I wouldn't characterize my posture as defensive, especially in comparison to the post. But you may, sure.

I can agree that a great number of people see social media differently, with those on either extreme headed in the wrong direction. Both can drive people away from even discussing it. Listening is the first step toward responding, online or offline, which is a level of participation.

But more to the point. For those who would be cynical as opposed to critical about it — what they seem to miss in all the discussions is that they are participants whether they participate or not. Non-participation is an action, with outcomes, after all.

For example, just because you will not pick up the phone for a reporter doesn't mean that there will not be a story. Likewise, if a customer posts something about your company, in public, on a blog, some people will be affected by it.

Ironically, companies pay more attention to private correspondence than public correspondence from customers. How is that practical?

Companies spend millions of dollars trying to reach publics, and study after study shows they are participating as much as 31 hours online (eclipsing television), but some companies don't want to be available there. How is that fiscally responsible?

Companies spend thousands on television advertising to a public that skips there message while a top 20 show nowadays is an audience of only 6 million (perhaps half that, when you omit those who don't watch commercials). But they are not willing to engage a customer who is looking for them on the Internet. How is that logical?

I can agree with you that not all social media methods are good social media practices. But the logic of omitting it all together is like omitting telephones simply because someone prefers to meet in person. In the end, people who close off a communication stream will drive customers elsewhere.

Best,
Rich

I wouldn't characterize my posture as defensive, especially in comparison to the post. But you may, sure.

I can agree that a great number of people see social media differently, with those on either extreme headed in the wrong direction. Both can drive people away from even discussing it. Listening is the first step toward responding, online or offline, which is a level of participation.

But more to the point. For those who would be cynical as opposed to critical about it — what they seem to miss in all the discussions is that they are participants whether they participate or not. Non-participation is an action, with outcomes, after all.

For example, just because you will not pick up the phone for a reporter doesn't mean that there will not be a story. Likewise, if a customer posts something about your company, in public, on a blog, some people will be affected by it.

Ironically, companies pay more attention to private correspondence than public correspondence from customers. How is that practical?

Companies spend millions of dollars trying to reach publics, and study after study shows they are participating as much as 31 hours online (eclipsing television), but some companies don't want to be available there. How is that fiscally responsible?

Companies spend thousands on television advertising to a public that skips there message while a top 20 show nowadays is an audience of only 6 million (perhaps half that, when you omit those who don't watch commercials). But they are not willing to engage a customer who is looking for them on the Internet. How is that logical?

I can agree with you that not all social media methods are good social media practices. But the logic of omitting it all together is like omitting telephones simply because someone prefers to meet in person. In the end, people who close off a communication stream will drive customers elsewhere.

Best,
Rich

1. Fair point, but is listening to social media is less than participation in it, which is less than activation of it. My view, YMMV: http://scalableintimacy.com/?p=408

2. I have no doubt that it can be, and you may know better than I how difficult a prospect that is. But I know that today it rarely is, in part because it is perceived as being so hard.

3. Fair point. Even for Wal-Mart, in certain circumstances.

4. Again, I am attempting to fairly represent the perception of non-believers here, and believe I did.

5. Couldn't agree more ( http://scalableintimacy.com/?p=108 ). Can you agree that some significant percentage of marketers have yet to see it as we do?

Perhaps we differ, though it seems more likely that the circumstances of your arrival put you in a defensive posture. Regardless, I'm glad you came, and added your perspective.

And I just subscribed to your blog, so keep 'em coming.

1. Fair point, but is listening to social media is less than participation in it, which is less than activation of it. My view, YMMV: http://scalableintimacy.com/?p=408

2. I have no doubt that it can be, and you may know better than I how difficult a prospect that is. But I know that today it rarely is, in part because it is perceived as being so hard.

3. Fair point. Even for Wal-Mart, in certain circumstances.

4. Again, I am attempting to fairly represent the perception of non-believers here, and believe I did.

5. Couldn't agree more ( http://scalableintimacy.com/?p=108 ). Can you agree that some significant percentage of marketers have yet to see it as we do?

Perhaps we differ, though it seems more likely that the circumstances of your arrival put you in a defensive posture. Regardless, I'm glad you came, and added your perspective.

And I just subscribed to your blog, so keep 'em coming.

It just takes blog posts like this to point this out.

It just takes blog posts like this to point this out.

I'm hardly a social media evangelist and often skew toward the skeptic, but this post leans much to far past critical and on toward the grossly inaccurate. I don't mean inaccurate about social media, but inaccurate in terms of the basic tenants of marketing and communication.

1. Regulated businesses need to be even more sensitive to listening to social media because the conversation about those companies can prompt investigations. Conversations happen whether or not the company is there. In fact, I just passed a note to my friends at a major utility because they have an unhappy customer writing a whole series about their lack of customer service.

2. Social media can be measured. It's very easy, but you have to understand marketing and strategic communication enough to set the measurement to tangible outcomes.

3. Reach is situational. If you're using social media to engage your existing customers, then it make sense.

4. It's only as labor intensive as you make it. Time management skills might make it more easier to mange or outsourcing some functions makes it easy.

5. Advising companies to avoid social media removes any chance that they can manage their brand online. Simply put, people will discuss the brand with or without you, which means not participating is what leaves it up cacophony of “participation.”

So smart might very well be the wrong operative word. Ignorant might fit better.

I will agree you with that there are a great number of people misapplying social media, attempting to position it as something more than a communication tool. However, this post is simply the same thing, in the other direction.

Hope I was able to help you consider an alternative view.

All my best,
Rich

I'm hardly a social media evangelist and often skew toward the skeptic, but this post leans much to far past critical and on toward the grossly inaccurate. I don't mean inaccurate about social media, but inaccurate in terms of the basic tenants of marketing and communication.

1. Regulated businesses need to be even more sensitive to listening to social media because the conversation about those companies can prompt investigations. Conversations happen whether or not the company is there. In fact, I just passed a note to my friends at a major utility because they have an unhappy customer writing a whole series about their lack of customer service.

2. Social media can be measured. It's very easy, but you have to understand marketing and strategic communication enough to set the measurement to tangible outcomes.

3. Reach is situational. If you're using social media to engage your existing customers, then it make sense.

4. It's only as labor intensive as you make it. Time management skills might make it more easier to mange or outsourcing some functions makes it easy.

5. Advising companies to avoid social media removes any chance that they can manage their brand online. Simply put, people will discuss the brand with or without you, which means not participating is what leaves it up cacophony of “participation.”

So smart might very well be the wrong operative word. Ignorant might fit better.

I will agree you with that there are a great number of people misapplying social media, attempting to position it as something more than a communication tool. However, this post is simply the same thing, in the other direction.

Hope I was able to help you consider an alternative view.

All my best,
Rich