On January 5, 2012, Lithium Technologies announced a $53.4 million fourth funding round led by New Enterprise Associates. The enterprise-software company was betting that branded customer communities—not just company posts on Facebook—could make customers participants in support, product feedback, recommendations, and marketing.
That was a business thesis, not a proven result. Lithium sold the software and operating tools needed to organize those conversations, while the round financed a larger push into product development, sales, international expansion, hiring, acquisitions, and Facebook-related engagement.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
What Lithium announced in January 2012
The announcement covered a fourth financing round of $53.4 million. New Enterprise Associates led the round, with SAP Ventures and existing investors Benchmark Capital, DAG Ventures, Emergence Capital, Greenspring Associates, Shasta Ventures, and Tenaya Capital participating, according to contemporary TechCrunch coverage. Lithium’s own announcement was published at lithium.com.
Windows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallCrashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteTechCrunch reported that Lithium had previously raised approximately $39 million. Adding that rounded figure to the new round gives an estimated $92.4 million in disclosed funding by that point; it should not be read as a precise audited total.
#1 Best Overall
Rob Tarkoff, who had become CEO roughly 100 days earlier after a digital-enterprise role at Adobe, said Lithium expected to roughly double its workforce from about 200 employees. The stated uses of the money included continued product investment, U.S. and international sales and marketing, hiring, acquisitions, and a stronger position in adjacent social-marketing categories.
The original funding story appeared in VentureBeat on January 5, 2012. It was historical venture news, not a current financing announcement.
What Lithium actually sold
Lithium was an enterprise-software provider, not a consumer social network. It gave large brands a white-label environment where customers could interact under the brand’s identity and where the company could administer the conversation.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Branded communities and support forums
Customers could ask questions, answer one another, discuss products, and search earlier conversations. A useful answer could remain available to later customers instead of being repeated privately by a call-center agent.
Ideas, feedback, and customer insight
Community members could submit product ideas and describe recurring problems. Analytics were intended to show what customers cared about, giving product and service teams a stream of observed questions and complaints rather than only periodic survey responses.
Reputation, ranking, and gamification
Participation could be organized with reputation scores, ranks, badges, or other recognition mechanisms. These systems were designed to identify knowledgeable contributors and encourage repeat participation. A platform score, however, was not proof that a person had independently validated purchasing influence.
Rank #2
Social CRM and Facebook engagement
The product sat near social customer relationship management: connecting customer conversations and behavior with support and marketing work. Lithium had launched a Facebook product in May 2011, initially emphasizing the identification and promotion of highly active users. Reporting discussed possible Facebook page applications and other engagement tools, but those possibilities were not confirmed commitments.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
The problem Lithium was trying to solve
Large companies had customer questions, product knowledge, complaints, and recommendations scattered across call centers, public social networks, review sites, and disconnected email threads. They wanted a way to capture that activity, make it searchable, and route useful information to service, product, and marketing teams.
Lithium’s model combined three business cases:
- Customer service: customers could help one another with common questions, potentially deflecting some repetitive contacts.
- Community: a shared space could turn isolated users into a network with its own norms, experts, and institutional memory.
- Marketing: experienced customers could recommend products, influence peers, and become advocates rather than merely receive advertising.
The available contemporary coverage did not establish quantified reductions in support cost, increased sales, or improved retention. Those were possible outcomes of the model, not demonstrated results in the funding announcement.
What “social will change marketing” meant in 2012
Lithium’s positioning can be translated into several concrete shifts. They were claims about how marketing might work, not settled facts.
From broadcast to participation
Instead of treating customers as an audience for campaigns, brands could invite them to produce answers, stories, ideas, and product discussions.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFrom paid persuasion to peer proof
A recommendation from another customer could carry a different kind of credibility from an advertisement. Community discussions made that peer influence visible and searchable.
From occasional surveys to continuous feedback
Repeated questions, complaints, and feature requests could reveal patterns while customers were actively trying to use a product.
From support expense to advocacy
A customer who solved problems for others might reduce pressure on support teams and also become a credible supporter of the brand. Those effects required sustained participation and could not be assumed from post counts alone.
From anonymous traffic to identifiable contributors
Ranking and reputation systems gave brands a way to recognize frequent or useful participants. The trade-off was that highly active users might not represent the wider customer base.
From rented audiences to owned communities
A brand-hosted community offered more control over data, rules, and content than a page on Facebook or another third-party network. It also imposed the cost of attracting members and maintaining the experience.
Why the $53.4 million mattered strategically
The round signaled investor confidence that enterprise social software could become a substantial category. It gave Lithium the resources to expand beyond its established community product, hire sales and engineering staff, sell internationally, pursue acquisitions, and compete for adjacent marketing budgets.
Lithium had acquired Scout Labs in 2010, an earlier example of the company broadening its capabilities. The 2012 plan continued that expansion, while the Facebook effort addressed the rapidly growing importance of a network Lithium did not own.
The hiring statement was an intention to double a workforce of approximately 200 people, not evidence that the target was achieved. Likewise, Facebook page applications or expanded advertising capabilities were discussed as possibilities in coverage, not announced deliverables.
How Lithium differed from its competitors
The companies named in contemporary coverage overlapped around enterprise social engagement, but they were not interchangeable products.
| Company | Primary workflow in the 2012 market | Where it overlapped with Lithium |
|---|---|---|
| Lithium | Branded communities, peer support, advocacy, reputation, and social customer experience | Customer conversations, feedback, and engagement analytics |
| Bazaarvoice | Ratings, reviews, and other user-generated content for commerce | Customer-authored content and influence on purchase decisions |
| Jive Software | Enterprise collaboration and social-business software | Community features and internal or external social interaction |
| Get Satisfaction | Customer-support and feedback communities | Questions, ideas, and peer-to-peer service |
| Buddy Media | Facebook-focused brand marketing and page-management tools | Social campaign and page engagement |
| Vitrue | Social marketing and Facebook page management | Brand presence and audience engagement on third-party networks |
TechCrunch’s competitor discussion is available at this January 2012 report. The distinctions matter: a ratings-and-reviews system, an employee collaboration suite, a Facebook publishing console, and an owned support community solve different operational problems even when all are described as “social.”
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What could go wrong with the model
The cold-start problem
A branded forum needs enough customers, useful questions, and fast answers to feel worthwhile. Without that activity, a company can spend heavily to create an empty destination.
Moderation and governance
Spam, abuse, inaccurate advice, confidential information, and unresolved complaints require trained moderators, escalation rules, and legal and privacy controls. A public unanswered complaint can damage trust more visibly than a private support exchange.
Participation bias
The most prolific contributors may be enthusiasts, power users, or unusually frustrated customers. Their views can be valuable without representing the median buyer.
Measurement
Members, posts, badges, and engagement rates do not automatically prove revenue, retention, or lower service cost. A serious implementation needs links to support outcomes, product decisions, customer health, and attributable commercial results.
Platform dependence
Facebook integrations could be affected by API changes, ranking systems, advertising rules, or shifts in user behavior. An owned community reduced some of that dependence, but it did not remove the need to reach customers elsewhere.
Gamification and privacy
Ranking can reward volume or performative activity instead of useful help. Customer discussions and behavioral data also require clear consent, access controls, retention policies, and careful integration with marketing systems.
How credible was Lithium’s prediction?
The strongest interpretation was narrower than “every part of marketing would become social.” Lithium was betting on social customer experience: structured conversations that could improve support, reveal product priorities, strengthen retention, and create advocacy.
That thesis was credible only when a company had a sufficiently large and motivated customer base, skilled community management, integration with support and product teams, a way to attribute outcomes, and a strategy that did not depend entirely on Facebook. The January 2012 announcement established the investment and the ambition; it did not establish that the promised business results occurred.
Later ownership, product status, financial performance, customer return on investment, and exit outcomes are separate historical questions and are not established by the cited announcement coverage.
The Bottom Line
Lithium’s $53.4 million round was a major 2012 bet that brands could turn customer conversations into an operating asset. Its software combined owned communities, peer support, feedback, reputation systems, analytics, and Facebook engagement. The enduring idea was not that social activity alone would transform marketing, but that well-run customer communities could connect service, product learning, and advocacy—if companies could solve participation, moderation, platform, and measurement problems.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
