Messages to the Brand also apply to the Person.

I was recently engaged in a conversation with a colleague regarding their trepidation to jump into the conversation and "put themselves out there" in regards to the social netmosphere, (a term I use in my own thinking, not necessarily part of the English language) and it prompted me to draw some parallels to the messages we are delivering to our clients. If you think about it, the same requirements apply to you as a "Person" participant as apply to the "Brand" participant.

1. You have to decide to participate. If you are dragged in, its the wrong attitude, and you won't benefit.
   
2. You have to be willing to let go of control. Your words/thoughts become part of the whole, to be shaped and used as others see fit. You have to be comfortable with that.
   
3. You have to be willing to hear the bad along with the good. Not everyone will agree with you, or even acknowledge you all the time.
   
4. You have to talk with not at others. Nobody likes a sandbox bully. It's "we" now, not "me."

Since we know the its the minority that contribute, perhaps if we acknowledge these "objections" to participating in the conversation on a personal level, the same way we educate brands, that minority would become the majority. Can you imagine the power that would bring?

Twitter - just a conversation

I just read Dr. Mani's post, relating Twitter to coffee room conversations. Read it here.

There's been much debate around Twitter and platforms like it. Many just don't "get it." They don't see the purpose, or what it can do for them, or why they should play. But like so many other social web outlets, Twitter is just another tool that is bringing already established social interactions to a new medium. Twitter is merely a conversation. One that you participate in or merely listen to. And like offline conversations, the subject matters vary from from personal, to business, to directional. The fact that people Tweet about the lunch the are eating, does not in and of itself make Twitter invaluable, it makes it more real. Because people talk about the lunch they are eating offline as well. They also talk about blog posts that might be of interest to you, theories that make you think and when and where you might meet for a drink.

I think the questions becomes one of personal preference rather than validity of a platform. There are people who like to converse and connect with others, and there are those that don't. Plain and simple, no right or wrong. My suggestion is, if you are on Twitter, choose who you follow carefully. Choose those who you find value in their words, and want to hear about. Hmmm... sounds like some other words of advice I've heard... "choose your friends wisely." It's amazing how it how it all circles back, isn't it?

The ultimate in peer influence

There has got to be a better argument out there for social networking than "everybody's doing it." I mean, really? I understand the underlying message... that whether you are out there or not, others are, and you can't change that. But it seems to me there should be some more concrete evidence to make the argument. Although, if you think about it, the peer pressure angle might make the most sense. I mean, we are talking about peer influence, and what illustrates the point better then peer pressure itself?

Social Networking: beyond the web

Forgive me, I'm a little behind, but I just read this post (thank you Twitter!) about how deep rooted the social networking urge is. If you haven't seen it... check it out.

I've been mulling the underlying drivers of the success, or should we say invasion, of social networking and an interesting thought crossed my mind while talking about neighborhoods the other day. I don't know about you, but since I have been little, the concept of the "neighborhood" has changed drastically. Remember the directive from Mom to "be home for dinner?" And that was the extent of checking in you had to do? We'd be gone for HOURS playing with the neighborhood kids, hanging out at other's houses, exploring the world. From what I gather in talking to parents nowadays, that doesn't happen very often anymore. It can't happen. It's a different world and parents are too smart (or scared) to let their kids roam the streets until the street lights come on. Am I generalizing? Probably. And there may still be a slew of kids playing in the street right now, but I would bet not as many as before.

But that "playing" had more to do with building our "social network" than anything else. And the neighborhood mindset extended to more than just the kids who lived there. Families gathered during summer evenings and talked about what was going on, and who was moving in or out. There was more of a feeling of a "group" and being a part of it. That's changed. I've seen the transformation. People stay to themselves more now. It's safer, less risky.

But that doesn't change the innate need to be social. We can't fight it. And now that we are less apt to reach out in person, we turn to other opportunities, like online, to fulfill that need. Perhaps that is why social networking has taken off. Maybe that's why people flock to online reviews and interest groups. Why people love Twitter and Facebook and LinkedIn. It provides the connections that people are craving, in a less risky arena. But that may not be what keeps them there. Climbing the social ladder is so much easier in this new world. Here they have control over who they interact with, what they contribute and who listens. Powerful. So maybe this shift goes beyond the wanting to be heard. Maybe it's really filling a void we weren't aware we had. And if that's true... online social networking is far bigger, in every sense of the word, than any of us could have imagined.