St. Louis, MO
I solve problems and kiss squirrels, and I'm all out of squirrels. Putting the social in anti-social on a daily basis.
@ClayMorgan @Eleanor Pierce The challenge Clay is that when the numbers get to a certain point, 1:1 just isn't going to work unless you push everything down through the hierarchy. And at some point I would imagine it feels once again that you're just a number in the cog of the company even though the intent was to 'personalize' it. I definitely think people want to hear from the top, or rather, they want to 'feel' from the top.
3 months ago on How to Make Layoffs Suck Less
@Eleanor Pierce I suspect you're right
Great piece Dave. I would add that there's a 'final' model of maturity when the network of hub & spoke evolves to a core/periphery network as the command & control structure evolves along with it and greater judgment can be pushed to the edges. That said, scaling today's large enterprises to that point is primarily hypothetical based upon existing network evolution theory, we know that's how it works but we're still quite some ways off from reaching that point. So, like you, we typically don't address that stage directly with our clients at this point other than as a vision of a future state. We touch on it a bit here http://www.slideshare.net/SideraWorks/social-media-to-social-business-expion-keynote-sept-2012 but happy to share the background over a beer at some point :)
Hope all is well,
1 year, 11 months ago on Social Media at Scale: Organizing Global Social Media Teams
@karyncooks I suppose the question becomes, who is then responsible for bringing about this cultural shift and the change management necessary? I don't see that as a marketing function.
2 years ago on Is Social Business a Buzzword or is There More to it?
@MackCollier (I should also mention that the software vendors have created as much or more confusion around the term as anyone)
@MackCollier Not sure I understand your meaning specifically, but understanding (biggest challenge in the world of social business) and adoption ARE accelerating. These aren't engagements using marketing skill sets for the most part, there are a few areas of direct overlap in the policies and processes area but otherwise no direct customer engagement work, do you think that's why there's still such confusion in the marketing consulting sector? Trying to fit a square block in a round hole? About mid-way through 2012 social media marketers started blending their usage of 'social business' to just be a proxy for what they called 'social media' the day before, I guess they thought it was a new term for 'a business that uses social media' or something and didn't want to be left off the bandwagon, wanted to be taken more seriously, or... I don't really know to be honest. But I can tell you that it created a lot more confusion with social media folks, a little bit of confusion with companies (mainly marketers. the execs understand pretty clearly that they aren't hiring marketing experts, they're hiring management consultants), and scratching of heads for social business consultants themselves.
@MackCollier (My clients would be pretty upset to hear we're not in a tactical application phase yet :) )
@ginidietrich @deborahhinton One of the reasons I don't particularly like the term 'social business' is this very reason. Muhammad and the work he's done over at the Yunus foundation is amazing, and long predates our usage of the term social business in the mgmt consulting industry. Granted, not many actual customers know that, but it still makes for bad SEO, and just adds unnecessary confusion. Peter Kim, who originally coined social business for the usage we are talking about here, didn't purposefully do that, it just made sense at the time.
Couple of comments. I'm on record in many places as to my feelings on 'buzzwords' (including a recent conversation regarding Native Advertising instigating by your post via Tom Martin), so I won't go into depth on that here. To sum that up I'd say it's whether something attempts to add clarity to a conversation, or whether it's meaningless jargon meant to deceive that matters. Even though 'social business' is *my* business, I'm not a particularly huge fan of the term as I think it muddies the water because folks involved in the 'media' portion of social have conversations about it that do nothing but confuse the issue.
If you just want a definition and traits: http://www.slideshare.net/SideraWorks/what-is-social-business-a-sideraworks-brief
If you want executive positioning and statistics: http://www.slideshare.net/SideraWorks/selling-social-to-the-csuite-sideraworks
Where I'd disagree with the articles point of view is that it seems to still equate social business with the usage of social media and with the engagement of customers. At its simplest, social business deals with two areas. 1) The *impact* of social media on businesses themselves (pace of communications, cultural impact on workforce, internal processes, etc.) 2) The usage of social constructs *within* the business to improve business itself (collaboration, culture, knowledge distribution, learning systems, and so on). In other words, it's not about 'using' social media.
Social business can (but isn't required to, there are good examples of ones that don't) encompass external social media engagement into its holistic strategies, but it isn't about social media.
I'm not a fan of these lists, but I have to say you honored some really great folks on here who as you say 'don't get enough credit' and I'm happy to see their light spread more widely.
Matt Ridings - @techguerilla
2 years, 5 months ago on 100 People Who Don’t Get Enough Credit Online
From a marketing perspective, I believe as you do that it would have been more effective as a two-part staged communication.
However, where this really failed for me had little to do with a marketing campaigns effectiveness. If you are going to engage all of your employees in something like this you are teaching your employees your values. You are saying "We care about our customers. They have choices and they chose us. We don't want you to forget that, in fact we want you to honor that relationship and form a direct relationship with them...person to person as it were". Reinforcing those values has profound effects on your internal culture that go far beyond simple marketing objectives. The moment you attach the marketing offer you instead are telling your employees that they have become free labor in a marketing exercise and that those are the true values that your company about.
Companies can build and leverage relationships that in turn create transactions, or they can simply try and generate transactions through simple marketing calls-to-action. Guess which one I think the employees feel they were a part of.
Matt Ridings - @techguerilla
2 years, 5 months ago on Is Your Marketing a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing?
We've found that there isn't much more powerful than developing out the policies, processes, and governance models to get an organization started down the road to becoming a social business (even though this is a social media focused exercise). It has benefits that go far beyond being prepared, namely it forces an organization to start seeing things from a holistic organizational perspective vs. a departmental one since there's no way to do this properly without involving other groups including infrastructure ones such as HR, Legal, and IT. We call it Social Scenario Modeling but it's essentially the same thing http://www.sideraworks.com/what-we-do/services/social-business-labs/social-scenario-modeling/
Thanks for the great topic, there's not enough written about it in my opinion.
2 years, 6 months ago on Social Media Crisis Management: Sin & Salvation Within Your Reach
@margieclayman I understand that part, I'm trying to grasp the underlying point. Are you saying one (passion/obsession) is more valuable than another? Are you saying that we deceive ourselves and then use that self deception to advise others incorrectly? Basically, I get the sense that you're saying that self-deception, or that confusion, about terminology is somehow harmful in some way but I'm not really comprehending where the harm lies if that makes any sense.
2 years, 9 months ago on Are You Passionate About Social Media, Or Obsessed?
I'm not sure I got the point? I'm a bit 'obsessed' with the notion of intent, I've written extensively on it and I think it matters a great deal...to me. But the question I'd ask is if someone produces a blog post or a tweet that is valuable to you, is your value less because their intent was selfishly motivated vs. driven by some altruistic passion? Value is derived and defined by the recipient of the action/content not by the creator.
Do I care that your motives for guest posting here are to drive attention to you? Whether you are obsessed or passionate? Whether you mistakenly describe yourself as one while acting as the other? Not a whit. What I care about is whether you let that passion or obsession drive you past a line of ethics or morals that I find unacceptable. But that again is decided by me, not you or your motivation.
I think I may be too dense to grok this one Margie.
@GuyKawasaki1 I suspected as much. Glad to see you around these parts.
2 years, 10 months ago on Is Social Media Strategy Required or Redundant?
@JoeManna @JayBaer I don't know Joe. Perhaps I'm just too pragmatic or an old fuddy duddy, but I really don't care if a business owner personally enjoys social media. I don't care if they 'feel the good feelings'. I don't care if they themselves want to engage at all, or see it as a complete waste of time for personal usage. What I *do* care about is whether or not they can separate their individual feelings from that of the world around them and see the value (or lack thereof) as it relates to their business. Is it something that their business can leverage? Can it make them more effective? Can they better convey their unique 'personality'? Can they deepen their relationships with their customers and extend their lifetime value? Etc.
You can love it, or you can personally 'not get it', but that shouldn't change your obligation to understand the dynamics of it enough so that you can make the best decisions for your business.
@JayBaer Don't get me started :) You and I see perfectly eye to eye on that.
I think if the quote is interpreted as: "Before you dive into strategies, objectives, or hiring of consultants you should immerse yourself a bit into social media so that you fully grasp the context of the mediums and can make better decisions about their usage" it's less incendiary no?
Matt Ridings - @techguerilla
I've done a lot of behavioral analysis in this area as part of the influencer studies I've been involved in. There are a couple of elements here I'd note (haven't read the study, simply going by your summary of it). First, it's a misnomer to say that those results mean that there isn't an echo chamber. The results simply say that there isn't *only* a self-sustaining echo chamber. Of course there's an echo chamber, (in all facets of our lives not just online). We are all a series of cliques, so let's get that out of the way. We all gravitate to like-minded people, for a lot of complex reasons. Because they are more likely to expose us to something we would like (a sort of qualifying filter). Because they are more likely to like the things that we do (a sense of validation). Because we want to be accepted. And in the social media world, because they are more likely to share the things that we share and vice-versa. It's also a bit of a ridiculous notion that there is 'one' echo chamber. There are many. The 'popular kids' (often described as A-listers in social media circles) are generally only described as such by another echo chamber (the 'haters' if you like). It's all a question of perspective. Those 'haters' build their own echo chambers. Is one really different than the other simply because one has a broader pool of participants? I've used those two echo chamber examples simply because you referred to them, but there are an infinite number of them.
Now that that drudgery is out of the way, what's the behavioral reason that people are more likely to click on something from a weak tie than a strong one? For the most part it's because they either a) see an opportunity to bring a new topic into their echo chamber/clique that will resonate or b) are less likely to click on a link from their own echo chamber because they feel like it has already reached a point of saturation that their sharing it will add little value. Those two factors create a higher percentage likelihood of clicking on a weak ties link. (there are many more however, the study of how information flows through a social network is a fascinating one, but also incredibly complex and still not fully understood)
All of that said, the results are not the same on Twitter where people view the act of a RT very differently than they do a share on Facebook.
My .02 cents
3 years ago on Social Media Echo Chamber – Myth Or Truth
@JayBaer Let me put it this way. Thought leadership is evolving to the same place, but from different fronts. It's why there's always disagreement between folks on trying to distinguish between Enterprise 2.0 and Social Business for example. I think the perception is slightly skewed simply because the circles which you have more visibility into happen to be more marketing oriented. ATOS, Cap Gemini, IBM, etc. all are pushing on this front (from their own perspective). From an application of resources and investment perspective I'd have to say they have as much skin in this game as anyone, they just aren't as visible in the circles that grew out of social media and evolved beyond it. Now, as far as social media is concerned it has been predominantly a Marketing and PR movement. Those early practitioners have evolved and said "I see where this is going, and it's beyond my current scope so I have a decision to make...". Edelman is one example of that, as are others. Because they were housed in a firm interacting with marketers they happened to have some smart people who had moved beyond social media, thus a marketing oriented background. That doesn't mean they don't fully understand the implications and possible solutions. They may inherently have less experience with change management at that scale but that can be hired and/or developed.
But one way to look at is to flip it on its head and say "Does IBM have as much experience with the external facing side of this beast as someone who came from that angle? If not, does that mean their proposed solutions will not be adequate because the implications were not taken into account?"
3 years, 1 month ago on Should Your PR Firm Be Your Social Business Advisor
Interesting post Jay.
In regards to the issue around degrees, first jobs, etc. Not sure that's particularly relevant. The path of evolution is important since that forms the basis of relevant experience, but the starting point..whether single celled organism or something more fully formed...shouldn't take away from the result. I have some of my deepest conversations in this area with Dave Gray, yet his original background would never stand the kind of scrutiny you're putting forth for example. I came out of the technology arena early on before moving into high end consulting, facilitation and change management. Surely that doesn't mean that my knowledge of business foundations is somehow 'less'?
The diversity of that evolution path is a bonus in my opinion. Armano, Peter Kim, Amber Naslund, Jeremiah Owyang, Dave Gray, etc. all view the world through a slightly different lens that informs and enhances my own.
Can a PR firm successfully sell themselves as a Social Business consultancy? Probably not. Can they delineate an arm of themselves as being separate enough to do so while retaining the power of the existing brand? Yes, I think so. Predominantly because both sides of the fence can act as lead gen tools for the other vs. trying to do a massive separate branding exercise.
My personal take is that clients are all over the map. Some want a pure play that acts as a one-stop shop (Dachis for example), some want a hybrid with a more diverse breadth of skills (Edelman possibly), some want pure play SB strategy without the perceived bias that comes with staffing ground level implementation folks, some want traditional strategy....you get the idea. There's no such thing as a single 'right answer' here. Nor should there be. Client comfort with existing relationships, their own unique needs, the starting point of where Social Business is taking seed (rarely does it start at C-level, even though that would be ideal), etc. all can and do influence the best partner for a particular client.
Just my .02 cents.
Matt Ridings - @techguerilla
As you saw, I'm feeling the same way today. Hopefully I'll soon get to know YOU better Jay.
3 years, 4 months ago on Social Media, Pretend Friends, and the Lie of False Intimacy
@Danny Brown My only issue with this post (since I don't particularly think Chris' idea is a great use of time) is that it's sloppy in its use of math/logic. You don't apply some generic cold call conversion percentage to a specific engagement methodology, much less one that holds none of the same attributes.
4 years ago on Why Brogan’s Bigger Ear Marketing Is Wrong