This is a conversation about Listen, Measure, Engage, where I am focused solely on engage. OODA is Listen, Measure Engage, but a more intense study of the process. A technical look, if you will, as the process we use within the methodology.

Listen: Observe
Measure: Orient / Decide
Enagage: Act

Simple indeed.

First off, I'm not a brand expert (maybe I shouldn't be commenting here) but over the course of my career I have seen many brands (that I've worked at) impacted by the lack of connection with their consuming public. That being said, I'm not sure that 2 rules suffice; yes, responding is a must and you should (need?) try to steer the conversation your way. I believe though that there are several more pieces to the puzzle requiring a more comprehensive framework.

As an IT consultant I too need to respond and provoke, in a manner of speaking. However, how I respond and tease out a conversation is really part of a much broader engagement process I began using many years ago dubbed the “decision cycle” or OODA Loop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_Loop). An “OODA” loop is a method of engagement whereby you and your environment are in a continuous interaction cycle. The cycle is broken down into 4-pieces: observe, orient, decide and act.

It seems to me that the 2-rules you speak of, “respond” and “provoke”, are part of the same concepts of OODA. Arguably, as @KatJaib and @carissao have indicated, respond and provoke are necessary BUT must be part of a broader process (@KatJaib mentions “listen”) — brands must begin by “observing” their constituent brand marketplace, “orient/provoke” the conversation based upon brand strategy, market filters and customer activity, make “decisions” based upon a stated brand strategy, and “act” on that brand strategy.

Simple, right?

Thanks Mike!

Brands put too much focus on Provoking and not enough on Responding. Same for individuals. I am constantly amazed at how people on Twitter will throw out provocative questions, and then ignore all but 1 or 2 of the people who @reply them. Brands are terrible with this. And individuals who seem to have acquired a “big name” with an ego to match are the worst.

The Twitter crowd wants real connection. Fakes will fail, fast.
Being “real” isn't enough. Being interested is as important as being interesting. The brands and individuals that get it have much to gain.

I couldn't agree more with the concept that engagement cannot stop with a simple @ reply or the mere start of a conversation. While that's a big step in the right direction for brands that are new to the social waters, it's really just creating a ripple when you want to make waves. If you have an opportunity to truly engage a customer–or prospective customer–and you leave them with nothing more than a slight impression, what value have you really created? Not much. The customer might be willing to give you a second chance, but don't count on much more than that.

On a similar note, it seems all too many brands are completely focused on building those relationships through conversations that involve nothing beyond the very narrow focus of their products or services. Do you have many friends with which you talk about only one thing? Probably not. So, why do this with the customers you're trying to win for life? As long as it's consistent with the image you're aiming to portray, engage them in conversations about related (or even unrelated) topics that prove your value, and THEN you'll win their following and their loyalty.

Thanks again, Mike.