Twitter | A Sales Guy

Why People Don’t Get Social Networking

I was talking with someone the other day about Twitter and the importance of building a social presence. Their response was, they see how it is important for some people, but for his line of work, it won’t work, especially Twitter. He had an array of reasons why Twitter, Blogging and Social Networking can’t help him. His business is too specialized he said. It’s not going to get him any more business than he already has.

He’s probably right. But thats not enough of a reason not to build an online presence. It could get him a new job in the future, it could create a relationship he may need to close a deal someday, it could get him information he needed that he DIDN’T know existed. It could do a lot of things he is unaware of today, that could help him in the future. He is not alone. His thinking is like that of most people I talk to who aren’t actively building and online presence. It’s too linear.

The problem isn’t him but humanity. We are purpose driven.

Since the cave man days our actions have been purpose driven. If you wanted something from the guy across the cave you got up and took it from him. If you were hungry you went out and killed some food. Over the years we became more civilized, but we were still purpose driven. If you wanted to talk to someone you sent a letter. If you wanted a job, you applied for it. Then the phone and T.V. came along. Still driven by purpose, you knew who you were calling and why and we knew what we were going to watch on TV and when. Communication has rarely, if ever, been done without a direct purpose. Everything was linear. We played in the known.

Social media and social networks play in the unknown. They aren’t linear. They aren’t purpose driven. When we tweet something, we don’t know who we are tweeting or if someone is even their to receive it. When we blog, we don’t know who is going to read it, or who is going to comment. We don’t know if people will like it or hate it. We put our stuff on LinkedIn not knowing who if anyone is going to find it. Social media is anything but purpose driven. It’s this reason most people don’t get social media. They are thinking from the linear brain we’ve all been indoctrinated with. If doing X doesn’t get me Y right now, I don’t have time.

Social media and social networking don’t work in a linear fashion. They operate in a broader, less confined manner. Users have to be OK not knowing, not getting what they want right away and able to handle getting what they didn’t expect. Social media and social networking give life to the phrase; we dont know what we don’t know.

Many people see it as a waste of time. To the linear mind it is. It’s not like a phone call or and email. It’s not like getting up and walking across the cave and getting what you want. What it does do, quite often is give you what you didn’t know you wanted and many times that’s far more valuable.

It’s easy to focus on getting what you want and thinking in a linear fashion. It’s measurable. It also requires you block everything out. Social media and social networking are different, they get you what you didn’t know you wanted and that’s a big deal.

Social networking and social media expand your world. They make you more accessible, they provide more information, they extend your influence. If those aren’t reason enough to “get” social media it must not be linear enough.

Social media and social networking have a place, it’s just going to take time to change 10,000 years of thinking. It’s time to get out of the cave.

The One Way to Fail in Social Media (theantisocialmedia.com)
Are You Using Social Media As Social Proof? (socialmediabiz.com)
What the Hell is Your Favorite Social Network (theantisocialmedia.com)
Older Adults and Social Media (tjwalker.com)

August 27, 2010 | Filed under: Asset of The Future,Web 2.0/Social Networking | View Comments |

Old School vs New School

There is clearly a new and old school culture clash brewing in the world of business. The clash being between the formal and the informal.

Check out this example between how Verizon and Google responded to a NY Times article suggestion the two companies were talking to end net neutrality.

Verizon’s response on their Public Policy Blog:

The NYT article regarding conversations between Google and Verizon is mistaken. It fundamentally misunderstands our purpose. As we said in our earlier FCC filing, our goal is an Internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority, while maintaining investment and innovation. To suggest this is a business arrangement between our companies is entirely incorrect.

Google’s response on Twitter:

@NYTimes is wrong. We’ve not had any convos with VZN about paying for carriage of our traffic. We remain committed to an open Internet.

Verizon’s response is more of the same old, white washed, formal, makes sure it ruffles no feathers and offends no one. Verizon says “mistaken” as opposed to Google who says NY Times is “wrong.” Google used a tweet, said what they felt, used abbreviations and made it conversational. Verizon was anything but. It feels as if 10 different people approved it, before it was sent out. The statement was structured, formal and stiff.

I think we are seeing a shift in the role of formality in business; in everything from dress, to communication, to hierarchy. The old schools is holding on to formality as a course of doing business. The new school is doing away with it in order to reduce friction and accelerate progress.

If this communication were to be measured, how much do you think each of these cost in time, person effort, and money? I suspect Verizon’s cost 25 times more than Googles. Why?

What do you think? Are you old school or new school?

Google, Verizon Deny NYT Story On Their Undermining Of Net Neutrality (techcrunch.com)

August 6, 2010 | Filed under: Business Performance,What I Think! | View Comments |

Online, Offline — The Balance?

I had a great 4th of July weekend. 4th of July is becoming one of my families favorite holidays. We buy fireworks, grill on the front lawn, have all the neighbors over, set up a jumpy castle and just enjoy the weekend. It’s a blast. My daughters love playing with the sparklers and smoke bombs. It’s great to spend time with friends and neighbors.

One of the reasons we enjoy the 4th so much is because it’s such an active holiday. Unlike many of the other holidays; which are more family oriented due to their religious nature, I see the 4th as a community holiday. The 4th gets people outside together; playing games, camping, grilling, going to the beach etc. Similar to Coleman camping gear‘snew campaign; the 4th of July is like the original social network.

It’s the active nature of this past weekend that’s causing me a little anxiety.

I was offline almost the entire weekend. I blogged just once, yet my goal is to blog everyday. I stayed away from most of my other social networking, like Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn etc. as well. I’m OK with the decrease in my social networking presence, but I am not quite sure I’m OK with not blogging. As I said; my goal is to blog everyday. I’ve averaged 6.2 blog posts a week for the past year. Clearly I’ve missed a few. But this weekend, I didn’t blog 3 days out of 4.

I like blogging. I don’t see it as a chore. However, determining content can be hard. It takes me about an hour or two a day to post. A good 35 to 40 percent of that time is spent editing. If you read this blog you know I still miss a lot of stuff. But hey, where I lack in grammar and editing skills I try to make up with content. Despite the fact I don’t see it as a chore, it can be tough to “crank out” a good post quickly. In order to get it done, I have to be targeted, focused, and take time out to determine the subject, write, edit, and post. This is hard during a holiday like the 4th of July.

I’m not sure where I stand on this. Emotionally, I am OK with it. I spent the time with my family. I was completely engaged in off-line activities that matter. It was a great weekend. I had a blast. Intellectually and logically, I’m not OK with it. I’ve committed to blogging everyday. Many of the blogs I read everyday (all though not over this past weekend ) manage to have new posts up over the holiday. So intellectually, I’m not OK with missing the days.

I’m going to spend some time this week figuring out my philosophy on balancing my offline presence and with my online presence, because sometimes I just can’t be two places at once.

I want to know what this community thinks. Did you miss there not being any posts this weekend? Would you have read them if there were? What do you think? How do you balance your online and offline presence? Share your thoughts in the comments.

July 6, 2010 | Filed under: Random,Web 2.0/Social Networking | View Comments |

Why Google Shouldn’t Copy Facebook – Google Me #Fail

Michael Arrington TechCrunch founder, has a post up today where he suggests that Google needs to copy Facebook, or clone it to be exact.

They need to raise the white flag and just copy Facebook right down to the details. Otherwise the war is over before Google even got to the battlefield. -Michael Arrington

Arrington’s argument is Facebook is making inroads on Googles self serve ad business and if Google wants to compete they need to play Facebook’s game better than Facebook. Arrington suggests it’s not improbable by 2015 Facebook and Google could be running neck and neck. I’m not sure I agree or disagree with Arrington’s 2015 prognostication, but what I am pretty sure is, Google’s not going to stem any Facebook tide by cloning them.

The reason Arrington’s plan won’t work is because of the simple rule of sales — there needs to be user value. There is no value to users in cloning Facebook.

Google needs a horse in the social networking race to be able to defend itself against Facebook over the long run. And the only way they’re going to be able to compete effectively is to just clone the darn thing.

The value in social networks IS the network. It won’t matter how many new features or bells and whistles Google can add on top of the “clone”. They won’t make a lick of difference without the network.

Yes, Facebook blew up in a crowded social networking space. They took MySpace out of the game. The difference between then and now is that social media was in the growth stage of the product or business life-cycle. Millions and millions of people were still deciding if social networking was for them. They were the late majority. This late majority were our Mom’s, Dad’s, Grandparents, business professionals etc. Feeling Myspace was too juvenile this late majority chose Facebook. Facebook took social networking mainstream.

Social networking has now entered the mature stage. Only late, late majority and the laggards remain. This means that Google has to convince Facebook users to switch and that ain’t gonna happen for a clone with a few extra features. The value is the network. No network, no value. There will need to be a seminal event or trigger to drive the switch.

The main value in Facebook is everyone expects everyone they know or once knew to be on the site. Switching to a site where this doesn’t exist and then wait for their friends to show up is going to take a lot more than clone with improved privacy settings and an easy export tool.

Arrington is thinking like a technologist. Clone and offer a few cool new features and functions and it will sell. Unfortunately, like almost every other sale, features and functions don’t sell, value does. In this case the value is the network and Google can’t control that.

The other challenge Arrington misses, is users are more than engaged, they are INVESTED. They have invested time and in some cases money in followers, pages, applications, games and more. Users will not just simply walk away from that level of investment and start over for a clone.

I think Google needs to think like a start-up and innovate. Don’t clone, but get ahead of Facebook. There is always a next something. There was Friendster, then there was Myspace, then there was Facebook, then there was Twitter, then there was Foursquare, what’s next? That is what Google should be focused on. Not trying to be Facebook. That is so 2007.

Google — build a new network, don’t try to steal someone else’s. It’s much easier.

Google Me, Facebook Competitor, Confirmed By Former Facebook CTO (huffingtonpost.com)
What Google Me Needs To Succeed (regulargeek.com)
Former Facebook Executive Adam D’Angelo Confirms New Google Social Networking Effort (insidefacebook.com)

June 29, 2010 | Filed under: Asset of The Future,Technology and Products,Web 2.0/Social Networking | View Comments |

User Engagement vs. User Investment

A few weeks ago I had a conversation with Fred Wilson and his partners at Union Square Ventures, Brad and Albert. The conversation centered around how you know if a networking/sharing/social media type business is doing well, and is something to consider investing in. Fred’s opinion was engagement is a key measurement in determining the success of a network business or site.

Fred reiterates this in his post last week; How We Measure Success:

We believe very large networks of engaged users will ultimately create significant financial value for everyone involved.

At the time I agreed with Fred. However, since that meeting, I’ve been plagued with a gnawing feeling that engagement just wasn’t right. It hit me yesterday what I’ve been feeling.

User engagement isn’t the true measure of a productive site or network, it’s investment.

I may be splitting hairs, but I think there is a real difference here. Engagement is too soft. People can engage with little expectation of return. It can be fleeting, as the engagement isn’t necessarily rooted in anything substantial. Investment on the other hand carries a much greater commitment. When users invest they are expecting to get something in return. When people are invested they take ownership. Investment is sticky.

It’s not that I don’t think engagement isn’t a good measure of the value of a network based business, because it is. User engagement can be easily measured and quickly evaluated. All you have to do is look at to things like comments, shared content, posts etc. to see if users are engaged. The fact that engagement can be easily measured makes it a good metric.

However, for a business based on a network to last, it has to be sticky. It needs the users to stick around. Engagement doesn’t necessarily mean sticky. Users can swoop in for awhile, be engaged on a topic, or a fun project, or network site etc then be gone. Engagement is too susceptible to trends and fads. To make engagement sticky requires user investment.

Investment adds another layer to the user experience. When people become invested they see long-term value. They expect a return for their efforts. They see and embrace a specific utility. When people become invested in something they are far more committed to it. Invested users take ownership.

Investment is a little more difficult to measure. How do you tell the difference between someone who is engaged vs someone who is invested? For me personally the best example is Facebook vs. Twitter. I’m invested in Twitter. I use it to promote my blog. I use it to get information. I rely on Twitter and expect a return. If it stops providing that return, I will stop using it. With Facebook, I’m engaged. I, maybe, check it out once a day. If it were to go away, it wouldn’t kill me. It’s nice to stay in touch with my friends, but there are a lot of other ways I do that and if I never knew what 90% of my old highschool friends were doing, it wouldn’t kill me.

I’m engaged in Facebook, but invested in Twitter. Therefore, I am a much more valueable user to Twitter than I am to Facebook.

In both Twitter and Facebooks case they have done a good job in building network sites that give people a reason to invest and that’s why they’ve been successful.

People invest in networks that provide value, that have specific utility and a way to measure return. The more measurable utility or value a network has, the more users invest in it. When users invest they make it their own, they embed it into their lives, both business and personal, they share it with others, evangelizing it’s value. When networks create a reason for people to invest, they become sticky. When networks become sticky, they grow and they last.

Engagement is important. It can lead to user investment. But, after thinking about it for awhile, I disagree with Fred. Network based businesses have more than engaged users, they have to have invested users.

21 Rules of Engagement in Social Media (briansolis.com)
How Do You Know if Social Media Is Working? (unionstreetmedia.com)

June 15, 2010 | Filed under: Uncategorized | View Comments |

Learning to Share

Sharing takes effort. I’m not talking the about the type of sharing we were taught as kids in kindergarten, but the new sharing we do online. I’m starting to notice those with the strongest online presence are good sharers.

Sharing on sites like Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, or on your companies microblogging site like Yammer or Socialcast is different. It’s not an action we were brought up with.

Traditionally, sharing meant sharing”BIG” things; births, deaths, graduations, weddings, etc. We knew to share the big events, the momentous occasions. We shared mostly the big stuff because sharing was so hard. It was too cumbersome to share the small stuff. Sharing meant multiple phone calls, or a mini-letter campaign. Sharing with lots of people was difficult and time consuming. So we did it mostly for the big stuff.

We did share the little stuff, but only with a small group of people, our mom’s and closest friends, and family. We did one person at at time, by phone, or occasionally by letter.

Things are changing. Sharing the little stuff is a lot easier now. It’s a quick Twitter, Facebook, or LinkedIn status update from your phone or your computer. It takes 5 minutes, yet 10′s, 100′s or even 1000′s of friends and family can experience it. Sharing is different today.

Our sharing habits have been shaped over generations around the “BIG” stuff and social media requires the little stuff. Most of us don’t know how to share the little stuff. It’s uncomfortable. It’s foreign. It doesn’t seem to matter when compared to the big stuff, yet it does. In many ways, it matters more.

Sharing the little stuff builds relationships overtime. The little stuff is more intimate. It’s more personable. The little stuff is much better at creating what is most important; relationships, groups with common interests and connections.

Learning to share today takes effort. It requires we are more conscience of our thoughts. What we once saw as a fleeting observation, is now a potential idea, or thought that can be captured and shared. Learning to do this takes work. Learning how to capture our fleeting thoughts and perceptions and remember to share them is not easy.

Social media is changing how we engage. It’s challenging traditional notions of sharing. It’s asking us to share the little stuff, not just the “BIG” stuff.

We are going to need to learn to share. We need to share the little stuff, not just the big stuff. We need to be more present with our thoughts and observations. It will be critical. Our networks are moving online. They are getting bigger. They are playing a bigger role in our success, at work, at home, in our finances and more.

Sharing is going to be at the core of the asset of the future: our online presence. Sharing just the “BIG” the stuff isn’t going to cut it.

April 5, 2010 | Filed under: Asset of The Future,Enterprise 2.0,Personal Development,Web 2.0/Social Networking | View Comments |

IPhone Experiment Results

My IPhone experiment is over. I’m writing this update from my Mac. That pretty much tells the story.

My MacBook shit the bed a week ago, just before I left on a week long trip. I couldn’t get it fixed before I left, so I had to use my IPhone for everything.

For context, I didn’t have to use my phone for VPN purposes, or to tap into any corporate ERP applications, other than Exchange.

What I did use the phone for was all my social interactions, Twitter, LinkedIn, email, blogging, (posting and commenting), email, and surfing the web.

The results of the experiment are pretty simple. The IPhone is a GREAT mobile device; literally. It’s a great augment for a desktop or laptop. It’s not a replacement. It did everything I needed it to. It just took 2 to 3 times longer to do it. There was an app for everything. I blogged using WordPress‘s app. I took notes and saved info using Evernote. The Facebook, LinkedIn, and TweetDeck apps were great. Besides loading times, they were as easy, if not easier than the desktop apps. I used IPhone’s Safari browser for the web. It was SLOW! It was definitely a deterrent to browsing. Also, I desperately want to see plug-in’s for mobile safari or a browser alternative.

I used a couple of other social services, like BizSugar who don’t have an IPhone app. Using them without a mobile app was painful. Note to internet services, build a mobile application quickly, very quickly.

At the end of the day I was able to do what I do on my laptop. It slowed me down. It took me out of my rhythm. I had to change my processes. But, I was able to do everything I needed.

I missed my laptop. That is for sure. The plus, I am now better with the IPhone keypad AND like a good Swiss army knife, if I ever lose my laptop again, I know I can survive with my IPhone.

Afterthought-

What does this mean for the I-Pad? Will it close the gap?

March 9, 2010 | Filed under: Random,What I Think! | View Comments |

A Day Without Social Media

Yesterday I was off the grid. I didn’t post to this blog. I didn’t have my Tweet stream up. I didn’t read any blogs. I didn’t visit Facebook, or LinkedIn. I didn’t check in anywhere using Foursquare; that’s probably because I sat at my desk all day. I was off the grid for pretty much the entire day. (OK, I did tweet twice)

Being off the grid was strange. I definitely noticed a difference. My day was less interrupted, more focused, and in many ways more productive.

I usually start my morning reading my RSS reader. I then check my Twitter stream and then do a blog post. Throughout the day I follow my Twitter stream, retweet good sales posts and tweets I like as well as keep up on events of the day. I get much of my news from Twitter. At the end of the day, I check Facebook, add a quote or good story to my Tumblr page and read some more blog links I liked.

Being on the grid, helps me stay connected and keeps me informed. I like the flow of information, the relationships and discoveries being online creates.

Despite how much I enjoy being connected and all the benefits it provides, something strange happened in my one day sabbatical. I was more focused. There were fewer distractions. I didn’t feel the stress to deliver good content. I didn’t feel the pressure to share or to “give”. Being online is as much about sharing and giving as it is about getting. It’s what’s best about being online. However, yesterday, for me, I learned it can create a lot of pressure and distractions.

One day off the grid was a relief. It was focused on one thing. I got more done. It was nice.

Despite the relief from my one day sabbatical, I missed being online. I enjoy it.

In the future, I think I will take more days of “the grid”. They are good recharge moments. However, the next one won’t be because of a big project deadline. I’ll do it just because. It sounds nice.

Social Media Strategy for 2010: How To Avoid Social Media Distractions (windmillnetworking.com)
Can social media distract you from your real friends? (cnn.com)
Making Social Media a Tool, Not a Distraction (mashable.com)

January 23, 2010 | Filed under: Random,Web 2.0/Social Networking | View Comments |

Revelation vs Resolution

Everyone is looking forward, making New Years resolutions and planning for 2010. It is the thing to do. I am too. But, as I’m looking forward, I couldn’t help but pause and take a look back. I wondered; was there anything different, unique for me about 2009. The obvious came to mind. I started this blog, my girls had a number of firsts, the economy was rough, but as I thought about it, it occurred to me; 2009 did have a very unique element to it. I made more friends online than I made offline. My network grew.

I have always been a big fan of networking. I believe there is tremendous value in engaging and knowing lots of different people. I have gotten most of my jobs, started businesses, hired employees, acquired new customers, and more all from my network. Despite, my appreciation of networks, over the past few years, mine has suffered a little. I’ve moved, gotten married, had kids, started a new job, and work out of the house. None of these things are conducive to building or managing a network, especially working from home.

In 2009 my network grew. Not in the traditional sense, by handshake and physical meeting, but online.

Twitter, Facebook, and this blog have been instrumental in introducing me to new people. These aren’t just fans or followers, but people I respect for their knowledge, people I enjoy for their person and people who have been helpful. The experience in meeting these people has been no different than meeting people offline. The fact that I’ve never met them in person has had no impact on the value of the relationship.

I’ve really enjoyed getting to know these people. They are making a real impact in my life. I’m working with some. I’m collaborating on sales efforts with others. I’ve assisted others in selling and promoting their products. It’s just like my offline network.

My network grew in 2009. Not in the traditional way, but in a new way.

I don’t think this is an anomaly, I suspect next year my online network will be even bigger, not only for me but everyone online and this is a great thing.

Did your network grow in 2009?