Financial Services
Healthcare
Online
Services
Packaged
Goods
Retail
Technology
Telecom
m
unications

0
2
4
6
8
The mix of best practices present in each
classification.
► Comments was the most used best practice
in all but the community ghost town cate-
gory, which still had it among its top five.
√ Since comments are a proxy for en-
gagement, this is an important tool. If
visitors or members cannot interact
with experts and peers, they will have
little reason to continue to use that
community.
√ In many instances, the comments
functionality is the only way that com-
munity members can ask questions
and add their insights and knowledge
to a conversation.
► Those with a cohesive strategy used some
of the best practices that lead to deep en-
gagement such as faceted search and con-
tent aggregation.
► The other three community classifications
did not go much beyond basic out-of-the-
box community functionality.
Selected Findings
Social Experimentation
Comments New &
Featured
Content
User
Profiles
Forums Avatars
50
40
30
20
10
0
Community Ghost Town
Use of Rich
Media
User
Profiles
Fun
Engagement
Tools
Comments Social
Networking
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Cohesive Strategy
Comments Forums Faceted
Search
Content
Aggregation
Avatars
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Comments Forums Blogs
Top 5 Best Practices by ClassificationTop 5 Best Practices by ClassificationTop 5 Best Practices by Classification
Community Overload18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0 New &
Featured
Content
User
Profiles

Community Activity Levels
High vs. Low
Industry Wide Social Media
Integration
Selected Findings
yes no
Activity Level & Social Media IntegrationActivity Level & Social Media IntegrationActivity Level & Social Media Integration
Communities generally had low activity rates and
lacked consistent social media integration.
► The vast majority of communities exhibited
low activity levels. Activity was measured by
number of discussion threads, views of
threads and comments.
► Most brands in the research sample use so-
cial media and community as separate initia-
tives.
√ Overwhelmingly 90% of brands re-
searched have an official presence on
popular social media platforms.
√ Fifty-six of the brands have some evi-
dence of social media integration with
their communities, but only 32% of the
135 communities themselves are inte-
grated with social media.
√ Those communities that integrated
community and social media placed
among the top scorers.

Activity Level & Social Media IntegrationActivity Level & Social Media IntegrationActivity Level & Social Media Integration
Percentage of Communities That are
Active by Industry
Social Media Integration by Industry
Retail had the most active communities as well
as the highest evidence of community/social
media integration.
► We defined the latter as those brands that
presented consistent graphics, look and
feel on both their community and social
sites such as Facebook, YouTube, Flickr,
etc. They also had easy and obvious link-
age between the community and other
social properties.
√ This integration was achieved through
content syndication and aggregation,
links and marketing themes.
► Retail, like telecommunications and online
services has had a long history with dy-
namic online tools. E-commerce was pio-
neered by retail in partnership with tech-
nology and online services, so as with the
use of best practices, it’s very likely these
groups have a greater understanding and
cultural acceptance of community and
social media integration within their busi-
ness models than other categories.
Selected Findings

Industry Scores
Analysts applied an algorithm once all data was
captured that yielded a Brand Score.
► The community scoring algorithm overlays
multiple data points from the data capture to
yield a score for brand community perform-
ance. A detailed description of the filtering
process is included in the Appendix.
► Resulting scores could range from 0 to 60.
√ Scores between 0 and 34 were consid-
ered “low performers” and were in the
“red zone.”
√ Scores between 35 and 49 were “high
performers” and were placed in the
“green zone.”
√ Scores of 50 or above were considered
“best practice leaders” and were given a
special “black belt” designation.
Selected Findings
Industry ScoresIndustry ScoresIndustry Scores———AverageAverageAverage

Industry scores showed a wide range between
categories and between brands within categories.
► Online Services, technology and telecommu-
nications lead the field, primarily due to a
greater understanding and bias towards the
use of online tools to collaborate than other
business categories.
√ It is likely that there are a greater num-
ber of resources inside these organiza-
tions who both understand the impor-
tance and have the capacity to imple-
ment community best practices online
than other business categories.
√ Further, historically the speed of innova-
tion and change within these categories
helps them in quickly adopting and
evolving their community best practices.
► While telecommunications fell into the ex-
perimentation category, both online services
and technology had a high percent of brands
that demonstrate a cohesive strategy.
Selected Findings
Total Brand Score Technology
Total Brand Score Telecommunications
Total Brand Score Online Services

► Retail, packaged goods and financial services
are the second tier performers. Like the top
performers, quickly and effectively responding
to consumer demand is a requirement for suc-
cess. This reality likely translates into this cate-
gory's approach to community and their will-
ingness to experiment and interact with their
customers in a meaningful way.
► Financial services had a high percentage of
brands that fell into the cohesive strategy cate-
gory with both retail and packaged goods
showing high levels of experimentation.
Selected Findings
Total Brand Score Retail
Total Brand Score Packaged Goods
Total Brand Score Financial Services

Industry Score’sIndustry Score’sIndustry Score’s———AverageAverageAverage
► Auto, healthcare and entertainment had the
lowest scores in ComBlu’s community per-
formance measurement system. All three of
these industries had the highest level of com-
munity ghost towns.
√ Auto and entertainment only used 34%
of best practices, healthcare had the
lowest with 5%.
► Healthcare had virtually no integration with
social media Auto had the second lowest.
► Entertainment was the most difficult to un-
derstand. Consumers of entertainment have
a natural passion for their favorite programs,
characters and programming. Yet the indus-
try fails to leverage that passion and connect
via community.
Selected Findings
Total Brand Score Healthcare
Total Brand Score Auto
Total Brand Score Entertainment

Appendix:
Industry Detail
Industry by Classification
Social Media Integration
AUTOAUTOAUTO
ENTERTAINMENTENTERTAINMENTENTERTAINMENT
Community overload
Social experimentation
Community ghost town
Cohesive strategy
Low High
Yes No
Community overload
Cohesive strategy
Low High
Yes No

Appendix:
Industry Detail
FINANCIAL SERVICESFINANCIAL SERVICESFINANCIAL SERVICES
HEALTHCAREHEALTHCAREHEALTHCARE
Community overload
Cohesive strategy
Low High
Yes No
Community overload
Cohesive strategy
Low High
Yes No

Appendix:
Industry Detail
ONLINE SERVICESONLINE SERVICESONLINE SERVICES
PACKAGED GOODSPACKAGED GOODSPACKAGED GOODS
Community overload
Cohesive strategy
Low High
Yes No
Community overload
Cohesive strategy
Low High
Yes No

Appendix:
Industry Detail
RETAILRETAILRETAIL
TECHNOLOGYTECHNOLOGYTECHNOLOGY
Community overload
Cohesive strategy
Low High
Yes No
Community overload
Cohesive strategy
Low High
Yes No

Appendix:
Industry Detail
TELECOMMUNICATIONSTELECOMMUNICATIONSTELECOMMUNICATIONS
Community overload
Cohesive strategy
Low High
Yes No

Appendix:
Company Details
Auto
BMW - Mini Cooper 13
Ford 17
Honda 3
Hyundai 11
Entertainment
Bravo 25
DreamWorks 11
Food Network 20
Sony Entertainment 16
Warner Brothers 22
Financial Services
American Express 20
Bank of America 30
JP Morgan Chase 4
USAA 28
Wells Fargo 22
Healthcare
Johnson & Johnson 4
Merck 4
Novartis 10
Pfizer 3
Packaged Goods
General Mills 27
Kimberly-Clark 20
Kraft 12
Proctor & Gamble 31
SC Johnson 16
Unilever 19
Online Services
Bing 14
eBay 30
YouTube 39
Retail
Best Buy 40
Home Depot 11
Lowe's 15
Nordstrom 14
Sears 37
Target 11
Walmart 21
Technology
Apple 21
Dell 28
HP 16
Microsoft 13
Sony 43
Telecommunications
AT&T 43
Comcast 23
Sprint Nextel 23
Verizon 11
Company ScoresCompany ScoresCompany Scores

Appendix:
Community Sites
Reviewed
COMPANY COMMUNITY
BMW - Mini-Cooper Mini Owner's Lounge
Ford Fiesta Movement
Mustang
SynchMy Ride
Honda Owner Link
Hyundai Elantra
USA Hyundai
Kia Forums
Kia USA
Toyota-Lexus Lexus Owners' Club
Toyota Nation
Toyota Owners Club
Lexus Drivers
Bravo BravoTV
DreamWorks DreamWorks Animation
Food Network Food2.com
Food.com Beta
FoodNetwork.com
Sony Entertainment SonyMyPlay
SonyTelevision
SonyPictures -- Movies
Crackle
Warner Brothers Warner Brothers
The WB
The CW
Kids WB
TCM
Zuda Comics
American Express Foodand Wine
OpenForum
Executive Travel Magazine
Bank of America Small Business Online Community
JPMorgan Chase Chase.com
JP Morgan Community Facebook
Application
USAA What's OnYour Mind
Wells Fargo StagecoachIsland
Johnson & Johnson J&J Connect
Merck Zostavax
Gardasil
Cozaar
Emend
Isentress
Januvia
Zetia
Novartis CML earth
Pfizer PfizerHome
Bing Bing Community
Bing Community Forums
Bing Developer Community
Bing Travel Community
Ebay eBayNeighborhood
YouTube YouTube.com
YouTube YouTube.com
General Mills BettyCrocker
PSSST
eatbetteramerica
The Racing Mom
Pillsbury
Kimberly-Clark ScottCommon Sense Community
Huggies BabyNetwork
Kotex GirlSpace
Kotex Ladies Room
KleenexStop & Feel
Depends.com
Viva Diva Café
Kraft KraftFoods
Boca sponsored "BalancedLiving"
Crystal Light
Tassimo
Planters
Proctor & Gamble Pampers Village
P&G Everyday Solutions
Bounce Everywhere
Being Girl
Asacol
SCJohnson Nature’s Source Community
RightatHome Community
Unilever Wishbone
Heartbrand
Lipton
Axe
Bertolli
Slim Fast
Dove
Vaseline
BestBuy BestBuyConnect
BestBuyForums
Remix
MyRewardZone
AskABlueShirt
GeekSquad
At15
Home Depot Home Depot GardenClub
Home Depot Home Improver Club
Lowe's Lowe's CreativeIdeas
Lowe's forPros
Nordstrom's BP FashionBoard
Sears MySears
Target Target.com
Walmart Check Out Blog
Elevenmoms
Product Rate & Review
YourLife Your Stories
Connect & Share
Apple Apple Discussions
Apple User Groups
Dell IdeaStorm
Direct2Dell
Ratings andReviews
HP IT Resource Center Forum
Creative Printing Community
HP Small Business CommunityWiki
Business SupportForums
Microsoft Windows XP
Xbox
Technical Forums
Office Live Workspace
Windows Live
Sony SonyElectronics Blog
SonyStyle
SonyVaio
Backstage 101
Digital Darkroom Community
Frontline Community
AT&T Wireless Forums
DevCentral
Small Business Online Community
Comcast ComcastCommunity Forums
ComcastHelpForums
Fandango
Sprint Nextel Sprint.com
SprintNow Network
SprintUser
Buzz AboutWireless
Inside Sprint Now
Verizon VerizonCommunity Forums
COMPANY COMMUNITY COMPANY COMMUNITY
Sites ReviewedSites ReviewedSites Reviewed

The community research algorithm is a performance
filter built in two parts intended to assign a score for
brand community performance. This score is set
against a color coded graduated performance ranking
scale (red, green and black). Red being for low per-
formers, green being for high performance and black
being for best-practice leaders.
► The filter calculates overall brand performance
taking into account aggregated community activ-
ity and provides an overall average of that brand’s
community effectiveness.
√ Assigns a value to only those brands which ex-
hibit an identifiable community strategy.
√ Assigns a sliding scale value to the different
type or classifications of a brands communities
(Experimentation, Community Overload, Ghost
Town and Cohesive Strategy).
► Part one of the filter contains a single multiplier
which is applied if the brand exhibits a cohesive
strategy.
► Next a performance score is calculated for brand
activity associated with community.
► This score is then integrated into Part Two, where
it is incorporated with the sub scores associated
with the various individual communities the
brand has in play.
► This filter addresses individual community per-
formance against a set of best practices and per-
formance thresholds. Scoring of the second part
of the filter is broken into Tool Use, Community
Activity and Social Media Integration.
√ Tool Use: Thresholds which measure the per-
centage of tools are applied to a branded com-
munity.
√ Community Activity: A value is then assigned
to communities which show consistently high
levels of activity. This metric does not take into
account membership count, only activity (so
that a small but vibrant community is not penal-
ized).
√ Social Media Integration: A value is provided
to communities that exhibit social media tools
and activity integration within their community.
Communities that lack this integration and ac-
tivity do not receive a value.
► In this filter there are two potential multipliers
available to high performers.
√ The first multiplier is applied to the tools sec-
tion of the filter. Communities using 70% of the
tools (i.e., Forums, Wikis, Content Tagging,
Community Management, etc.) or more receive
this first multiplier.
√ The second multiplier rewards communities
that integrate their community and social me-
dia strategies.
Each of the three multipliers in Part One and Part Two
of the filter carry an equal weight. Brands and their
respective communities that integrate best practices
and showcase strong results will reap the benefit of all
three multipliers and will move them closer to the top
performance category of black. Brands and communi-
ties achieving one or two of the multipliers, as well as
showcasing strong general and individual community
results will fall closer to or within the green category.
Those brands with sporadic or poor performance are
assigned to the red category, indicating ineffective
community use.
Appendix:
Brand Score
Methodology
Algorithm Structure & RationaleAlgorithm Structure & RationaleAlgorithm Structure & Rationale
Part OnePart OnePart One
Part TwoPart TwoPart Two

Appendix:
List of Best Practices
► Collaboration
√ Forums
√ Comments
► User-Generated Content
√ Rich media
√ Blogs
√ Wikis
► Social Networking
► Polling/Feedback Mechanism
► Community Manager
► Content Tagging
► Content Aggregation (RSS)
► Quality Content Rating and Ranking
► Faceted Search
► User Reviews
► Social Bookmarking
► Rich Media
► Fun Engagement Tools
User ParticipationUser ParticipationUser Participation
► Avatars
► User Profiles
► Blog Roll/Recommended Reading
► Emoticons
Personal Identity/ProfilesPersonal Identity/ProfilesPersonal Identity/Profiles
Return MotivatorsReturn MotivatorsReturn Motivators
► Rewards/Recognition
► Available Site Statistics
► New and Featured Content

Appendix:
Glossary
► Community Overload – Community overload is
possible due to the existence of multiple commu-
nities for the same audience, or “too many build-
ings.”
► Community Ghost Town – Communities are
unpopulated and therefore have little to no activ-
ity from community members, or “no bricks, no
buildings, no people.”
► Experimentation – A brand is experimenting
with one or more communities as well as social
media, but lacks evidence of a cohesive strategy to
tie it all together, or “lots of bricks, no buildings.”
► Cohesive Strategy – The existence of a solid
community foundation with multiple activities
rolling into a single online community, or “building
with a solid foundation.”
► Social Networking – The ability for community
members to find and interact with others within
the community that share similar interests, opin-
ions or activities.
► Polling/Feedback – Inquiring into community
opinion through surveys, open forum discussion,
commenting or polls to allow community mem-
bers to voice their recommendations for commu-
nity improvement.
► Community Manager – A personality present in
the community charged with building, growing,
and managing it and making him or herself visible
and active in dialogue.
► Content Tagging – The ability to tag user-
generated content with keywords to allow for
enhanced search and organization.
► Content Aggregation – Grouping like-minded
content from various resources into one or more
easily searchable sites.
► Content Rating/Ranking – Allowing community
members to judge the quality of user-generated
content on their own criteria.
► Faceted Search – The capability to explore the
community’s content by filtering available infor-
mation through keywords, topics, dates, etc.
► User Reviews/Content – The presence of user-
generated content in the shape of user reviews of
a brand’s products and services, experiences, sto-
ries, opinions, etc.
► Social Bookmarking – Offering community
members a way to store, organize, search and
manage content either within or outside of the
community.
► Fun Engagement Tools – Games, quizzes, en-
tertaining rich media and other bells and whistles
created by the brand for the sole purpose of
member entertainment.
► Use of Rich Media – Integrating video, audio
and/or photography into brand content as well as
allowing for user-generated rich media to be cre-
ated and shared.
► Forums – Also referred to as message boards
and bulletin boards, these are applications used
to hold both consumer-to-consumer and con-
sumer-to-brand discussions containing user-
generated content.
► Blogs – Online journals housed within the com-
munity may be written by community managers
or community advocates and offer commenting
by all community members to create two-way
dialogue rather than simply a one-way push of
information.
► Wikis – Allow all community members to easily
create and edit any number of interlinked (often
database) community content.
► Comments – Opportunities for community
members to add their own point of view and ex-
pressions to either written content or rich media
created by the brand and other members.
CommunityCommunityCommunity
User ParticipationUser ParticipationUser Participation

Appendix:
Glossary
► Avatars – Customizable online identities selected
by community members that help members cre-
ate their own online persona and share their per-
sonality with the community via an uploaded
photo, brand-generated illustrations, icons or 3D
models. Avatars enhance community member’s
user/screen name.
► User Profiles – Collection of personal data com-
piled by community members allowing others to
find people like them and vet the credibility of
members’ content by gauging their background
on the subject at hand.
► Blog Roll/Recommended Reading – List of
blogs, websites and other sources typically re-
viewed by each community member, commonly
included as part of a user’s profile.
► Emoticons – Portrayal of community member’s
mood or facial expression via illustrations or text.
► Social Media Integration – Integrating key so-
cial media platforms for the intended audience
(Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, Twitter, Flickr,
YouTube, Hulu) into the community platform and
marketing/communication initiatives.
► Rewards/Recognition – Publicly awarding com-
munity members for community activities and
involvement.
► Available Site Statistics – Sharing community
activity and size data with members and/or site
visitors.
► New & Featured Content – Highlighting new,
highly-rated or interesting user-generated content
outside of its original home, whether on the com-
munity home page, user profile or topical pages.
Personal Identity/ProfilesPersonal Identity/ProfilesPersonal Identity/Profiles Return MotivatorsReturn MotivatorsReturn Motivators
Social Media PresenceSocial Media PresenceSocial Media Presence

Appendix:
Bibliography
Bodine, Kerry, and Ross Popoff-Walker. User Ratings Top Consumers’ Online. Report
Forrester, February 6, 2008. Web.
Cook, Scott. “The Contribution Revolution: Letting Volunteers Build Your Business.”
Harvard Business Review October 2008: pp. 60-69. Print.
Deloitte. 2009 Tribalization of Business Study. Rep. Deloitte, October 5, 2009. Web.
Deloitte. 2008 Tribalization of Business Study. Rep. Deloitte, August 20, 2008. Web.
Elliott, Nate Mr. Three Steps to Measuring Social Media Marketing. Report.
Forrester, October 29, 2009. Web.
Fournier, Susan, and Lara Lee. “Getting Brand Communities Right.” Harvard Business Review,
April (2009). Print.
Gartner. Gartner Says More Than 60 Percent of Fortune 1000 Companies With a Web Site
Will Connect to or Host a Forum of Online Community by 2010. Gartner.com. Gartner,
October 6, 2008. Web.
Johnston, Bill. “Online Communities: Establishing a Community's Culture.” Web log post.
Online Community Report. ForumOne, 26 Nov. 2008. Web.
Owyang, Jeremiah. “Forrester Report: Online Community Best Practices.” Web log post.
Web Strategy. Jeremiah Owyang, February 14, 2008. Web.
WOMMA. WOM 101 Positive Word of Mouth Marketing Strategies. Rep. WOMMA, 2007. Web.
Worthen, Ben. “Why Most Online Communities Fail.” Wall Street Journal, [New York City]
July 16, 2008. Print.

Contact Info
► Learning more about community best practices?
► Getting a customized best practice review?
► Finding out how ComBlu can turn your communities into high-performers?
We’d love to talk!
Kevin Lynch
ComBlu
312.649.1687
klynch@comblu.com
Steve Hershberger
ComBlu
312.649.1687
sthersh@comblu.com
You can also check out our website at: www.comblu.com
INTERESTED IN…INTERESTED IN…INTERESTED IN…
Since 2003, ComBlu has built or manages 26 communities in 20 languages with
over 8 million members worldwide

ComBlu State of Online Communities 2010

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie ComBlu State of Online Communities 2010

Ähnlich wie ComBlu State of Online Communities 2010 (20)

Mehr von ComBlu, Inc.

Mehr von ComBlu, Inc. (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

ComBlu State of Online Communities 2010