And all the while being thoughtful of not spamming your friends or followers.

Ugh.

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.

@ 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.

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.”

If Twitter is worth anything, it’s got to be about the relationship building and that requires engagement.