Where do you connect?
And what is the quality of that connection on the various social media sites and apps?
Here are a few of my observations on "connecting." I am proposing a interaction value (iV = iValue from 1 to 10) 10 being the highest: example-sitting in a cafe chatting with the person.
the circles of passion and networks of connection
Facebook Status Updates. (iV=6) Status updates are an easy way to interact with social media. You put it out there, what you're thinking about what your doing. And if friends are like-minded or feeling social they can add a comment. The discussion is limited. The timeliness of the responses are not expected. In fact a response is not expected at all. But I give an up point for actually taking the time to comment. That alone is a sign of connectivity that is rare.
Facebook Wall-to-Wall or Direct Message. (iV=8) While these messages are like IM, I am never sure if the comment I am posting, even if I am doing a wall to wall post, is actually private or just no "published" on my page. So I still don't trust Facebook for much open discussion.
Twitter: The RT (ReTweet) or @ (reply). ( iV=8) While there is connection and some exchange of mutual respect or disrespect, depending on the tweet, there is still not much content. 140 characters is good for cutting to the chase or babbling nonsense.
Twitter: D (Direct Message). (iV=9) This is the analogue of IM. A private message directly to the individual. Except for the AUTO-DM (infamously known as the Auto-Bot responder), the direct message has a very high value.
EMail. (iV=3/9) The quality of connection in an email is directly related to the subject matter and the prior relationship with the recipient. I cannot count the number of "brilliant" emails I have written as introductions that have been ignored. I am not sure what the culture today is breeding with our responsibility to reply to emails, but I would guess that I am in the minority in trying to respond, at least with an acknowledgement, to most direct emails. If the message is about work or money, it seems like to many people in the business world that it is perfectly okay to ignore the message. No reply EVER! That's weird. Especially when it comes from "friends." On a social network, no problem, but a direct email is a fairly high commitment of time. And if you don't reply, I guess your commitment to "connecting" with me is obvious.
LinkedIN Direct Messages. (iV=9) I have had great luck using LinkedIN to connect with potential employers, head hunters, colleagues and getting informaition on potential client companies or employers. Even using the Forward Through a Colleague system I have had about an 80% connect rate. Meaning at least I get a response. That said, if LinkedIN continues to drive memberships rather than quality of service, I am afraid the LinkedIN value may go down over time. Yes there are people trying to scam linked in. There are a lot a MLM and get rich quicksters on the LinkedIN Q and A boards.
LinkedIN Groups. (iV=4/8) There are good Groups and Bad Groups. I find "active" communities within the groups to be rare. Usually the groups that are agressive about networking have a primary champion who does weekly updates and introductions. Trying to promote the value of your group seems like an odd pitch. Either the Group discussions and information will provide valuable information or it won't. Some groups are mere "badges" that proclaim things like "I Am Green," and "Professional Marketers." I find those to be less useful. The groups that have a more tightly defined focus "Online UX Designers" for example usually has a fairly high level of dicussion and sharing.
Instant Messaging. (iV=9) Using a multi-IM client like Adium I have access to all of my "chat" function sites in one place. But actually that's a problem. For a while I had Skype and Facebook chat connected to my IM client. But to me, that's like putting my real-time attention out there for 100s of folks to see. I have since dialed back on Skype and mostly keep Facebook chat off. I open Adium when I want to reach out and connect with a colleague or loved one. Imagine inviting any of your Facebook friends to initate a Skype Video call. Why would you? So I mainly keep IM closed. When I am on, I have a purpose I am trying to accomplish. Either I am working directly with a group or team, or I am asking a question of a colleage that I need help with in RealTime. Everything else has to go through a less direct channel. A bouncing open IM window screams for attention. And if I am writing, that's the last thing I want to pay attention to.
Blog Comments. (iV=6/8) I am always amazed at how hard it is to get folks to comment. I WORK at it. And it is a random post that gets comments. That said, once the comments happen, if they are sincere they get a strong connect value for me. If I take the time to comment extensively on some one else's blog, AMD's Patrick Morehead, for example, I am spending my time and effort polishing a communication that can engage and further the conversation. I am not a big fan of the "Right on, great post." comment type. But even those show a level of connectivity. And here's the secret. Commenting on high-value blogs drives traffic back to your site. As an example a single comment on an Australian blog discussing the issues of broadband metering generated 50 direct hits in two hours. Contrast that with a Tweet, when I promote a post my immediate response rate is about 10 – 15. And that's me working the Twittershere. The comment then continued to generate links for about a week for a total of 112 links from a blog in Australia. The comment took me about 15 minute to right, but the value of that traffic was very high value.
So in "community" we think of trust and connection. The value of that "connection" on most sites is very low. And I believe that comes from the lack of commitment. If I add your Group or Cause to my Facebook page, my investment is complete. And if I taunt, cajole, plead and demand your comments on a community or group and I get NOTHING. I would guess the "value" of that connection is low. You've added the Group as a piece of flair, but your commitment to DO anything related, or even comment on our efforts simply does not exist.
I am afraid the majority of Twitter followers are of the later variety. About 2% of my "followers" interact with me in any way.
However the beauty of that number is this. Of that 2% that DO take the time to RT, DM (NOT Auto-DM) or otherwise engage in a discussion with me, those relationships tend to grow over time. And the potential for that connection is HIGH. But the "relationship" must be cultivated.
Coffee with a friend or New Friend. (iV=10) It is a lot of work to meet someone is real time in the real world. You have to set a time, a place and then you have to remember. And if there are problems, the value of that connection will be tested.
Two recent examples.
1. I had tweeted that I wanted to join someone for coffee in the afternoon. A close colleage accepted and we made a date via Twitter. Well, unexpected things took place and I discovered about 10 minutes after our rendesvous time that I was still at home. I called immediately. And because this person and I are friends, the mistake was understandable, and we did the discussion via the call. Mission accomplished. Face-to-face time, missed.
2. Same concept, via Facebook I connected with a former colleague and we agreed to meet for lunch that afternoon. We agreed on a place and time and neiter of us showed up. We went to different locations of the same restaurant. Now, being a web worker, I was emailing, IMing, and Facebooking this person to see where they were. He was completely offline and we had a miss. Dial forward another week. Same idea, we're going to meet for coffee at 10am. And guess what, unexpected things took place and I was running late. The bad part was I had left my phone at home. So I could not call the person and could not be reached to let him know I was on my way and in a traffic jam. Problem was, he was still offline. And though he tried to call me, when I arrived 17 minutes late, he was not there. The good part was, it was a wired coffeeshop so I immediately got online and started pinging, emailing, and FBing this person. But again, he was offline. So I had coffee, worked on the web for an hour, happy to have the quiet time, and then went home. Hours I got a somewhat angry email. He had been at the coffee shop but left after 15 minutes when he could not get in touch with me.
So the first miss fueled the second miss. But also, my friend, not being a digital nomad, did not have his computer when he arrived at the wired cafe and therefore was left sitting there waiting. My friend in the 1st example is 100% digital, android phone, wireless pc-card, office free. He was quite happy to have the time alone. We made contact on the phone and took care of what we needed to take care of.
And there's one more example that illuminates just a bit more of the complexity of real time connections vs. online connections. A colleague at Dell and I arranged to meet for lunch. We had met once at Dell, but had been exchanging emails for 3 years due to our working relationship with various clients and agencies. So there we were sitting in the waiting area at the Hula Hut and we did not recognize each other. She pinged my phone via TXT and left. When the TXT arrived at my phone, 10 feet away, she was already back in her car headed for home. We laughed that perhaps both of use wearing hats had thrown us off. She commented that noticing my Mac made her think that it probably was NOT me. I mean, I worked at Dell.
So the value of connections with Social Media can be high or low. But the Trust in the connection is quite fragile. While getting together Real-Time is hard. Getting connected online in a way that allows to you share at a high or confidential level is rare. I am very interested in understanding what creates TRUST online. What parts of a social media platform (NING, FaceBook, LinkedIN, Twitter) make Trust easy or hard.
The ultimate test comes when there is a miss or a problem. If the relationship can weather the ups and downs of the real world, then the connection might survive to build into a working/trusting/collaborating relationship.
@jmacofearth
permalink: http://bit.ly/interaction-value
Tags: acknowledgement, adium, analogue, auto-DM, autobot, blog comments, coffee with a friend, collaboration, connection, connectivity, connectivity is rare, cutting to the chase, digital handshake, direct message, disrespect, doing business, facebook, Facebook Status Updates, followers, friendship, instant messaging, interaction, interaction value, introductions, iV, ivalue, linkedin, linkedIN direct messages, LinkedIN groups, mutual friends, mutual respect, NING, online connections, open social, open source rules, personal investment, piece of flair, quality of connection, recipient, social media, social networking, social networks, sparks, status updates, taking the time, timeliness, trust, trust and connection, value is low, value of a tweet, value of connection, virtual business, virtual handshake, virtual teaming, wall to wall
Jan 28 2010
LinkedIN's Viral Social Aspect: cSM or rSM – Trolls in Action (Case Study)
(The names of the ignorant have been changed to protect all of us.)
A while back I saw a discussion group on my LinkedIN group feeds. The title was clearly link-bait, but hey, who am I to ignore calling bs when I see it. Now on comment 2,044, the discussion on in the eMarketing Network Association titled Social Media for Business is CRAP, has hosted some pretty fun discussions. Some bullying. Some ignorance. But most of all it has revealed what Social Media is, a conversation.
Social Media Strategist walks into a bar and orders a drink. Bartender says, "Sure I'll get you the drink, but you're an idiot if you believe that s**t your peddling". You might think twice about sticking around. Next the patron to your immediate left chimes in, "Yeah, idiot. We don't serve your kind here, you're shilling for the man." At that point you get the picture that you've been baited and trolled. Just the kind of bar fight I'm into, kind of in a Charles Bronson kind of way. I'd be more Chuck Norris if I could, but I don't have the Chuck's jedi mind-trick powers. And I don't have the class of Clint's Dirty Harry. I do use his line however. "So what's it gonna be? Are you two punks feeling lucky?"
A few days later I stroll into the bar to listen to the discussion. The two bullies have not decreased their antagonism. Everyone that has a positive thing to say about social media is summarily attacked. With 24 posts over three pages, the drunk at the bar has started not only getting more surly, but both sailor's confidence is soaring as he meters out schooling every new customer that enters the bar. His most recent rant looks like this.
"There you go now there's no wisdom in that… You never learn anything.. Have a nice day. Another good example for the group. Again Thank You
The lesson feedback is valuable. LISTEN TO IT !"
As K and R (the names have been truncated changed), "the twins," are preparing for the jump from the CRAP discussion to the CRAP group they have created, I am amazed that they have (collectively) learned ZERO. R has stated he is compiling a "best of" this thread and giving a PDF of his edit to joiners of the CRAP group. I don't think they have a logo yet, but I have some ideas what the image might be. Hey, they've got 70 members. wOOt!
And as for a best of, I won't pretend that my experience in social media is a "best of" or that I know better than anyone how to make this stuff go. I too am a student. I can however summarize both K's and R's contribution to the 2k+ comments and the chili dog celebration they are announcing as "they" wind down this group and attempt to call people to their SM is CRAP group.
K's pattern evolved early on as challengers entered the room to tell K he was more like his motto (Exploiting Client's Online Assets) than social media was. I think you will find this response typical from page 1 – 105.
K says, " Will, When you figure it out PLEASE let the rest of us know. Thanks in advance K….." (best of K's CRAP, p. 10)
And the chorus of response to K's smarter-than-thou sailor was pretty typical too, "K****, do you always respond to people that disagree with you with insults? You know nothing about my business. — SH (best of K's CRAP, p. 11)
And K throws his expertize back at SH with this marvel of logic, "S******, Insult? Ok, I'll be the "bad guy". Meanwhile, I was hoping could get something more concrete other then a "wild" claim of -> "Over 30% of all new accounts opened this year have been a direct result of social networking". How, when, where? i.e. if Facebook or Twitter, using what trigger, what conversion strategy?, WHO are these "accounts"?. We're all here to learn. Not, exercise our egos. " (best of K's CRAP, p. 11)
And as he pounded one more visitor, K revealed his master plan, "C*******, Re:"that is the whole point of SM. There is no "ROI" captured on "books" because these things are not able to be "captured". "… / Then STAYED TUNED for the "white paper' I will be posting in next few days. You may be quite surprised. Also, your "There is no "ROI" captured " statement would be quite disturbing to the majority of social media active business owners in the survey "(best of K's CRAP, p. 14)
K never did put out his white paper. If you see it, I'd love to see the expertise of the angry exploiter. I guess that was over a month and a half ago that he promised his leadership piece. I have not seen it. Maybe he's got it over on his new group.
Rewind to the meeting of the twins: Back on PAGE 23, R swaggers into the bar and orders a stiff one. At this point I don't think he's been on the bar crawl for long. He seems civil and articulate. At least he has a point.
"K*****: Social media works for our clients. You want real results.. Here's but one example of a cheap campaign that works http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGKXsIMBJ_4Social Media is Crap ? Hog Wash !! It works and it works VERY well if propertly used in a number of ways !!We have 100's of others. If your looking for something out of the box for little $$$ let us know. We can show you how ! R***** H******"
What happens next is very curious. What I thought I saw, a week ago, was K tearing into R with the same vigor and ignorance demonstrated above. What we have now however, are a string of "this comment has been deleted" notations. R continues to respond to "someone," but it's as if K didn't attack him at all.
Maybe that's when the comment count reverted from 1,998 back to 1,690. Maybe, just maybe K was attempting to clean up his act. It's been documented before that he has a habit of attacking like a drunken sailor and then deleting his own comments. But how did R turn in an open challenge to K and get not one argument back from K? It's as almost as if K attacks and R's repsonses were erased from the discussion.
We pick up the love story again on page 27 when R, has turned the corner "Right on K*****" It's about that time that these two jokers, wrote mutually praising LinkedIN recommendations, saying how smart the other guy was. I laugh at the transparency of social media, and the mental vacuity that doesn't allow these to guys to see they are pawning themselves in front of all of us in the bar. Check the endorsements out on their profiles. It's pretty funny what they have to say about each other in terms of business intelligence. An illustration of the don't-pat-yourself-on-the-back-too-hard-you-might-break-your-arm principle.
The rest of the twins participation follows the same formula: 1. visitor comes in and says something about social media; 2. The twins attack; 3. visitor leaves.
They've picked up the pace a bit, note R has 24 comments on the last 3 pages of this post. Heck, one even looks as if R is bragging about his social calendar. But it's clear that he as fallen hard on the bottle at this point.
K only racks up 7 comments over that time. And then it's over. They kill the group. Or maybe the LinkedIN police swooped down and shut it down and locked the drunks out. Whatever happened, I am a bit sorry the the twins are lost and gone forever. I'm sure they are making the best of it on their Social Media for Business is CRAP group. You kind of have to wish them well. Challenged as they are by their limitations, they are, in fact, making a living using Social Media. Heck they are even referring to themselves as experts in several online marketing fields. Doesn't make sense to me that you would walk into a bar with a gun pointed at the head of the golden goose, but maybe people like those kind of theatrics. Not for me.
Anyway, best of luck with the CRAP group boys. One question though: "Who is going to put that badge on their profile?"
@jmacofearth
permalink: http://bit.ly/trolls-in-action
Monte Python's Self Defense with Fruit skit
Tags: attack with fruit, bullying, but you're an idiot, caging the trolls, categories of social media, charles bronson, chuck norris, clint eastwood, come at me with that banana, community building, community policing, conversion strategy, dirty harry, don't publish what you can't defend, Exploiting, ignorance, jedi mind-trick powers, linkedIN flame, linkedin goes viral, man walks into a bar, monte python, monty python self defense, online trust, serve the community/customers, social media, social media case study, social media expert, social media for business is crap, social media is a conversation, social media is a local bar, social media leadership, social media ninja, social media rant, social media strategist, social media strategist walks into a bar, social media white paper, suffer the trolls, the trolls, the twins, there is no undo on the internet, this comment has been deleted, trolls case study, trolls in action, trust, trust agent, trust vs reputation, white paper
View Comments