Know what I'm really happy about these days? That clients have nearly ceased asking, "how do I monetize this?" when inquiring about social media opportunities. There seems to be developing a trend, a type of knowledge and understanding that that's not really the point of interacting in this collaborative space.
Douglas Rushkoff really hit the nail on the head with his recent post on the value of transparency in American business. Transparency isn't just a tool that companies use to achieve success in the social media sphere; it is the end itself. Transparency alone is good for companies in a plethora of ways, regardless of the financial gain achieved by participating in online communities in an authentic, human way.
As he points out,
many of these players are coming to understand that the Internet is a social phenomenon - not a content revolution
It's not about the toys or the tech; the true value in participating in online conversations comes from the human interaction--one real person talking to another real person about a real experience, complaint, praise, idea or concept. What is being said in this space isn't nearly as important as how it's being said--between and among people, colleagues, users, CEOs, employees, friends, moms, kids--all eager to form social relationships with players who share a common interest or passion.
Rushkoff brings up Apple's famous opacity with respect to external communication and social engagement:
When
Apple asks its users to consider themselves part of the Jobs family,
all these brothers and sisters get upset when Jobs doesn’t tell them
that he’s struggling with a disease.
As much as I'm a fan of Apple's products (and you all know I am), this type of closed-mouth approach to communication with faithful fans shows a lack of foresight and a missed opportunity to connect with its most passionate proponents. Why would a company not want to talk to its constituency? Why would a company opt not to participate in the conversation and speak to its most passionate users on a personal, human level?
it
demands a level of honesty and breadth of participation foreign to
companies used to doing public relations in a traditional and
controlled fashion
Oh, right. You have to give up some control. As with any relationship, when the conversation is open and public, you can no longer control your one-way message; you need to have the skill, confidence and personality to participate in a free-wheeling exchange that is more an impromptu exploration than a stolid statement. You have to be willing to listen. You have to be willing to dive in and be yourself, transparent and honest. If you're used to having control over every serif on every letter of every press release, this can be a little scary, no doubt. But as I once told a client who insisted on putting on a whitewashed, corporate-style facade in her podcast, "Hey, some people are going to dislike you and your company, anyway. Wouldn't you rather they disliked you for who you actually are than for who you're pretending to be?"
Indeed. The only real risk in being your own transparent self in the social media space is if you are in fact a greedy, self-serving company who cares little what your customers think of your products and practices. And you're probably already conveying that nicely through your traditional media, so why not take a stab at social media to engage and participate on another level?
Finally, Rushkoff's conclusion hits it home: "it means understanding why sharing and collaborating beat hiding and competing." (emphasis mine)
As you all know, I used to teach French. And I quickly discovered that the best way to get my students to take risks and dive into the unfamiliar language was to put them in groups to share information that they felt extremely compelled to communicate. Usually, this topic was "which is smarter--cats or dogs?" (Keep in mind this was a French 101 class!) Oddly enough, every student I ever saw in my classroom had a very strong opinion about this subject. Politics? Meh. Health and diet? Maybe. Crunchy vs. smooth? So-so. Cats vs. dogs? The debate could rage for hours. With this topic, they would not hide. They would not even raise their hands; they just engaged, passionately. They shared. They collaborated on constructing the best arguments, anecdotes and examples for the debate. It was far more effective than any competitive pedagogical game I'd ever created.
Why?
Because sharing and collaborating beat hiding and competing. Your controlled, massaged message has no value in this space. Participation, listening and innovation do.
