This is my contribution in “Age of Conversation 3: It’s Time To Get Busy!” (emphasis added for this post). Read more about the project, or, even better, buy the book now.
***
Social sustainability gets short shrift in branding. Reasons abound: it’s hard to define and measure quantitatively; it’s intangible, processual, and complex; it’s not as sexy as caring for the environment and not as immediately profitable. No wonder the People bottom line stays in the background.
It doesn’t have to be so. Define brand as the sum of your stakeholders’ experiences with your company or product, and conversation as “the informal exchange of ideas by spoken word”. Then, consider that conversation with the brand is part of the overall brand experience, and that the acquisition of ideas or information benefits both the brand and the stakeholder, injecting meaning into the interaction. Combine people, conversation, experience, and meaning, and social sustainability no longer appears so daunting.
Of course, people converse not with brands, but with other people. Every staff person interacting with a stakeholder engages in conversation on behalf of your brand, building the brand experience, creating meaning. Social media is one set of tools making brand conversations possible. Empowering your people with social media to converse with your stakeholders means shifting from centrally-planned corporate messaging to decentralized, personal interactions that reflect the diversity of your staff.
People talk like people, not like press releases. If there’s one principle to follow in conversing through social media for social sustainability, it’s to emulate the way you’d talk in person. Converse online as you’d converse offline: no shouting, no one-way broadcasts, no corporate speak. As a company, set goals and measurable results and supply sufficient resources to follow through on your brand conversations. Then, let your people converse.
Like threads in a loom, the myriad of conversations your employees have with your stakeholders, through social media or other channels, will weave your brand into being. Thanks to consistent conversation, your brand will become more experiential, more conversational, and more human. What’s more, by listening to, participating in, and engaging with your stakeholders’ community, the conversation will enhance your social sustainability.
In my discussion of business-to-business pricing strategies a while ago I discussed a variety of ways to satisfy both your company’s and your customer’s needs through fair prices and price discrimination. Since then–I can’t believe it’s been 10 months already!–I’ve discovered and have successfully applied two additional pricing methods: equal monthly payment and customized pricing.
Equal monthly payment
Equal monthly payment is a combination of hourly rate, fixed fee, and retainer. It works for long-term contracts or big projects.
For a steady client who budgets a certain amount for my marketing communications services each year, I used to bill monthly based on the number of hours performed working on their various projects (adding a fixed number of pro bono hours on top). As of this year, I have divided the annual amount into equal monthly payments. Over the years, we’ve figured out seasonal, even monthly, fluctuations of work and how much it takes to complete projects. With equal monthly payments, the client doesn’t have to worry about big hits in busy months, and I don’t have to worry about small billings in slow months. We both can plan our cash flow.
For another client with a laundry list of projects, rather than billing as we go based on the amount of work (number of hours) performed, we spread out the total amount over a 6-month period. The client doesn’t have to worry about front-loaded project costs, and we’re both happy knowing what each monthly invoice will total. With this alternative, you have the option–provided the client agrees–of charging a bit more per month to reflect the deferral of payment for your front-loaded services (I don’t, for this client).
Contrast equal monthly payments with a retainer, which also includes a flat monthly or annual fee and a defined scope of work. While with retainers work may or may not be performed, depending on client need, equal monthly payment simply distributes project costs over time.
An extreme version of the equal monthly payment method is NetRaising’s model. NetRaising, a Portland, Oregon-based company, designs and develops websites, primarily for nonprofits. Instead of using the usual 50% down-50% upon-completion, or third-third-third models common in the industry, the company distributes the cost of the website design, build, training, and support over a 2-year period. The model eliminates the heavy front load for clients. The engagement is essentially a subscription.
For clients, the biggest benefit of the monthly payment pricing method is cash flow management, while getting all the projects completed within desired timelines. For me, the method combines the predictability of a paycheck with the flexibility of working on multiple client accounts and diverse projects.
Customized pricing
Each client pays a different price. When I first started, I discriminated based on client size (3 revenue tiers) and tax status (business vs. nonprofit), which was a bit too complex. After a while, I dropped nonprofit pricing. Now, I negotiate the price with each client individually depending on the client’s circumstances (budget, revenue cycle, need, project type, timeline).
There are no hard rules for customizing prices. Customized pricing can be a matter of research and subsequent mathematical expression; a gut-driven process; random (”pulling out of air” or other areas); or any combination of the above. While it robs your pricing of predictability and portability, which some organizations may not like, it allows for adjusting your price to each client’s specific need and prevent them from comparison-shopping solely on price. Needless to say, it may only work with B2B professional services, and I don’t recommend customizing downward in a price war.
How do you charge for your professional services? What novel or unique pricing methods have you seen in the marketplace?
***
Image credit: kevindooley (both)
The year 2010 is going by quickly. Continuing the nascent series of quarterly book recommendations (see the Q1 list), here’s a list of my recommendations from the year’s 2nd quarter (April-June). All of these can help, in one way or another, in your marketing and business. Enjoy!
Business
- Peter Senge, et al., “The Necessary Revolution: How Individuals and Organizations Are Working Together to Create a Sustainable World”, 2008 — Wordy but useful and example-ridden guide to creating creative collaborations and collaborative organizations.
Psychology, sociology, culture
- Dan Ariely, “Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decisions”, 2008 — Notorious by now, and a must-read. Things are not as they seem.
- Jonathan Haidt, “The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom”, 2006 — A useful how-to. Requires a deep read, but you’ll be happy doing so.
- Daniel Pink, “Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us”, 2009 — Not that surprising, if you’ve read any psychology content in the past few years. A great summary of motivation research: intrinsic rules the day. Full review.
- Alex Pentland and Tracy Heibeck, “Honest Signals: How They Shape Our World”, 2008 — On the role of unconscious signaling in human communication and network intelligence.
- Daniel Pink, “A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future”, 2005 Â – You’ll already know all about it. Out of the information age of linear analysis and into the conceptual age of holistic synthesis!
Crowdsourcing
- Barry Libert, Jon Spector, and Thousands of Contributors, “We Are Smarter Than Me: How to Unleash the Power of Crowds in Your Business”, 2008 — Oh, to be a crowdsourcing grasshopper again. Basic, useful, short.
- Cass Sunstein, “Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge”, 2006 — A slightly misleading title, as the book is mostly about deliberative group decision-making. Market-based mechanisms are better at producing good decisions. Somewhat dense and repetitive, but ultimately useful.
