Tweet

1 to many broadcaster

A few days ago I was talking to one of my work colleagues, Pedro, in regards to social media. He mentioned that he was on my blog and that although he liked the look of it he was quite skeptical about the social media boom. His skepticism regarding social media has been his main barrier in getting involved, or becoming a participant in this new world of media and possibilities.

He asked me: How much of it is information and how much of it is actual knowledge?

So, information or knowledge? What is it to be? The words themselves are objective so lets start there, what do they mean. So, I got literal explanation for both, according to the www.dictionary.com,

1. What does information and knowledge actually mean.

Information:

1. Knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance.

2. Knowledge gained through study, communication, research, instruction, etc.; factual data:

Knowledge:

1. Acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.

2. Acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.

A bit confusing, right? The conclusion I draw here is that information is data, abstract, a concept which is objective and can also refer to the actual process of communicating the data. However, when we talk about knowledge we are talking about the subjective. The capacity to internalize data and make sense of it, apply it, leverage it etc. For example, companies are full of data/information but if a company were to lose all its staff tomorrow it would have no knowledge or at least that is my understanding.

Ok, I am sure we could debate this topic for hours on end and I have also seen it commented on various of blogs all with very convincing arguments. But I would be digressing.

The objective of this post is to get to the bottom of the question: What is causing the skepticism. However, feel free to make comments regarding the knowledge information debate, I would be really interested to see something new on the subject.

So, I knew his skepticism existed but still wasn’t sure why? as the original question was a little too ambiguous. So, I decided to go back to Pedro and get some clarity.

Basically, his interpretation of social media was that it was a new way for companies to leverage the masses and send out the same message as always. In essence to pitch one thing or another whether it be product, political etc. So, he didn’t want to be another “target” for these messages.

It is no coincidence, I am sure, that Pedro has drawn these conclusions, he didn’t just pull them out of the air. I think Pedro, like the majority, is tired of the constant bombardment of broadcasted media messages that have been the company’s marketing bread and butter so to speak for so long. In addition to this legacy Pedro was also seeing examples of this type of “social media” and hence drawing the overall negative conclusion.

Truth being told, there are plenty of companies that wear the Twitter, Facebook…and all the other social media badges but are still just pitching sales to the masses, generating web traffic to online stores etc. Basically, just trying to leverage the connectivity of these networks, broadcasting the homogenous message. albeit with improved design, but ultimately pushing promotion over value. That , however, is not social media, that is standard marketing using the social media infrastructure. And for these companies he is quite rightly, as he said himself, a “target”, a target audience.

Social media however is about people and not targets.

I wonder how many people presently interpret social media the same way, I can guarantee you Pedro you are not alone.

Social media, for it to work, needs to be, in addition to a lot of other attributes: authentic and sincere. It is about human engagement and relationships so you cannot staged that. It is about winning people’s minds and trust and not just market coverage. So, if social media is working it is because it is, in part, sincere. A good measure of social media is engagement. Case in point, Pedro is not engaging with what he has seen so far so it could not be considered effective social media. It could, however, be considered “effective” marketing because he has seen some of it. Social media is real 2 way communication in which both sides of the bridge benefit.

Obviously, for there to be benefit we need more than sincerity, authenticity, transparency etc we need to create value. Value is undeniably subjective but in general terms people want direction and answers through insightful content, that is what they value and not the sales pitch. It is interesting to note that today users will now search and engage in forms, blogs etc for information regarding purchases before going to the possible companies web pages where the product are actually being sold.

So, I believe, people are right to be skeptical / critical of companies which practice cloaked 1.0 marketing. Criticism of these ventures should give the companies the clues they need to identify the flaws in their approach. From here they must change and evolve into true social media practitioners. I think it is also important to recognize that for these companies the actual initiative to get involved in something that they find very much outside their comfort zone is commendable.

We need to remember that for 1.5:-) companies taking this initial step and opening themselves up to possible new and difficult situations, such as online criticism is, for them, a huge risk. But, as Brain Solis mentioned in his mind blowing gem of a book “Engage“, If you are criticized online and don’t know about it does the criticism exist?* , of course it does. At least now these companies can engage and change.

* Brain, forgive me if the quote isn’t 100% right:-)