Practice what you preach in the social media field
This idea has been resonating in my head for the past few weeks, and I don’t really know how to tackle it. I enjoy social media (all of it – the social networking sites, the offline aspect of gatherings, tweetups and meetups, the community building element). But the one reason that I keep getting turned off is the broadcasting aspect. Admittedly, I’m talkative on Twitter.
So talkative that 7,740 people have decided to follow me and then unfollow me (yeah, if you want to do the numbers, 1/3 of the people who chose to follow me continue to do so). That’s awesome. Their choice and for those who choose to read my stream, thanks a lot too – I am very grateful. But the thing that makes me feel a bit uneasy me is that some folks in the social media world just keep broadcasting instead of engaging. Over 50% of my stream is replies to people and conversation. Obviously, different strokes for different folks. I am not one to say what people should or should not do.
The problem is that arises is that I question the validity of the content of a social media message when it’s provided by someone who does not engage. If social media is all about conversations, engagement and community building, what to do when there is only broadcasting and not actual conversation? As social media enthusiasts (and I call myself one), do we look in the mirror often enough and ask of ourselves am I really engaging or just pushing my message out?. Is social media becoming an echo chamber again? I thought that 2010 would be the year of “going back to the basics and learning to engage”.
It seems my prophesy is fulfilling itself a couple of months earlier than I expected.
Related posts:
- The @CPRSVanStudents event on Social Media 101
- Social Media Club Vancouver launch
- On authenticity in social media
- My recent Social Media Club Victoria talk: “Towards an Action-Focused Agenda for Social Change Using Social Media” (#smcvictoria) @smcvictoria
- On being jaded with social media for social change
I’m with you on this. Folks who just broadcast I start to ignore pretty quickly. Also people who seem to be “on message” all the time. No idle chat. No quirky comments. Just the well crafted stuff about whatever they do.
If Twitter is worth anything, it’s got to be about the relationship building and that requires engagement.
I think the beauty of these new media is that there are many different ways to communicate, and everyone is still working out what works for them. There are some accounts I follow who do strictly broadcast, and I enjoy and find value in following them.
The key is adding value to the people who matter for your particular situation (business or personal) – and if it’s working, it doesn’t matter if not everyone agrees with your strategy. In fact, I’d argue that it’s better that way.
I know humans naturally try to find patterns and form rules around things. It’s how we make order and sense of the world around us. But the recent flurry over assigning rules to social media based on who was where first and who thinks which format is better really reminds me of Junior High, where the popular kids decide to shun everyone wearing purple one day, just “because they said so.”
@ Jo – I agree, I personally enjoy the engagement.
@ Jen – Let me the devil’s advocate here (for the N-th time). You say that there are many ways to communicate. True. However (and this is something that is inherent to the definition of web 2.0 – if we say that the difference of web 2.0 vis-a-vis web 1.0 is that now we are conversing, then by definition, conversation happens between two (or more) people in a bidirectional way). Communication, in my view, isn’t just one way.
I don’t disagree with what you say about adding value, and of course not everybody will agree with each person’s strategy. In my case, I am a conversationalist, other people may be broadcasters, and that’s all fine and dandy. But when a broadcaster tells me “hey you should be talking to people and listening”, when they are ONLY broadcasting, doesn’t that cast doubt on the validity of their teachings?
One last thought – I’m a scholar whose theoretical background is heavily founded on institutional analysis (the study of rules and norms). It’s only natural that I seek to understand the world through those lenses. I am, however, not being normative about my analysis. I am questioning whether the advice being provided by some social media folks is valid in light of they not actually following it (e.g. breaking their own rules).
I’m not attempting to establish a set of rules. I follow my rules of engagement, that’s all. And I ask questions, many times, questions that make people uncomfortable. I challenge my own views, all the time. And this post intends to challenge commonly held views too.
Raul, I agree that hypocrisy in any venue is stupid. Although, I also think there is some validity to the adage that “those who can’t do, teach.”
I am less concerned with the actions of someone selling social media services on their own behalf than I am with the results they’ve achieved for their clients. If they have no clients or results to show, then we start to have a problem.
And true conversation doesn’t really factor much into the definition of Web 2.0. The core of the definition has to do with the way we use the web – web as platform, cloud computing, and interactivity/custom content. Conversation is a nice side-effect of that, but neither sufficient nor necessary for a successful web 2.0 or social media experience.
In all honestly, I find it hard to ride the fine line on Twitter (or Facebook) between broadcasting too much or engaging too much. On the one hand, some could argue that you don’t want to fill your Twitter page up with @ replies because it makes it hard to follow. On the other hand, some could argue that you aren’t engaging enough.
And all the while being thoughtful of not spamming your friends or followers.
Ugh.