Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Partner Perspectives  Connecting marketers to our tech communities.
6/19/2015
10:35 AM
Michael Sentonas
Michael Sentonas
Partner Perspectives
50%
50%

An Effective Community Is More Than Just An Online Forum

It is important to develop a strong base of contributors who can communicate effectively, answer questions, and summarize issues.

Like many companies today, our success is dependent on the community of customers and partners that grows around our products and services. This community augments and extends our capabilities with complementary products, places to go to learn more, and people that can answer questions.

It is admittedly challenging to effectively serve this type of community while balancing the needs and resources of a technology innovation company. The members easily outnumber our employees, let alone those able to respond to questions and suggestions. There is also a tendency to rely on numbers -- such as how many members or how many page views -- to quantify the value of the community. In our experience, this leads to misunderstanding the benefits and misallocating the resources necessary to build these relationships into an actual community, not just an online forum.

One of the biggest obstacles to community development is fear, which can lead to too much control and not enough openness to foster solid relationships. This fear could include a fear of open criticism of the company; fear of loss of brand image; or a fear of providing valuable intelligence to competitors. In our experience, and in the experience  of many other companies, the benefits of more open communications within the community far outweigh any public criticism or other potential negatives. In our connected world, the conversations and criticisms are happening online, and it is far better to actively participate in them than to try to control them.

Encourage Participation

In most product communities, the majority of participants consume information, a smaller number contribute tutorials and reviews and answer questions, and an even smaller number are development partners. As a result, it is important to develop a strong base of contributors in the community who can communicate effectively, answer questions, and summarize issues.

Another tendency with corporate communities is not allocating enough time and resources, with the thinking that the community will grow and regulate itself. While this may be true in some cases, the contributors are often looking for a stronger relationship with the company, not a hands-off attitude. Depending on the individual, they might want to be part of a focus group, beta test, or Q&A session with technical personnel. Done well, these people become a positive influence within the community, shepherding others, and providing valuable feedback on what the community wants and needs.

Our online community has about 85,000 registered users, and about 5% of these actively post in the forums. With over 2 million page views a month, there are many non-registered users viewing posts and getting answers to their questions. In addition to questions, we get posts on cyberthreats, product issues, feature requests, usage tips, and many other subjects. Active participants are sometimes invited to participate in more focused activities or engagements with product management and senior executives at Intel Security.

Over the last 18 months, we have increased the energy and scale of user outreach, introducing many new communication vehicles and resources. Customers can subscribe to a variety of topics, including product news, best practices, and educational information, and they can search the community archives and product KnowledgeBase.

What do you think? Let us know in the comments section below.

Michael Sentonas is the Chief Technology and Strategy Officer, APAC for Intel Security. Michael has been with the company for fifteen years, previously holding leadership roles such as VP and Chief Technology Officer of Security Connected, VP and CTO for Asia Pacific and, ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Preventing PTSD and Burnout for Cybersecurity Professionals
Craig Hinkley, CEO, WhiteHat Security,  9/16/2019
US Turning Up the Heat on North Korea's Cyber Threat Operations
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  9/16/2019
MITRE Releases 2019 List of Top 25 Software Weaknesses
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  9/17/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
7 Threats & Disruptive Forces Changing the Face of Cybersecurity
This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at the biggest emerging threats and disruptive forces that are changing the face of cybersecurity today.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-16531
PUBLISHED: 2019-09-20
LayerBB before 1.1.4 has multiple CSRF issues, as demonstrated by changing the System Settings via admin/general.php.
CVE-2019-9717
PUBLISHED: 2019-09-19
In Libav 12.3, a denial of service in the subtitle decoder allows attackers to hog the CPU via a crafted video file in Matroska format, because srt_to_ass in libavcodec/srtdec.c has a complex format argument to sscanf.
CVE-2019-9719
PUBLISHED: 2019-09-19
A stack-based buffer overflow in the subtitle decoder in Libav 12.3 allows attackers to corrupt the stack via a crafted video file in Matroska format, because srt_to_ass in libavcodec/srtdec.c misuses snprintf.
CVE-2019-9720
PUBLISHED: 2019-09-19
A stack-based buffer overflow in the subtitle decoder in Libav 12.3 allows attackers to corrupt the stack via a crafted video file in Matroska format, because srt_to_ass in libavcodec/srtdec.c misuses snprintf.
CVE-2019-16525
PUBLISHED: 2019-09-19
An XSS issue was discovered in the checklist plugin before 1.1.9 for WordPress. The fill parameter is not correctly filtered in the checklist-icon.php file, and it is possible to inject JavaScript code.