How new is new when it comes to media?

What does the term "new media" mean to you, and when is it no longer "new?"

I asked this question of my network on LinkedIn and Facebook, and got a variety of responses including:

• blogs, podcasts, wiki, widgets
• any new gadget or gizmo that flashes and has a touch-screen . . . a new form of communication that is so different and so new that it has never even been thought of (not invented, but even thought of).
• all media forms worth discussing
• an arch way to suggest a change
• blogging, taggin, twittering, linking, sharing . . . all the practices that are supported by social software
• (anything that) wouldn't be new when newer or more efficient ways are made way which foresees the immediate future of the current new media to be obsolete ..
• (something) not widely used . . . and it would be come no longer new once it's reached a relative saturation of use.
• (media that) until a newer or different medium replaces it in the social eye.

What do you think?

For Recruiting on the Social Web - add some innovation! (updated)

This post has a twist. It's not so much about advise for recruiters, 'cause I'm not a recruiter. It's about engaging in relationships with others and letting our personal connections (and how we treat them) be the lifeblood of our business. It's crazy, I know . . .

The text below may appear disjointed . . . it's meant to accompany the video that should have popped up when you hit this page (at least for the first few days). If you didn't get it, click here (or scroll down to see it by topic and choose from the menu on the link above). ReadWriteWeb continues to claim (as do others) that video is the hot media now, and we support those claims!

Note that the video of our talk is in bite-sized chunks, not like your normal video, more like chapters in a book . . . you can watch for a couple minutes, put a bookmark in, and return later to watch the next part. Each of the sections has a title, also, to let you know whether it would be interesting to you. This technology was made possible by www.GoYoDeo.com. It's free, so if you like what you see, find a way to put it to good use (it's worth much more than you pay for it)!

Here's an outline of the videos if you want to view them a la carte:

Part 1
1 How Web 2.0 are you now?
2 Advertising positions and making friends and contacts
3 Placing recruiting ads on the social web (and better ways to spend your time)
4 Connection strategies on LinkedIn and Facebook
Part 2
5 Social networking on the clock (it better be work-related)
6 Using video for recruiting and job seeking
7 Selected recruiting blogs
8 Engaging others on the social web (conversations)
9 Ideas for Using LinkedIn answers for Recruiting
Part 3
10 What about a virtual career fair?
11 What Web 2.0 job seekers use
12 Southwest Airlines 2.0 (social media recruiting) and jobs in pods
13 Krishna De on LinkedIn and Facebook
14 Robert Scoble on PR
15 Wrap-up and reading suggestions

To choose from the above, click here and hit the stop button on the video, then scroll to your choice!

In our previous post entitled How do you find the right people? Recruiting Socialutions, we talked about finding opportunities to improve how we do what we do. We suggested that professional recruiters shouldn't offer people employment, they should just make friends with them.

Before we get too much into that, though . . . here's a couple of preliminary questions:

Do you have a blog (or read blogs regularly)?

Are you on an email list other than one for work?

That's basic social web stuff. Do you have a profile on Facebook? How about MySpace? On LinkedIn?

Perhaps Bebo, Hi5, Orkut, one I am missing?

On Facebook and LinkedIn, there are hundreds of results with a search for "recruiter." I doubt that's the way to go.

Here are some links:

Recruiting Fly is a site dedicated to bringing visitors the best in employment-related content. From news to features to videos and more, Recruiting Fly is your destination for all things recruiting, HR and jobs. They have a virtual jobfair, too.

In the interest of offering more than one option, we are working with a company called Business 3.0 that has established a Virtual Exhibit Hall, where your organization could easily set up their own perpetual job fair and host events as you wish. Check back soon for a preview.

Alltop (the vision of Guy Kawasaki) has a huge collection of links to career-related blogs.

Find a few blogs that interest you, and subscribe to them (or check them regularly). ReadWriteWeb has some great suggestions on how to engage bloggers and their readers in meaningful conversation.

Jason Alba, co-author of I'm on LinkedIn, now what?, and I'm on Facenook, now what?, has the JibberJobber site blog. Take a look at his articles and then check out his site to see how some folks are and will be getting to you.

And Jobs in Pods had a recent post on Southwest Airlines 2.0. He answered the question, "So who does recruiting well on the social web?" - see Nuts About Southwest.

Krishna De says LinkedIn is used by people in leadership roles in business and those people actively managing their career as it’s a little more discriminating in terms of connections. She considers her connections on LinkedIn network as people she would happily recommend and refer as she knows their work. She observed that Facebook is far more relaxed and is like a group of eclectic friends with perhaps business or social interests in common. She found people who are world wide experts are really happy to connect on Facebook which is exciting and seems to level the playing field.

In the social web, there are some serious players (they understand it and live in it). One of them, Robert Scoble (former Microsofter), says PR now stands for “Professional Relationships.”
So what's HR stand for?

For more on The Emergence of The Relationship Economy, check out the blog of my partners, Jay Deragon (especially his recent post on the changing rules of the game) , and Scott Allen's The Virtual Handshake Blog, and mine - Kicking and SCREAMING.

What do you think?

Completely and totally unscientific . . . but Facebook beats LinkedIn and Myspace for growth

. . . and, I'll bet more Twitterers have Facebook than LinkedIn and more Facebook than a MySpace (or at least they talk about Facebook more).

(corrected)

According to Twist, which displays trends on Twitter, Facebook is discussed a lot more than MySpace (at least in the past week).

And there's a whole lot more being discussed about Facebook than LinkedIn, in the same time frame, too.

Is that relevant?

I think it is when you look at the March 2008 statistics, that show MySpace has or is reaching the saturation poinnt and Facebook is doubling year-to-year (no, I didn't plot this out month-by-month). According to MarketingCharts.com, MySpace is up 8%, while Facebook is up 98%. LinkedIn managed a 319% increase in the same period.

To confuse these results even more, see what we, the users, reported to be the 100 best Web 2.0 applications. Over 1.9 million votes were cast to select these Webware 100 winners in the Social space:

What did we miss? Perhaps the OpenSocial initiative is working better as a marketing strategy than an implementation plan? :-)

So what has changed in the past year, since the 2007 Webbys?

What do you think?

Freelance Security probes on LinkedIn - Rickrolled?

I got this email today . . . from CSIS Security Group [kas@csis.dk]

Dear LinkedIn user: Meet Mr. John Smith!

You have a profile on LinkedIn.com and you have chosen to connect with "John Smith". This itself is not a problem, if it wasn't for the fact, that John Smith doesn't really exist (in real life). The profile was invented as part of a security experiment in pitfalls of Social Networks to determine and illustrate potential risks using Social networks, such as LinkedIn. The presentation was just released on the Fraud Europe conference in Bruxelles today.


We decided not to release any detailed information about who and how John Smith got connected with in his network. However, we felt obligated to inform all Linkin accounts hooked up with John Smith about this piece of research and the release of the final edition of "Social Networking Risk - Who Do You Want to be Today?".

With the paper being released we will delete the "John Smith" profile!

If you've not already guessed it, you're receiving this e-mail because you are linked with john Smith. We hope this will be a leason learned and nothing else ...

All data harvested during the past year, will be deleted. We will also inform LinkedIn and asking them to remove the profile.

You can download the presentation given at Fraud Europe conference at the following URL:
http://www.csis.dk/dk/media/LinkedIn-Threats.pdf

The technical paper, used as background for this presentation and released in January 2008, can be downloaded here:
http://www.csis.dk/dk/media/LinkedIn-V2.pdf

Best regards,

Dennis Rand, Security- and Malware researcher CSIS Security Group http://www.csis.dk

---
CSIS Security Group
www.csis.dk


A Google search for "LinkedIn CSIS Security Group" found Martin Lynge Hansen at http://www.linkedin.com/in/lynge . . . maybe I should Rickroll him? I flagged him and linked to this post.

linkedin.john@gmail.com LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/linkjohnsmith

what do you think?

UPDATE: I posted it on my blog, and flagged the profile to linkedin as misrepresentation -- it's gone now, go figure.

Thanks LinkedIn, but with over 3,000 connections how many got the email and how many flagged the profile?

I found one other who posted this, see Uncommon Sense Security.

More on a search for linkedin.john@gmail.com:

http://www.linkedseo.com/list.php
http://www.meta-guide.com/malta/cse12.asp

Claiming your LinkedIn profile on Technorati -- is there a reason?

I learned from @ProBlogger (AKA Darren Rowse) that Technorati made it possible to claim your Twitter account. I went through the process, the most technical of which was extracting the URL from the the pre-designed html code and posting it on Twitter.

And then I got to thinking . . . I have used LinkedIn for a lot longer, and it has a lot more information . . . why not see if I can claim my LinkedIn profile?

Well, I did it. It's as simple as providing Technorati with your LinkedIn public address (mine is here) and then inserting the web address they give into your profile page (I added it to my summary).

Now I just have to figure out whether that's something that will be productive. There are only 4,456 Twitter accounts on Technorati at the time of this post, but it appears there may be only a few on LinkedIn.

And yes, I realize that neither of the above are ranked very high, but I am having fun, and the day ain't over yet!

(and I bet you are going to try one of these out now that you are finished reading this post).

What do you think?

The online version of office suites, or a hostile takeover?

In a previous post, we noted a tendency toward focusing on specific social networking sites, and suggested that in the future many of us will simply be using what was "learned" in these sites to just be more social -- out in the open, on an Internet without walls. The people we relate to, the relationships we have with them, and the use of available communication tools are the keys to success in this space, not “the site.”

I'm looking for Unified Communications 2.0, and we aren't there yet.

In the meantime, it is important to find transitional points, since we don't yet have a functional cross-platform personal portal, where all of our documents, email accounts, instant messaging clients, microblogs, and friend updates can converge with our videos, personal learning, and VOIP communications accounts.

So where do we find this virtual office suite?

Steve O'Hear recently highlighted the Facebook apps he calls a few shiny gems that can help you turn Facebook into a super-charged personal assistant. Steve listed and discussed many third-party applications that promise to help run your business, including accessing your LinkedIn contacts. But in this time of economic uncertainty and build-it-so-you-can-sell-it mentality, do we really want to invest time in a Third Party App?

I know that Jeff Pulver recently alerted the world to his Facebook conversion, but should the rest of us follow along? He contrasted the experience of Facebook to LinkedIn by identifying the former as a wealth of opportunity for vibrant interaction between users and groups of users, and at once more rewarding and more nuanced and meaningful. And Jeff is still living on Facebook, though his "community" appears to be limited in number by Facebook (a month or so ago he was maxing out at 5,000), and community (they have a limit on the number of groups you can join, as well).

So should we move all our stuff to Facebook? Andrew McAfee (and others he credits) posted an overview of how Facebook can be used as an organizational intranet. Ultimately, I think highly sensitive documents could be linked within Facebook and hosted on a protected server, but security is not my only concern. Facebook for business is still close to Web 2.0 (or as Doc Searls calls it, AOL 2.0, or AOL done right). So what do we do when we truly have a virtual presence that is unrestricted by the gated community mentality? What's the cost of conversion then? I'm all for mashing up as many parts of my life as possible, but I'm not convinced Facebook (or LinkedIn, or any other gated community) is the place to do this. What happens when they make decisions based on their needs, and not on ours?

What do you think?

How long will "social networks" be around, and how long is the tail?

A recent article in my not-so-favorite form of media, the NYT - addressed: Why Old Technologies Are Still Kicking. The article identified the common traits of survivor technologies as 1) some enduring advantage in the old technology that is not entirely supplanted by the new, and 2) business decisions that invest in retooling the traditional technology, adopting a new business model and nurturing a support network of loyal customers, industry partners and skilled workers.

Is that what's happening with social networking?

In The Roaring 2000s, Harry S. Dent made some interesting observations and predictions. He missed the boat on a couple of them (like the Dow reaching at least 21,500 by the year 2008 -- it barely passed 14,000 in October 2007 and hasn't been the same since). In all fairness, there have been some significant unpredictable events, but take a look at what Dent was seeing here. Dent found recently that it was typical to have a major crash and shake-out as new technologies approached 50% penetration on the S-Curve, and in 2006, he forcasted that most stocks will soar to unprecedented highs—most likely to around 20,000 on the Dow by 2009.

Dent saw and examined the impact of new technologies on the S-Curve, and I think that's critical as we examine the longevity and enduring advantage of technology like social network or networking sites (not to be confused with the activity of social networking, which doesn't need a specific site). Boyd and Ellison (2007) define social network sites (as distinguished from social networking sites) as web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system.

Dent explains the growth catalysts of the S-Curve like this:

The first comes as many early stage market entrants go under as the product first moves mainstream around 10% market penetration and the field of mainstream potential options narrow down. Then there is a second and most violent shake-out as the product moves towards 50% penetration and growing competitors over-expand. That shake-out shifts market share further to the strongest leaders who bring costs down further through larger economies of scale. Once the industry matures between 90% and 99.9%, foreign or new competition often sets in and even dominant leaders have to fight to maintain market share in an era of declining growth and margins.

So where are we with social networks?

I think it depends on how you are looking at these sites. Social networking sites as they are used now ultimately serve to identify the changes in our approaches to socializing, especially dependent on the stage of life we are in. Take a look at three of these sites (my reasons for being on each of them were covered previously). We've got the mall (of MySpace), the Coffee Shop (of FaceBook), and the Chamber of Commerce function (of LinkedIn).

There is a likelihood of traditional social use -- both with MySpace and the mall.

Youth (and some adults) enjoy the time spent in "hanging out" at the mall. That's where groups of friends go to the mall to show off recent acquisitions (clothes, mobile phones, etc), to hang out with friends, and to hang out with friends of friends you can't connect with in your neighborhood.

Adults are more likely to meet in Facebook or at a coffee shop

The local coffee shop is a place way from home, perhaps an office-like environnment that can be used as a place to work or a place to relax. It's a short term stop between other personal and professional errands. It's a neutral, friendly place for informal conversation for business or pleasure. And most of them are more than a coffee shop.

People with business on their mind are more likely to go to LinkedIn or a Chamber of Commerce function.

LinkedIn has mall-like qualities, as does a Chamber of Commerce mixer. People often gather (group) together to chat, plan, or introduce others, and it's pretty clear why they are there (it's likely there's a clue on their nametag or profile). LinkedIn allows us to share details about each other and our professional interests, and provides a useful venue for introducing others.

LinkedIn also has coffee shop qualities, as it provides a place where business isn't the only thing that needs to be discussed. That's especially helpful in Chamber of Commerce mixers in some of the Southern U.S. locations, where it's taboo to conduct business before spending a minimum of 15 minutes about the weather, politics, and your choice of either the SEC or NASCAR.

Their use often differs by demographic, and their specific use and potential are different.

So where will social networking sites be in 5, 10, or 15 years?

In Metcalfe's Law is Wrong, Briscoe, Odlyzko, and Tilly say that Metcalfe's Law, which says that the value of a communications network is proportional to the square of the number of its users, is wrong. Of relevance for this topic is their observation that:

The fundamental flaw underlying both Metcalfe's and Reed's laws is in the assignment of equal value to all connections or all groups. The underlying problem with this assumption was pointed out by Thoreau in relation to the very first large telecommunications network, then being built in the United States. Thoreau wrote: "We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph from Maine to Texas; but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing important to communicate."

The authors noted that if Metcalfe's Law were true, it would create overwhelming incentives for all networks relying on the same technology to merge, or at least to interconnect. These incentives would make isolated networks hard to explain. They introduce Zipf's Law, which says that if we order some large collection by size or popularity, the second element in the collection will be about half the measure of the first one, the third one will be about one-third the measure of the first one, and so on. In other words, the kth-ranked item will measure about 1/k of the first one. They also propose their own calculations, which states that the value of a network of size n grows in proportion to n log(n). They note that this cannot predict the value of a network from its size alone, but if we already know its valuation at one particular size, we can estimate its value at any future size, all other factors being equal.

Here's the n log(n) law in application:

Imagine a network of 100 000 members that we know brings in $1 million. We have to know this starting point in advance—none of the laws can help here, as they tell us only about growth. So if the network doubles its membership to 200 000, Metcalfe's Law says its value grows by (200 0002/100 0002) times, quadrupling to $4 million, whereas the n log(n) law says its value grows by 200 000 log(200 000)/100 000 log(100 000) times to only $2.1 million. In both cases, the network's growth in value more than doubles, still outpacing the growth in members, but the one is a much more modest growth than the other. In our view, much of the difference between the artificial values of the dot-com era and the genuine value created by the Internet can be explained by the difference between the Metcalfe-fueled optimism of n 2 and the more sober reality of n log(n).

There's a lot more to their argument, but I think the key is that as the shakeout in social network sites continues (are you listening AOL, Google, and Microsoft?), the real valuation can be estimated, but only based on a previous real valuation. If we look at the anticipated growth with the expected mergers and acquisitions, it's possible we may avoid the kind of pain we saw with the bubble bursting in the late 1990s.

And so, Metcalfe's law is trumped by Zipf's Law and the law of n log(n) -- leading us to The Long Tail of social network sites for which we still don't have an assigned value.

So how does this fit with our look at social networking sites?

If an enduring advantage and a retooling mindset are the keys to success, then social networks should be around for a while. These sites didn't invent the social part, nor did they invent the networking part, so the enduring advantage is there. They facilitate acquaintance and reacquaintance, and are run (at least initially) by technology entrepreneurs -- with a retooling mindset built in. I think the question is not whether they will last, but in what form they will emerge, and how many mergers will we see before the shakeout is over.

As note in a previous post, I see a tendency toward focusing on specific social networking sites, but in the future I think many of us will simply be using what was "learned" in these sites to just be more social -- out in the open, on an Internet without walls. The people we relate to, the relationships we have with them, and the use of available communication tools are the keys to success in this space, not “the site.”

What do you think?

References:

Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11. Available at http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html

The CIO versus the CMO - slow and steady (with the right strategy) wins the race!

Once upon a time there was a Fortune 500 CMO who, boasting how he could generate business better and faster than anyone else, was forever teasing the company's CIO for his limited contributions to customer acquisition and retention. Then one day, the irate CIO answered back: "Who do you think you are? There's no denying you're fast, but even you can be beaten with the right strategy!" The CMO squealed with laughter.
"Beaten in a competition? By whom? Not you, surely! I bet there's nobody in the world that can win against me, I'm so good at what I do. Now, why don't you try?"

Annoyed by such bragging, the CIO accepted the challenge. A competition was planned, and the next day at dawn they stood at the starting line. The goal was to generate new business by engaging new or lost customers. The CMO had been honing his craft for several years, and his marketing team was the best in the business. The CIO had only recently begun testing a strategy that included reaching out to customers and potential customers to engage them in communication -- even building relationships . . . It started when he realized that this strategy produced the best crop of employees, and he was interested in testing to see whether it worked for company business, as well.

The CMO yawned sleepily as the CIO trudged slowly off to his office to send a Twitter message to his team. When the CMO saw how painfully slow his rival was moving, he decided, half asleep on his feet, to have a quick nap instead of rallying his top-notch marketers. "Take your time!" he said. "I'll have forty winks and catch up with you in a minute."

The CIO's team got busy, posting on their well-read, cross-linked blogs, updating the internal and external technology wikis, and brainstorming (on Skype, and Free Conference Calls, of course) ways to get the word out. One of the team members had his video camera, so the team shot a quick (amateur) video announcing the challenge, posted it on YouTube, and then posted it on their blogs and their networking profiles.

The CMO woke with a start from a fitful sleep and gazed round, looking for the CIO. But the CIO was only a short distance away, having barely moved at all while blogging for the third time that day on Social Media Today and Always On: The Insider's Network. Breathing a sigh of relief, the CMO decided he might as well have breakfast, and off he went to eat at the new Cinnabon he had noticed across from the mall. But the heavy meal and the decaf latte made his eyelids droop by the time he made it back to the office.

With a careless glance at the CIO, now engaged in a webinar with over 100 new contacts from LinkedIn and another 75 from Facebook, the CMO decided to have another snooze before rallying his team for a winning last-minute marketing push that afternoon. And smiling at the thought of the look on the CIO's face when he realized the CMO's intellectual superiority, he fell fast asleep and was soon snoring happily, with his feet kicked up on his desk.

The sun started to sink below the horizon, and the CIO, who had posting (and linkinng) to related posts in the blogosphere since that morning, was getting up for his last Jolt. At that very point, the CMO woke with his own jolt. He could see the CIO walking toward his office from the break room and off he dashed. He set up an on-the-fly conference call with his team at record speed and gave them all news of the challenge, his tongue dragging, and gasping for breath. Just one strong push and he'd be the winner. He called a handful of his fellow CMOs and asked them to negotiate some quick dual-branding strategies so he could claim a superior follow-on strategy, and typed up a press release in a matter of minutes.

But the CMO's last minute leap was just too late, for the CIO had beaten him with his slow and methodical relationship-building strategy. The CIO's team was just shy of having 500 new relationships that day -- a third of which were with former customers, and over 150 had placed rather large orders. Poor CMO! Tired and in disgrace, he slumped down beside the CIO who was leaning against the wall silently smiling at him.

"Slow and steady (with the right strategy) wins every time!" he said.

This contemporary re-write of The Tortoise and the Hare, one of Aesop's Fables, was designed to provide you with a glimpse into the paradigm shift that business has to make in order to survive The Emergence of The Relationship Economy.

What do you think?

There can be too much of a good thing!

I realize that everyone has an idea that they consider "the best," but at some point don't you think it's better to just adapt your idea to something already in place? There's an old saying that there's no need to re-invent the wheel . . . it's round, it rolls, it serves the purpose for which it was designed.


I think we are reaching the point of reinventing reinventions, at least for social networking sites. Yes, I realize that many of the sites that are now wildly successful got that way by being responsive and innovative. I realize that Friendster probably had a "duh" moment when they noticed that MySpace was offering things they didn't allow. I realize that MySpace looked at Facebook and maybe thought twice about all the bells and whistles (user-chosen music and slow-loading pictures and backgrounds) that Facebook abhorred (though the Vampires and Werewolves aren't much better). But at what point do we realize that our friends, acquaintances, and barely-known connections would rather fall off a cliff than join "yet another" social networking site just because we tell them "it's designed specifically for what we've been looking for?"

In announcing a new sports-related social networking site, Business Week said:

Sports social networking would seem to be a natural since fans are tribal by nature. And if the sports world has taken a while to capitalize on the obvious, that's changing fast. In the past year pro leagues—including the NBA, NHL, Nascar, and PGA Tour—have opened up their sites, allowing fans to post comments on message boards and create interest groups. Now athletes and teams are taking social networking a step further, establishing communities outside league sites.

So why not just add a group to MySpace, Facebook, Bebo, Hi5, Freindster, Yahoo! or Google?

Must we face yet another login-and-about-me post-fest? Come on! Does anyone that isn't into funding and media not realize that we have had it up to here (motioning with left hand to forehead) with another site that refuses to import our profile and can't seem to get the whole openID concept?

Everyone in business has ideas. See my previous post on how easy it is to get caught up in the innovation process and succeed at absolutely nothing. For those who missed it, the rules for social networking (as I understand it) are here.

There will come a time when the latest group to "get" social networking will no longer be news. There will be a time when people will actually figure out how to engage in business activity on the social networking sites they already are signed up for (though they may need a password reminder for). There will be a time when we get messages from a real user friendly site that advises us of the start of a new group based on the interests and preferences we listed with them.

I sure wish that time was now!



What do you think?

The Translation Factors (be more like Lady Liberty)

The process used to grasp the power of social networks is similar to the process of learning a new language. I have learned three languages in my life, one of them Southern, and I found similarities in the process each time, even though I was at very different places in my life each time.

I learned French in elementary school. In each grade (1-6), I had French class with a wonderful teacher. I took French again in 9th or 10th, and realized I remembered very little from before.

I learned German in my late teens. I was in the military in Germany, and I learned how to order beer, french fries, and schnitzel. I learned German so I could engage in commerce. I later learned German so I could do my job better. I worked undercover narcotics and often dealt with drug dealers who spoke German. It saved my life on at least a couple of occasions, because I didn't always let on that I spoke German.

I learned Southern in my mid-20s. After Germany, I moved to Tennessee where a sizable percentage of the population spoke the language. I learned how to say all kinds of things, and engage in a variety of transactions.

So here's how the translation thing works. Say you and I are talking. My customary language is L1, and you are fluent in L2. I am learning L2, so I will engage you in a discussion using proper terms and speaking rather slowly. You humor me and tell me how well I speak your language, but inside you wish it didn't feel like it took a lot of time to get me to answer a question.

I get more proficient in your language, and begin increasing my vocabulary, and am a little quicker with my responses. We talk even more and more frequently. You sincerely note that I am improving, but there is still something missing. It's not that I don't understand every word you say, because I do. So what is it?

It is the process I am using to communicate with you in your language. When you say something to me, I receive it in L2, translate to it to my customary language (L1), process the communication in L1, translate it back to L2, and then (and only then) deliver my thoughts to you in L2. The extra time you are noticing is the processing time (not unlike the time it takes to switch between applications on a computer when you have one-too-many windows open).

So when does that change?

The process speeds up when I begin to think in the language in which I am speaking. Said another way, if you and I are conversing in L2, we should both be thinking in L2. Hard to do? Perhaps at first, but with some practice it comes. At some point, I'll even start dreaming in L2, and I'll find myself in conversation in L1 and translating to L2 before speaking in L1.

Confusing?

Here's how that "translates" to a message on social networking.

We know that the up-and-coming generation (and a few techies and musicians) brought social networking to it's first benchmark. But recently, many adults (often more mature) that were not previously engaged in this phenomenon have begun testing the waters. Those of us who try to explain the environment and the benefits and all the other fantastic aspects of this new world often feel like we are talking to people who (as they say in Tennessee) aren't from 'round here. As a result, we may get frustrated, or worse . . . speak slowly in a higher volume. That doesn't work with the spoken language, and it won't work with social networking.

If we want to help these immigrants (we were all one once), we need to take the time to walk with them for a while. We need to explain the customs and traditions of the social networking space, and perhaps even provide them with a list of dos and don'ts. We need to stop being impatient when we here them speaking with a traditional-world accent and stop trying to finish their sentences. We need to welcome them, and prepare them for the new and exciting experiences they will engage in.

So get to thinking about how you can be more like Lady Liberty . . . "Give me your set-in-their-ways, your that-stuff's-for-kids, and your I-don't-see-why-we-have-to-do-that's." Stand on the shore with an outstretched arm. You (and they) will be richly rewarded!

What do you think?

How to get kicked off Facebook (a personal reflection)

Note: This post falls under the category of things you should NOT do . . . I am not writing a how-to manual, I promise. I just wanted to share with some of you how careful you have to be when building your network in a proprietary society.

I was in the "Making Friends" mode. I had several already, but having read "The Virtual Handshake," I realized that my network needed to be more diverse, with people from all continents, ideologies, and a variety of other "differences" that would add a rich contribution as we enter the coming year.

In this more "proactive" mode, I joined several of the groups that interested me. As I saw profiles that looked like they belonged to people with whom I could network, I clicked to add them as a friend. I included what I saw to be an appropriate comment relating to the reason I was offering my virtual hand in friendship and sent the invitation. I never planned this out on a calendar, but figure I probably took about an hour of my time to grow my network about once every two weeks. Periodically, Facebook would get tired of me before I did and the next time I clicked on "add a friend," I received a message that I was nearing my "limit." I took that as a sign to get on with some other productive activity.

Then one day I was adding friends and all of a sudden my profile died. I did not get a warning, I was simply redirected to a page that said my account was disabled and suggested I check out the Facebook 'Help' page (http://www.facebook.com/help.php).

The official word was that:

"Facebook has limits in place to prevent behavior that other users may find annoying or abusive. These limits restrict the rate at which you can use certain features on the site, including the rate at which you send friend requests. Unfortunately, we cannot provide you with the specific rates that have been deemed abusive.
Your account was disabled because you exceeded Facebook's limits on multiple occasions, despite having been warned to slow down."

So I stopped being proactive in my friending. I've timidly added a few since then, but only after messaging that confirmed this was the appropriate "next step." I must admit, this has me gunshy -- reminiscent of the times when a "friend of mine" wanted to ask that girl to dance but didn't want to face rejection.

There's more on this topic by Thor Mueller in 13 Reasons your Facebook account will be disabled.

Doc Searls had a recent post that observed "today’s “social networks” look like yesterday’s online services (remember the AOL community that allowed Internet access only with an AOL wrapper?). He noted that these social networking sites are still a walled garden . . . somebody’s private space. Unfortunately, they aren't OUR space, we are just renters in a huge development that has a boatload of private security guards that aren't willing (or maybe not able) to share the rules with us.

If you are more inclined to want to get kicked off of LinkedIn, take a look at Scott Allen's post on 9 Ways to Get Linked Out on LinkedIn.

And Jason Alba's post on Inviting People To LinkedIn And Getting Your Hand Slapped is another good, and timely read.

For a (short) bit of related video humor, check out My "Physical Facebook" (no., that's not me).



What do you think?

Are Social Networks really that different when it comes to our professional needs?

This morning on ABC's Good Morning America, there was an article that suggested "Sites like Facebook, LinkedIn and MySpace that were once exclusively for social purposes are now increasingly being used for recruitment — and that will blossom even more this year. Employers are using these sites to promote their job openings, their corporate cultures and even their benefits all in an effort to encourage you to apply."

First of all, I realize that Linked in wasn't used exclusively for social purposes. Let's move beyond the obvious . . .

Many corporations and recruiters use these sites, but are the sites accomplishing anything for those seeking jobs? In other words, corporations spend loads of money elsewhere promoting their brand to potential customers and employees, are these sites just another venue? Are they effective? And, what does the individual job-seeker get from all this?

I think it depends on the mindset. Ultimately, these sites could be treated like any other new community. But if the same recruiting strategy doesn't work in all places, how much time and money do you need to spend in the new community before you figure that out? Are there different rules when we use social networking sites?

I read recently (but cannot recall or find where) that actively accessing loose connections will be more likely to help you find a job than close connections. The premise was that close connections (you and your closest friends) all know the same people. Loose connections (someone you met at a party, know from church, or met on an airplane) know a whole bunch of people you have never met. At what point are we connecting just to make contacts, though? I've heard the advice that we should dig the well before we are thirsty, but at what point do we have access to enough well water?

Jay Deragon's recent post noted "The social web is creating a new measure of business based on the fundamentals of relationships." Are there new rules for developing these relationships? Do the folks that are doing business in the social network space know what the rules are?

Katherine Walsh, in a piece addressing the topic of social networking as a job search strategy, said:

Once you do make the connection, whether new or old, make sure you set a timeline for following up, Combs says. It’s especially important to do this time of year, when people are increasingly busy outside of work. “You don’t want to pester people, but set a date to talk again and be disciplined about it.”

So there are some networking rules and best practices that apply both within and outside the digital world. The challenge is finding out what they are (presently) and then staying on top of them as they change. For those who are new to the online networking world, it would be a great idea to check out Jibber Jobber's suggestions on how to avoid being a digital nuisance in 2008.

If none of this makes sense, check out this video:



If you want to discuss this on LinkedIn, come on over!

What do you think?

The death of social networking as we know it . . . Social Network Commerce

Social Network technology is only as useful as we make it. There will, however, be a point when it gets old or outlives its usefulness if all we are doing is connecting for the sake of connecting. If it's going to be more than a fad in the history books, then there should be something more than sharing information, displaying our music and video preferences, making introductions, playing games, and poking each other. Now would be a good time to figure out what to do with it.

Here are a few ideas. They center around a yet-to-catch on term . . . Social Network Commerce.

Police Departments

Some departments already distinguish between a crime in progress and the need to take a report (especially for insurance purposes). They have non-sworn personnel that either take your report on the phone or at your home. These reports are usually not followed up on unless other developments occur separately (like the recovery of a bunch of property). This program provides a convenience to the citizen and limits the cost (and the need for additional on-duty sworn officers) for the police department.

So stick your imagination cap on and think about this . . . you realize that your yard art has been damaged, your mailbox has been smashed, or your neighbor's car has been vandalized. Your local police department recently installed a social network precinct, and you already added them as a "preferred location." This virtual precinct takes reports around the clock, using either text or voice input. Follow up consists of a text confirmation or a phone call, and you can check the status of your report at any time.

Upon submission of your report, you check the block that allows your neighbors to see the type of report and a general description of what you reported. You limit their personal information visibility to the street you live on, not wanting to get a bunch of visits or calls from any nosey neighbors. You also check the block that provides you with updates. In a few moments, everyone in your neighborhood (that opted in) has received a text message or recorded voice message) with a brief summary, including the time frame you reported.

Within a couple of hours, you receive a text message that another resident on your street just reported something similar (they checked their stuff after getting the message), and you choose to allow them to communicate with you in a protected area -- accessible to you and your neighbor and the police only. You chat with your neighbor and realize that you saw the same car in your neighborhood, or that both of your teenage daughters knew the same "troublemaker," or . . . you get the point.

Would this benefit the people in the neighborhood?

Grocery Stores

Why do people spend more for milk and food at "convenience stores?" Because they are convenient. No matter what time it is, or how clear the parking lot is, the grocery store is rarely confused with something resembling "convenience." So why not shorten the time that it tales to get the essentials?

OK, this type of thing has been tried before -- with Webvan, Peapod, and the like, but it was a few years ago and those models were based more on delivery. Imagine you are in front of your computer and you are trying to squeeze in time to stop by the grocery store where you just need "a few things." Your local store recently developed (or joined) a social network storefront, and you already added them as a "preferred location." This store keeps a record (only for your benefit) of your frequent purchases, and allows you to import/export the list as a CSV file for use on your computer or smartphone (or pda, of course). They take orders for up to 15 items around the clock, also using text or voice input. You receive a text (email or SMS) confirmation or a recorded call, and you can check the status of your order at any time -- even in traffic!

You know that between 4:30 and 4:45 PM, you will be passing by the store. You access their site and click 14 of the 15 frequent purchases, and then search for a not-so-frequent purchase. You submit the order and pay for it in advance using your debit/credit/whatever card, and receive a confirmation that the order will be ready. Your order comes up on the screen in the store at 4:20, and one of the baggers is handed your shopping list and a cart.

At 4:45 you pull up to the drive through window, and the clerk recognizes you. After confirming that you want paper, not plastic, you receive two paper bags, inspect each one, and are on your way as (or more) quickly as if you had stopped at the fast-food restaurant of your choice. You are home in record time, and didn't even have to get out of your car.

Local Shopping Areas

OK, imagine this. There are a number of businesses in your city that realize that we have increasingly busy lives. They band "together" (or even better, are united by a pre-established organization like the Chamber of Commerce) to provide you what you want -- a pleasurable shopping experience. Each store provides a list of a certain number of their wares on a site and allows you to see what they have -- before you head off for downtown. That way, you can make sure you find what you are looking for (guaranteeing them a sale), and you have more time to "enjoy" the experience (and spend money at the local coffee shop afterwards). They might even allow you to purchase the item for pickup, or allow you to pay for it with your cell phone and your mobile bank account when you arrive, but that's another post.

So would this work? Jay Deragon's recent post makes the observation that "A business is driven by the need to produce revenue and subsequent profits for its stakeholders." Doesn't that mean that business are in business to be profitable? Shouldn't that mean they provide value to the consumer? For most people who like the "get in and get out" shopping method, I think it's a winner. Doc Searls is focusing on VRM (Vendor Relationship Management), and recently observed that "the Net has been seen as a way to remove the humanity from markets." This strategy gives a bit of a nod to humanity, while still offering convenience -- something we are demanding (whether we receive it or not) more and more. I realize some people enjoy "the hunt" and that actually purchasing something is not part of the game. It won't be mandatory that we pre-order, but it sure would be convenient. These two shopping types can co-exist easily, and meet for coffee afterwards!

Why does this represent the death of social networking as we know it? Because Social Network Commerce takes it to a new level. "Computers" were there. They needed people to use them for more than gaming before they were widely accepted. "The Internet" was there. It needed something for people to do on it besides just "be on it." And now, Social Networking is there. If we don't use it as a commodity then it will remain a hobby, or even worse -- an expense (think about the bass boat in your back yard) and those don't pay the bills.

What do you think?

How I got started on Social Networking (MySpace, LinkedIn, and Facebook edition)

Though I am a lifelong Introvert, I have always been social.

I spent several years in policework, where no matter how much you didn't want to, you always had to talk to people -- usually about some pretty personal matters.

It was kind of like being in customer service for a funeral director. No one ever wanted us around unless something really bad happened to them, and it was clear that we better not screw up while we were invading their space.

After I retired from policework, I spent some time in sales -- mostly sales of services. I had to describe something that someone else would deliver at a yet-to-be-determined, likely inconvenient, time in the future. That's a really intangible thing to do, 'cause if you cannot say when it will show up and you can't describe it well you cannot tell when it works. Fortunately, you ALWAYS know when it doesn't. The unknowns, of course, made it fun, and I found it very enjoyable.

In both policework and sales, I realized, perhaps intuitively, that making connections with others was the way to "do business." I ultimately enjoyed meeting new people, and often kept in contact with people I had met, especially if we had a few things in common. So how'd I get into online social networking?

Here's a brief history of my experiences, in the context of three sites: MySpace, LinkedIn, and Facebook. There are others, and there are others I have joined, but these are the "big three," though not necessarily in the order listed.

MySpace
I am the father of teenagers - two teenage boys, to be precise. As teenagers, they have to be involved in things their friends are involved in. As it turned out, their friends were involved in MySpace. Both my kids (in their early teens at the time) swallowed their integrity and alleged that they were old enough to sign up (this is reminiscent of someone copying a video tape or disk that has the FBI warning at the beginning).

After I discovered (refer back to the police training) that the only way to see their MySpace account was to be their friend, I decided to be friends with my kids. My older son was instantly impressed when he found out -- I think I got some cool points, at least initially. He received my friend "request" and said, "Hey dad, you got a MySpace . . . COOL!" On reflection, I think that this was the only time he ever thought so. Shortly after gaining access to his site, I "recommended" that he remove my home phone number and my address from his site. I then suggested that he review the site and remove anything that would cause his mother to blush. I've done this a couple of times since, but there are fewer and fewer problems.

My younger son witnessed this interaction and questioned the logic of adding his dad as a "friend." After a couple of days during which I waited patiently for him to add me, he casually asked what would happen if he chose not to. I just as casually responded that I would honor his decision by banning him from the MySpace community. He added me shortly thereafter.

LinkedIn
My Entrepreneur side kicked in when a colleague invited me to join the LinkedIn network. I started out copying and pasting the "about me" stuff from my MySpace profile, but quickly realized it wasn't the same type of forum. MySpace was all "social," while LinkedIn was all about "networking," I saw the power of LinkedIn for business purposes, and began tuning and re-tuning my profile. Adding contacts became a hobby, and when the LinkedIn Answers section opened up, I realized I had found a niche.

I've noticed that only a portion of those with whom I would otherwise be connected are actually on LinkedIn. For them, I still have to make time to email or call them to get an update on their professional accomplishments. For the rest of us, there's LinkedIn. Maybe it's because LinkedIn hasn't been around more than a few years. Perhaps it's because no one has invited them. I'm not sure why it is, but I have connections all over the place, and a rapidly growing network.

Facebook
I have been a college professor off-and-on for several years. When I started doing so on a fulltime basis, I realized that most of my students had a Facebook account. I realized that if I wanted to genuinely connect with my students, I needed to add another social network site to my repertoire. As before, I started out copying the stuff from my MySpace profile, but saw subtle differences in the atmosphere at Facebook. While MySpace was more bells and whistles, Facebook was more words and pictures. It just seemed more "cultured" than MySpace.

In any event, just about all of the students in my classes had accounts, and I had a couple dozen friends within a few days of mentioning that I had an account. I made a point not to send out friend requests because I didn't want there to be any perception of "pressure" or "favoritism." For the most part, I have maintained that philosophy, but have shifted strategies a little in favor of LinkedIn and network building.

There's something about Facebook. Like the other sites, it gives you a chance to catch up on the developments in the lives or your friends and other acquaintences. It also gives you a unique (more transparent) perspective on people with whom you have only corresponded via email, phone call, or other form of message transference. There are some who have a little difficulty accepting this (see my previous post titled "Get over it").

So there it is - a brief history of my adventure into the social networking scene. I have some overlap in my networks, but for the most part they are three separate areas. I'm not sure why there isn't more interconnectivity . . .

What do you think?

The CEOs new social network strategy

At some point in the recent past, there lived a CEO who cared so much for cutting-edge technology and unusual ways to increase market share that he spent a sizeable amount of his company’s profit on finding and implementing new ideas. One day, he realized that many of his employees had embraced the new “social networking” phenomenon, and decided to find a way to harness the power of this new technology to secure the future of his company. He instructed his managers to direct their minions on the appropriate way to represent the company in their off time. He made sure that there was no inexperienced addressing of product quality issues, and there were no online discussions that might expose trade secrets.

The CEO even got in on the action, and before long he had a login for every social networking site. He spent most of his time checking out the activities and connections of his employees and regularly changing his profile picture so that everyone would get an update and might see his handsome face and know that he was watching (and learning).

One day there came to the company two rogues who set themselves up as social networking gurus. They said they knew how to establish the company as a market leader while providing a venue for capitalizing on the social networking phenomenon and increase not only the bottom line, but also the position of the company in the global marketplace. The samples and statistics they showed were beautiful.

"I must have a strategy designed by these networking gurus," thought the CEO. "When I announce this decision at the annual company webinar, I will find out which of my executives and business partners are not fit for their positions. I shall know the brilliant minds and visionaries from the has-beens. Those networking gurus must be brought to me at once."

So the two rogues came to the Executive suite. The CEO asked to check out their profiles on a variety of sites, but they advised that was not possible, and their personal networking efforts and activities were relatively non-existent. They explained that only those who studied the space were able to help others understand it, and that participation in the space was something they “just didn’t have time for.” They noted that this information could not be understood by anyone who was stupid or unfit for his position within the company, but they assured the CEO that they could deliver results. The CEO gave them a vast sum of money so they could begin designing the company strategy immediately.

The rogues put up two cutting edge computer systems, with multiple monitors, and began building a closed social network that would allow the company to synergize the brainpower of employees across all divisions. They designed file-sharing systems that would allow multiple-user edits. They made sure that all who signed on automatically had the CEO and their supervisor as a contact, and they provided a recommend-connection mode that allowed supervisors to see who should be connected and communicating but was not. They designed policy that allowed for up to one hour per workday for socializing with others in the company, and encouraged employee access from home via VPN.

They expensed trips to remote locations and had lunch with some of the best and brightest strategists in the social networking space, charging the costs to the company. They worked steadily at the computers, building their own reputations on many of the largest and most profitable niche sites, and cruised the lonely matchmaker websites until far into the night.

Day after day, the CEO could hear the clicking of the keyboards. He became very curious to see the wonderful strategy these rogues were developing; and he decided to send someone to find out how the networking gurus were doing. But he remembered that no one who was stupid or was unfit for his position would understand their strategy.

"I will send my COO to the gurus," thought the CEO. "He is a very clever man, and no one is more worthy of his position than he."

So the COO went into the office where the two rogues sat working at the computers. The rogues explained the networking strategy that linked employees to one another, enabling them to capitalize on institutional wisdom and build on it – even on their own time. He stared and stared, and opened his eyes wide.

"I am in so much trouble!" he thought. "It looks like they are closing us off from our customers." He thought to ask the gurus how building a gated community would interface with the envisioned social networking strategy, but he said nothing at all.

"Step a little closer," said the rogues. "Check out these graphics! And the colors - are they not wonderful?" And they pointed to the computer screen.

The COO put on his glasses, and looked and looked at the computer screen; but he could not figure out how this closed environment supported his company’s outreach strategy.

"Oh no!" he said to himself. "Is it possible that I am unfit for my office? Certainly, no one must know it. Am I a complete idiot? I will never say that I cannot understand this strategy!"

"Well, sir, what do you think of it?" asked one of the rogues.

"Oh, it is exciting – wonderful!" said the COO, as he peered through his glasses. "The colors are gorgeous and the graphics are excellent. I shall tell the CEO that I am very pleased with your strategy."

"We are glad to hear you say so," said the rascals. And they continued talking of the design and vision for strategy implementation. They estimated the ongoing costs, and described the benefits. The COO listened carefully, for he wished to repeat to the CEO all that was said.

Soon the rogues began to ask for more funding for their work. All that was given to them they put into their pockets. Not a single dime was ever put into improving the company strategy.

The CEO sent another faithful friend, the CMO, to see the gurus’ work and inquire how soon the strategy would be ready, as the webinar was scheduled to happen soon. But the CMO fared no better than the COO. He stood before the computer screens, and looked and looked and looked, but he saw no useful strategy.

"Isn't this great stuff?" asked the two rogues. Then they praised the gorgeous colors and explained the design and its relationship to the current networking strategy, which was nonexistent.

"Oh, dear!" thought the CMO. "Surely I am not stupid. It must be that I am unfit for my position. That is very strange, as I have impeccable credentials and a resume that is very impressive. But I must not let it be known that I cannot understand this."

"Ah!" said he. "The strategy is most unusual; and the colors are marvelous. I shall tell the CEO what fine progress you are making."

Soon every one in the company was talking about the wonderful strategy that the two networking gurus were designing. The CEO thought that he would like to see the draft while it was still in the works. With a number of his executives, he went to visit the two rogues, who were working diligently, day after day, without really doing anything new.

Among the executives that accompanied the CEO were the two who had already visited the gurus. They thought that the others would see something in the strategy that made good business sense, so they began to cry out at once, "Look! Do you understand this insightful strategy? And the technology and design - are they not cutting edge?"

"What is this?" thought the CEO. "I see nothing new at all! Am I not fit to be CEO? Am I an idiot? If that were known, I will be terminated."

"Yes, yes, it is very exciting," said the CEO aloud. "I could not be more pleased."

He smiled and nodded his head, and stared at the computer screens. His executives, too, looked and looked, but saw no more than the others. Yet they all cried, "It is wonderful." And the rogues asked the CEO to provide some input on their draft design of his profile page, which they would roll out during the upcoming webinar.

The CEO put each of the rogues on his top connections list, and strongly recommended their work, calling them “Corporate Network Strategy Gurus.”

As the day of the webinar came nearer, the two rogues worked around the clock, inhaling energy drinks, and walking around the halls to keep their thoughts flowing. They were up the whole night before the webinar. They kept the lights on, their computer speakers cranked, and their plans for success empty.

Through the huge windows of the rogues' borrowed corner office, the employees could see they were hard at work. They edited and re-edited page upon page of code. They made drawings on whiteboards and sketched out designs on page after page of easel pad paper stuck to the walls. They wrote, revised, and re-worked; and at last, they said, "The strategy is ready."

The CEO, with his executives and board members surrounding him, went to examine the new strategy.

The rogues pointed to the computer screens as if there was something exciting there. "See!" they said. "Here is the website! Here is your profile! Here are your contacts! The company logo is watermarked in the cleverest places. You can drag-and-drop pictures, upload spreadsheets, interface with other internal corporate databases, and talk amongst yourselves as freely as if you were in a bank vault. That is the beauty of it."

"It is marvelous," said the executives. Yet the whole time they really understood nothing, for there was nothing to understand – this was all a (barely) new spin on an old business practice.

"Will you please provide us a quote for our press release?" asked the rogues of the CEO. "Then we will make a joint announcement, just in time to increase the excitement and attraction of the webinar."

The CEO deleted all his external networking website profiles, and issued a directive to have all his employees and company leaders to do the same. The rogues then showed each of the executives their new profiles. They had music and videos, and made a big deal about each one.

"How great an idea this is!" said the executives. "What a great strategy! What a wonderful idea!"

The CEO clicked on friend after friend, checking out each profile. He adjusted his top friends, posted on walls, sent instant messages, and even posted a few videos, and nodded his head enthusiastically.

"The webinar is about to launch," said one of his executives.

"I am ready," said the CEO. He gave one last click on his “about me” and prepared for the camera.

The two masters of ceremonies launched their browsers. They had yet to see the design of the site, as they wanted their own excitement to be expressed in their dialog. But they could not access the site, as they were not company employees. They assumed it was a technical glitch, and did not dare let it be known that they saw nothing. At least they could see the streaming video!

The CEO smiled at the camera, with the new site displayed on a 42-inch screen behind him, and all his executives stood beside him, with smiles on their faces. But those attending the webinar – the suppliers and partners, looked only at the screen behing the CEO, for they all wanted to see this wonderful site.

"How handsome the CEO's profile is!" they all cried. "What a great design! How well it represents him!" And they rushed to open a new window on their computer so they could check the site out in real time.

And they were all instantly depressed. None of them would admit that they could see nothing, for that would have proved them very stupid and unfit for a relationship with the company. No website strategy launch had ever been so widely announced or richly funded.

"But there’s nothing there!" said a customer in the chat room.

"Hush! Hush!" said a value-added reseller, “you must not have the new version of Java installed. Call Tech Support after the Webinar. Trust me, this thing is BiG! And, it’s revolutionary!”

But the customers, vendors, and suppliers began to private message one another about what the customer had said; "There’s nothing there! The customers cannot access the site!"

Soon all the suppliers were typing into the chat room, "But, we cannot access the site!"

The CEO saw what they said, and he shivered, for he knew that their words were true. He had agreed on the strategy because it was so familiar. Keep everything close-hold. Make it so contact with the company from outside is a privilege that is earned, not a natural response to an attempt to get information by a potential customer. But he couldn’t stop the process; and so he held his head up, put on his best fake smile, and continued his speech. And behind him, his executives smiled and nodded, and helped drive the company into the bankruptcy courts – even without a bursting bubble.

This contemporary portrayal of denial, rewritten from Hans Christian Andersen’s rewrite of an old Spanish story, was designed to provide a thought-provoking perspective regarding how social media (and other new technologies) can be seen by those entrenched in the status quo of yesterday’s business model. Will tomorrow’s successful companies apply the old rules in the relationship economy? Only time will tell!