BizFlyin

I actually don't follow BA, but I have gotten great responses from companies by tweeting at them. Probably their level of response is in direct proporation to how many followers you have.

Yahillwe

Now having read the whole thread I can comment.

I think the future is all this SM, I see all the future CEO etc etc using it with ease. I really don't think that they have any attachment to any product as long as it makes their life easier and quicker. And as I mentioned in my previous post the use of FB to announce gatherings or whatever. And goodness checking and posting on FB...I think companies need to adapt and move to the future or they find themselves playing catch up. This coming generation has a very limited attention span...

I personally like the human interaction, would rather GO inside a bank, and as dunk mentioned would rather go to an airline office, maybe that is why I still use a TA, human interaction. But the future, they have no need for it.

pianoamit

I must say, AF was responding within 10 minutes to tweets/direct messages during the ash cloud, which was handy, as the waiting time on the phone lines was >30 minutes on the Platinum line...

HIDDY

In my case, probably.

I don't understand why they don't just socialise with their customers through their web site instead of through Twitter. That would seem to me to be the most logical way of connecting with your customers......the majority of whom I suspect don't go anywhere near Twitter.

They could call it the Virtual Galleries Club....open 24 hours and staffed by BA experts ready to answer your questions. No status required to enter....

dunk

I think you'll find that's already been outsourced to FT

HIDDY

I was thinking of the best way of connecting with their more normal customers.

BlueThroughCrimp

^ Get in the queue like everyone else. There's nothing special about SM.

henkybaby

The speed of your current channel will stay the same or maybe even increase due to the workload decreasing. It may however be that the people who use the social channel will get faster resolution.

You will be helped at the same speed as now though. No worries.

User Name

Why "instead"?

Anyway - if a twitter user follows multiple companies for various reasons (very likely) then it is more convenient for them to see everything all in one place instead of having to visit a number of websites. Also it's the difference between 'push' and 'pull' communication. If BA wants to communicate a problem to its customers then it will reach a whole load of people by issuing just a single tweet. Those people wouldn't all have spontaneously known to visit ba.com instead.

All of this is about providing 'channel of choice' for customers rather than replacing one channel with another. Everyone has preferences when it comes to communication, and the company that tries to impose its agenda (e.g. forcing everyone to use a call centre, for example) rather than follow its customers (providing service via all the channels that its customers use) is going to lag behind in competitive terms.

henkybaby

Maybe there is a way we can make everybody happy...

HIDDY

Well it'll only reach those who visit Twitter....a small minority of BA's customers.

henkybaby

Only 192.000 followers. Not bad for a medium that is only a few years old... That is not counting the people who search tweets with BA hashtags.

(KLM has almost 300.000)

BlueThroughCrimp

No offence Henky, but I feel I'm being sold something through this whole topic. I don't need it, but I appreciate others might. Like rustproofing, or superwaxing on cars...

Anyway, my company has recently had an article on its Intranet re its Twitter feeds (I can't actually read them at work, Social Media is blocked by websense on work PCs )

However, after reading that article, I feel SM needs immediacy to work properly. If it doesn't have that, it's pointless. If it's not answered within a certain time, it has a negative effect. To avoid that, the speed of answer needs more resources to work. So it costs more.

And to be honest, having read some of the content on my own device, why the heck some of the questions people ask on it bamboozle me. It's not like they know better, or is going to make a difference after the event.

Frankly, I can just see a lot of it being just nosey buggers having nothing better to do!

As a broadcast device, I can see the point of SM. As a point of reception. No.

henkybaby

None taken. The comparison is a little argumentative but hey...

That is absolutely true. However the conclusion regarding the resources and cost is not. I have pointed out several arguments to that effect earlier in the thread.

As said before, FT is also social media so you need to take into account the same level of 'buggerness'.

BlueThroughCrimp

Fair point, well made