A few days ago, I posted on how we are using Twitter to get leads into our system.

I received several comments and questions about lead passing.   Let me share with you a few examples of how we use social to pass leads!  Afterall, we do not want to throw those new leads away!

A potential customer from “Endicott College” is navigating IBM’s solutions for Higher Education and online collaboration for virtual students. As they explore the site, an ibm.com representative is notified and asks the customer if they want to chat via instant messaging.

After a couple conversation, connecting on LinkedIN, and additional information is provided, the customer wants to see how the product works and talk with other customers.

The ibm.com representative checks the Social CRM system at IBM as well as searches for product experts and local representatives close to Endicott College campus. The ibm.com representative also posts his/her micro-blogging status internally about the interest in online collaboration from Endicott College.

Within hours, multiple people inside IBM comment on his/her status. Some comments are from peers working with other customers in Higher Ed and wanting to get ideas for solutions. Some comments are from local resources at IBM that are familiar or alumni at Endicott College and want to make sure they get connected with the right IBM resource.

It even caught my attention as I was going out to meet with another University in the fall. The power of internal micro-blogging is not necessarily about the mass followers and tippers as it is in the consumer space like Twitter and YouTube. The power is in the more granular details provided in a secure manor while still leveraging the tippers inside your organization firewalls.

All IBMers had access to this micro-blogging status and unlike Twitter, he/she was able to post the customers name. IBM guidelines prevent employes from specifically sharing customer names unless authorized. Had it not been for he/she stating she was working with “Endicott College”, the thread would not have generated local responses and the details that followed.