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

NEED HELP with Social Media & Online Business Networking Must-Reads

I could really use some help building this list. I'm trying to include all the books that relate to the business-oriented social space.

My list at present is located here. Any method of response (blog comment, twitter post, email, or any of the communication methods to the right) ==>>> would be appreciated!

Thanks!

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?

Can I have a Coffee Lite Frappucinno and some FREE WiFi? Apparently the answer is YES!

I just got an email from ATT (where I get my home and mobile phone service with DSL Internet) and they announced that I could go get free wireless with a cup of coffee!

I am pumped!

A search of the ATT.com site (and even Cingular.com which autoforwards) found nothing on a search for starbucks . . . maybe only the marketing department knows . . .

But the STARBUCKS site is touting "free Wi-Fi access for qualifying AT&T customers and any Starbucks Card holder" - Heck, I have both!

I wonder if that's why they had the company-wide store closure the other day? Is this another example of Customer Powered Service?

Earlier I was reading a very indepth article on branding. In it, Umair Haque, Director of the Havas Media Lab, said Brands are perhaps the most intuitive example of cheap interaction’s atomizing hand. Yesterday, they were a potent source of advantage. Today, the game has changed: investing in traditional brands is yielding fast diminishing returns, and leading more and more players directly into value destruction. That’s why it’s not just revolutionaries like Google, but also mass-market giants like Nike and P&G, who are rethinking orthodox branding.

I'm thinking ATT might be going into the coffee business, so they can compete with McDonalds . . .

What do you think?

Utopic Neutrality

I really don't think there's a whole lot of long-term support for Net Neutrality, but it sure does make for some interesting dialog. As the Internet forms and transforms, so many people have so many views on what should be and what will be. These often conflicting and usually opposing views seem to miss the reality of what the Internet and Neutrality is all about. Putting the two together appears to form an oxymoron. I propose, as an alternative:
The premise of neutrality is objectivity, or freedom from bias.

The premise of Net Neutrality is the absence of restrictions by those providing access on those for whom the access is provided.

If this sounds like the western expansion in the United States (and other countries before it), or if someone has burdened you with the metaphor of Internet expansion as space exploration, that's because we, as humans, have the need to relate new things to old paradigms. If we are looking for something to really relate this to, it's pretty simple . . . the Internet is like Utopia!

Utopia is that la-la-land dreamworld where everything is perfectly designed, where beta-testing is a thing of the past (sorry Microsoft), and where nothing -- seriously, nothing -- breaks. It's where you have enough and I have enough, and we both know it and are happy about it.

Thomas More, a lawyer, author, and statesman, coined the word "utopia," and described it as an ideal (fictitious) island nation. Here's an overview of More's Utopia (also here):

View Upload your own

According to Wikipedia, Net Neutrality refers to a principle that is applied to residential broadband networks, free of restrictions on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, on the modes of communication allowed, that does not restrict content, sites, or platforms and where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams would be considered neutral by most observers.

According to Google, Net Neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The company observes that fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet.

The problem with that position is that it doesn't fit even the basic business (revenue generating) model. Google has been operating with an advertising revenue model that is changing (not growing) even as you read this post. Google is to the Internet what Wal-Mart is to manufacturing -- they provide none of the Internet but make a whole lot of money using it. To even think that Google has the ability to provide an unbiased view of the topic is to think that American automobile manufacturers naturally support carbon-neutral energy sources.

Here's the more simple analysis. In our neighborhood (yours and mine), we have dirt roads. Suppose there's a campaign started that requires all local, state and federal governments to provide unlimited access to improved roads for all vehicles. Let's call it "Street Neutrality." I ride a bicycle, you drive a sedan, and Joe, the guy down the street, drives a semi truck. Are we all supportive of this campaign? Absolutely! The problem comes with implementation.

The roadways in our city are made of concrete, about two inches thick and ten feet wide. I am the first one to drive on the roadway, and I really enjoy the comfortable drive. The curves are gently sloped, the roads are flawless on the surface, and they are plenty wide for me -- even if I like to swerve back and forth. You are the second to drive on the roads. You, too, enjoy the drive, and though you tend to drive like you are on the Interstate (hopefully I am already off the roads), the slope of the curves allows your tires to grip the road surface just right.

And then along comes Joe. He's got a trailer on the back of his truck, so the width of the road is a problem -- especially around the curves. That trailer has some heavy merchandise in it, so the thickness of the road is a problem. We both notice the problems Joe is having, so we force our city to build wider and thicker roads and build sidewalks for me and my bike.

And then the tax bill comes.

Each of us notice our taxes went up, and we are not especially pleased about it. We get together and walk down to City Hall to see what the problem is. We are told that because of the additional work, the city had to spend more money to improve the roads then they had in the annual budget. They explain that the added costs are needed to install and maintain a roadway infrastructure that will support large semis like Joe's while providing way too much support for your sedan and my bike. You and I glance at each other and almost immediately glare at Joe, vowing to find a way to opt out of supporting this in the future. We return home and immediately start a neighborhood petition. I think you can fill in the rest of the story . . .

So how does this all shake out? Telecom companies (or power companies) will provide Internet access just like we currently get water, electricity, and trash pickup. They used to provide dial-up (dirt roads) but realized that enough of us wanted and were willing to pay for DSL or Cable Internet. A few of us need much more bandwidth, and the rest of us got tired of paying extra (remember, we join social networks and upload pictures and video for free). There will be a basic fee for a up to a certain amount and then there will be added charges for those users who want more than the average customer.

We may not like it, but we wouldn't be able to run our own companies any other way.

This post was provided without adding added burden to the Internet . . .

What do you think?

Customer Powered Service -- the next step in The Relationship Economy!

A while back, Bruno Teuber suggested we use something called Customer Powered Service to define service that is shaped by the customer . . . driven from outside the business to inside and designed to make the customer successful, not just to make support staff more efficient. There have been a few instances of the use of this term, but they all seem to focus on the company's reputation, not the customer's needs and desires. Teuber suggested that Customer Powered Service was a new model that empowers customers, not just internal service personnel. It helps customers achieve their goals, and it optimizes service towards making the best use of customers' time.

I think it's time to revisit the use of this term -- not as a buzzword, but as a mantra.

Customer Powered Service should be seen as a return to the mindset of the marketplace. It is the empowering of the customer, but it doesn't stop there. We have to realize (and make sure the companies we are dealing with realize) that they really aren't going to be successful if they don't provide us with what we need (and are asking for). When we speak of Customer Powered Service, it's not just about the customer -- it's also about the service!

Scott Allen recently noted that we have been moving closer and closer to the point that the customer is really the one in charge of the relationship, not the vendor. How does that work? Customer Powered Service!

Mark Kerrigan established a contact within #84 of the United States’ most profitable companies, and they (the founders) weren’t going to let that slip away. How did he do that? Customer Powered Service!

Jay Deragon observed that the best kind of sale comes from existing customers either buying more or referring someone else to your business. What is he talking about? Customer Powered Service!

Doc Searls, at Harvard's Berkman Center, is knee deep in VRM, or Vendor Relationship Management, the reciprocal of CRM or Customer Relationship Management. It provides customers with tools for engaging with vendors in ways that work for both parties. How are they going to build that? Customer Powered Service!

Pete Blackshaw suggested that if customer service and consumer affairs professionals want more budget, more respect, more leeway to nurture meaningful consumer loyalty -- and hence positive word-of-mouth and CGM creation -- they need to make their case, and do so now at a time when the resource-rich marketers are dotting every third word in speeches and memos with the word "conversation." How can they do that? Customer Powered Service!

The March 3 issue of Business Week, in an article entitled “Consumer Vigilantes“, provides us with a look at the creative ways that "we the people" have started using social media to address the issues when we want to avoid dealing with the phone menu (press one if you really want to do something about the problem).

This Thursday, February 28, 2008, join is at the Business Week webcast on The Impact of Social Media on Selling.

It promises to be a glimpse into the future of Customer Powered Service!

What do you think?

Arrrgghhh! All those years studying Political Science were a waste!

It's a shame when you realize that you wasted time doing something. It's even more a shame when you realize you wasted A LOT of time doing something!

No, I'm not talking about the times where we might second-guess ourselves after a failed marriage. I'm not referring to the soul-searching that goes on when one of our adult children does something REALLY stupid and we wonder where they learned that from. I'm not even talking about the feeling we get when we are downsized, rightsized, or even (God forbid) laid off, nor am I talking about what happens when you and your spouse vote for opposing candidates (more on that later).

I'm talking about the time we've wasted studying the variety of ideologies and political maneuverings at the Federal, State and Local levels of government in our fine country. I'm talking about the time we (even now) spend on trying to discern the benefits of voting for one primary candidate over another, or even trying to engage in public dialog to assist others in distinguishing from one potential political candidate over another.

This revelation comes like a cannon ball in the gut (I've never felt it, but I watched enough cartoons as a child to be able to imagine how it feels). Could it be true that it is actually our gut that affects our political persuasion? That's what it looks like . . .

According to James Fowler and Christopher Dawes of the University of California, San Diego, genetic predisposition can account for up to 50 percent of our political ideology. Tom Jacobs observed that political scientists have debated which environmental influences have a bigger impact on a young person’s nascent political ideology: the belief system of one’s family of origin, or the alternative ways of thinking one is exposed to in the outside world (say, at college). “All liberals know conservatives don’t have a heart, and all conservatives know that liberals don’t have a backbone,” joked John Alford, a political scientist at Rice University and one of the first academics to explore genetic influences on ideology. “So the issue has always been biological. “This takes some of the onus off of parents,” he added. “If your kids become liberal and you’re a conservative, they’re usually not doing it to poke a finger in their eye. It wasn’t a choice for them, so it doesn’t reflect a deliberate flaunting of your beliefs.”

The sure thing here appears to be that politics are not simple to understand -- at least not as simple as business.

Doc Searls, Scott Allen, and Jay Deragon have all posted of late on the effects of the basic factors of The Relationship Economy on politics in the context of the recent debates. Doc reported that Clinton called it “an honor” to be running against Barack Obama, and that “Whatever happens, we’re going to be fine.” Scott and Jay observed that in recent debates, Obama was saying that we have to have a relationship in order to effect change, while Clinton was saying that “they” have to change in order for us to have a relationship. In order to keep this framed in one ideological stance or another, let me observe that McCain was deemed newsworthy by the New York Times for claims made eight years ago regarding his relationship with a telecommunications lobbyist . . . oh, wait, that's not we mean by The Relationship Economy . . . Actually, I think Newsweek did a decent job of covering the recent mud-slinging toward the GOP candidate-in-waiting.

The bottom line is that all these politicians need is a crash course on relationships. In the marketplace, the reaction to someone who completely and totally offends your offering of a relationship is the removal of that offering, the commitment to take your business elsewhere, and (if they were really offensive) the commitment to report this offense to everyone you know, everyone they know, and as many people as you can by a variety of broadcast mediums. In government and politics, we have to wait a bit longer -- usually around four years. Nonetheless, we all remember the ways to get involved in politics from our American Government class, right? If you don't like the way you are represented, either jump on the bandwagon of someone you agree (more) with, or build your own bandwagon.

It is sad, but I think the choices in this election season started out in the crapper, and they just keep swirling around and around.

Here's Tango's attempt to combine Politics and Relationships:



See if you can do any better!

What do you think?

If traditional marketing won't work in The Relationship Economy, what will?

Relationships, that's what!

In Generation MySpace Is Getting Fed Up, Business week reminds us that "Social networking was supposed to be the Next Big Thing on the Internet."

The article covers a variety of noteworthy points:

• Advertising on social networking sites is growing fast. Last year global ad spending on these sites shot up 155%, to $1.2 billion, expected to jump 75% this year, to $2.1 billion.
• The forecasts may prove unrealistic. Besides the slowing user growth and declining time spent on these sites, users appear to be growing less responsive to ads, according to several advertisers and online placement firms.
• Google didn't generate as much revenue from social networking as expected.
• Many people on social networking sites pay little to no attention to the ads because they're more interested in kibitzing with their friends.
• Social networks have some of the lowest response rates on the Web, advertisers and ad placement firms say. Marketers say as few as 4 in 10,000 people who see their ads on social networking sites click on them, compared with 20 in 10,000 across the Web.

So what should we be doing to get the attention of the people formerly known as the audience? Perhaps we should treat our markets as conversations . . . perhaps we should engage our customers in dialog, getting to know them before we tell them what we have "just for them." Possibly, we should stop selling, and start listening . . .

In The Relationship Economy, the first step is the relationship. We are sick and tired of the push-marketing model, and are demanding that the pull (our pull) be implemented. The days of build it and they will come are gone. We want you to build, make, and provide stuff that we tell you we want. We'll only tell you in a conversation. The only way you will get it is if you are listening.

That's how relationships work.

Take a look at the new model, brought to you by some of the Cluetrain Manifesto authors.

The updated theses (numbering is not a mistake -- he skipped a few) as posted by Charlene Li - Josh Bernoff at Social Media Today.

1. Advertising as we know it will die.

2. Herding people into walled gardens and guessing about what makes them "social" will seem as absurd as it actually is. (Facebook is his example.)

3. We will realize that the most important producers are what we used to call consumers. (Yup.)

4. The value chain will be replaced by the value constellation. (Many connections.)

5. "What's your business model?" will no longer be asked of everything. (What's the business model for your kids?)

6. We will make money by maximizing "because effects". ("Because effects" are what happen when you make more money because of something than with it.) E.g. search and blogging.

8. We will be able to manage vendors at least as well as they manage us. (Agreements between companies and customers shouldn't be skewed in favor of the companies.) At Harvard Law they call this VRM -- vendor relationship management -- which is what Searls is working on (projectvrm.org).

10. We'll marry the live web to the value constellation. (The Live Web isn't just about stars. Relationships of anybody to anybody.)

What do you think?

What are the economics of relationships in The Relationship Economy?

In order to grasp the economic value of relationships, let’s take a look from a business perspective.

Kevin Kelly's Customer Control
Kevin Kelly (1998) suggests business owners:
1) Create what the customer wants
2) Remember what the customer wants
3) Anticipate what the customer wants
4) Change what the customer wants.

Before you judge the message, consider it in the context of a hybrid type of business, not a traditional business, and not a business in The Relationship Economy. Kelly’s message indicates that businesses control the relationship – do they? In The Relationship Economy, it will be the consumer that holds the controls, and they will hold the economic power, as long as they demand it.

Go Daddy's Money Spots
In a recent media censorship challenge, Fox Television rejected an advertisement that included references to a slang term for a woman’s “private parts.” The ad, at Go Daddy Hot Spot, was one in a history of risqué ads that seemed to get more “exposure” than they would have had they been aired.

Go Daddy had issues in previous years http://www.informationweek.com/hardware/personaltech/175700416 http://humor.about.com/b/2006/02/05/go-daddys-banned-super-bowl-xl-tv-commercials.htm but apparently isn’t getting the message . . . Or are they?

The company proudly lists the timelines for ad rejection from 2008, 2007 and 2006 on their website, and many bloggers have covered their adventure.
http://www.micropersuasion.com/2005/02/godaddy_ceo_fig.html
http://www.faniq.com/blog/Go-Daddy-Super-Bowl-Ad-Rejected-by-Fox-Because-it-Used-the-Word-Beaver-Blog-6107
http://www.socialmediatoday.com/blog/JDeragon/site/posts/?bid=25541
But only one that I found shows data to indicate that this was a bad move:
http://www.internetfinancialnews.com/financialblogtalk/news/ifn-6-20080208SalesGeniecomGoDaddycomDamageBrand.html

What do you think?

Innovation: Corporations Embrace Social Networking

I think we may be making some progress! According to Fox Business, in Innovation: Corporations Embrace Social Networking: "Increasingly, corporations and business professionals are embracing this new way to communicate and network. From established corporate social networking Web site Linkedin, to upstart SkyLounge (which went live last week) to embedded social networking in human resources applications, companies across the country are trying to capitalize on this burgeoning market.

And it's all being driven by executives at the highest levels of corporations."

Hopefully, they have read our post about "The CEOs new social network strategy"

Is it copying or collaborating?

Copying or collaborating?

In school, it’s called copying, and it’s wrong. In business, it’s called collaborating, and it’s expected and rewarded. When two people work together to submit the same work product, how should it be received? It depends on the 1) assignment, 2) agreement between the parties, and 3) recipient's expectations.

Individuals are moving more and more toward collaboration, especially in the business community. We’ve seen team-building become almost an art form in business, and the focus on forming short-term business teams appears to be a foregone conclusion during negotiations. So where do we draw the line?

If we can’t monetize it and ensure we get our share, we aren’t likely to go for it!

Knowledge in organizations is (rightfully) treated like it has value. But, as with other things of value, the usefulness of knowledge depends on how we process it. There are apparently two perspectives, or schools of thought, on the handling of knowledge in organizations.

One perspective is that knowledge consists of objects that can be created, collected, stored, retrieved and reused. This model suggests that knowledge needs to be codified in order to be effectively managed. This model can be understood using a "conduit" model of communication (Heo & Yoo, 2002).

The second perspective is that knowledge in organizations is socially constructed and collectively held. It is malleable, uncertain, and embedded in work practices and social relationships. This model is more in line with the “communities of practice” model (Heo & Yoo, 2002).

Many organizations are still concerned about getting an immediate return on investment for the knowledge they create, maintain, and share. The Relationship Economy won’t work that way, so now would be a great time for us to learn to get over this antiquated business practice. We may all agree in the importance of fostering a collaborative culture within our organization, but just how do we go about doing so?

Tapscott and Williams, in their book Wikinomics, identified four steps we can take.

•Encourage and reward openness in networking for all members of the organization.

•Create peering environments that foster self-organizing human connections for collaboration and innovation.

•Allow radical sharing to expand markets and create new opportunities.

•Think and Act globally as an individual, team and organization.

(Tapscott & Williams, 2006).

To achieve Openness means ensuring a culture of candor, flexibility, transparency and access. How many of today’s workplaces can accurately be described by these words? Openness means making your organization’s boundaries porous to external ideas and human capital. It means being open to the talent pool that lies outside your walls and sharing access to corporate performance. Moreover, it means seriously participating in the global knowledge economy (Tapscott & Williams, 2006).

Peering is also important in the establishment of a collaborative culture. Peering results in the creation of a horizontal organization that is often unrivaled by hierarchical organizations in speed of solution deployment. Looking at some examples of peering may give us an indication of how it can be accomplished.

•Marketocracy is an organization that uses collective intelligence on virtual stock portfolios. Marketocracy is a research company whose mission is to find the best investors in the world and then track, analyze, and evaluate their trading activity. They claim to have beaten the S&P 500 Index in 8 of the 11 quarters since inception http://www.marketocracy.com/

•Wikipedia is a free multi-contributor online encyclopedia. Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world. Unlike a paper reference source, Wikipedia is continually updated, with the creation or updating of articles on topical events within seconds, minutes or hours, rather than months or years for printed encyclopedias. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About

•Linux is a Unix-based operating system with shared infrastructure and resources. It was originally created starting in 1991 by Finnish programmer Linus Torvalds with the assistance of developers from around the globe. Linux runs on a wide variety of hardware platforms, from huge mainframes to desktop PCs to cell phones. http://www.linux.com/whatislinux/

Peering succeeds because it leverages self-organization. The natural self-organizing behavior of humans suggests that self-organization should be expected in our society. Self-organization can provide a platform for a decentralized, distributed, self-healing system, protecting the security of the actors in the network by limiting the scope of knowledge of the entire system held by each individual actor (Self-organization, 2008). Usually the growth of such networks is fueled by an ideology or sociological force that is adhered to or shared by all participants in the network.

Radically sharing Expanding markets

As any business model demonstrates, expanding markets create new opportunities. These opportunities are beneficial, and often require insight into the local business culture. They are also likely to require the sharing of duties among people who haven’t worked together before. In order for these relationships to work, there has to be an agreed upon comfort level between the participants.

Technology has brought us a couple of excellent examples of sharing that we (as humans) might try to replicate in our endeavor to “get radical.”

Computing power sharing allows companies to harness the processing power in a multitude of computers and combine that power to accomplish tasks that before required expensive supercomputers (Kessler, 2003). Shared computing also lets companies, or researchers, shift computing power via a network to where it's needed, cutting costs and increasing computing productivity.

Sharing bandwidth (neighbors or neighboring companies) can also keep costs down. Talk to any (honest) telecom sales representative and they’ll tell you it’s rare (like with streaming media) that all the bandwidth is needed all at one time. Those office buildings who treat bandwidth like electricity or water and pick up the tab for their average tenants have the right idea.

Content sharing is becoming more and more useful on the Internet. Many of the once-stagnant websites we mentioned previously are now dynamic because of shared content.

The sharing of scientific and medical knowledge is how both communities got to where they are. The research may go on behind closed doors, but the results are only useful when they are shared with the community. How many other communities do you know that freely share their findings?

Thinking and Acting globally

Thomas Friedman was right - The World Is Flat. The only way that today’s companies will be able to maintain a healthy balance sheet tomorrow is if they focus on staying globally competitive. That means they need to devote time to monitoring international developments. They will have to begin (or continue) tapping the global talent pool. They will have to get to know the world.

The International Labor Office provides us with Eight Dimensions of Knowledge Sharing. Contemplate these as you decide whether you are prepared to engage:

• Create a supportive culture
• Gather internal experience
• Access external learning
• Expand communication systems
• Use creative mechanisms for drawing conclusions
• Develop an organizational memory
• Integrate learning into strategy and policy
• Apply the learning

(ILO, 2007)

Examine your tradition of knowledge sharing to see how many of these dimensions you use.

Tomorrow’s successful companies will need to find ways to Think and Act globally, even if their budget and management has them stuck with legacy systems and processes. They will need to become true global companies, with no physical or regional boundaries. They will have to learn to treat the world as if it was one company, run by truly global individuals. They will need to see remote as if it were local, and realize that we don’t need to be in the same room to collaborate (Tapscott & Williams, 2006).

Michael Powell, then Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, said that change is inevitable. He made this statement after using Skype (Tapscott & Williams, 2006).

What do you think?

References:

Heo, D. & Yoo, Y. (2002). Knowledge Sharing in Post Merger Integration. Case Western Reserve University http://sprouts.case.edu/2002/020412.pdf

ILO (International Labour Office), (2007). Results-based management. Available at http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---relconf/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_084822.pdf

Kessler, M. (2003, January 8). High tech's latest bright idea: Shared computing. USA TODAY. Available at http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2003-01-08-shared-computing_x.htm

Self-organization. (2008, February 2). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 18:43, February 5, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-organization&oldid=188631462

Tapscott, D. & Williams, A. D. (2006). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. New York: Portfolio

Share and Share Alike in The Relationship Economy

Sharing Knowledge can and does occur in our social networks. We’ll cover these more later, but for now let’s look at how the two can intersect.

•Knowledge is central to economic development with new technology.

•The development of new technology doesn’t just happen, it depends on initiatives.

•Development begins with the recognition of a need, and it results in change

• Change to the way we do things.
• Needs are often recognized when a few people get together and discuss their wants and desires.
• This happens often when people network.

•Self-organizing networked social systems generate shared knowledge

•This shared knowledge can benefit many of the network members. The only thing that limits knowledge dissemination is the method used to transfer the information and the limitations or restrictions placed on it by those who hold the knowledge.

•The Internet circumvents imbalanced relationships by removing restrictions for those who seek information.

•How many industries have we seen opening up since the Internet became an integral part in so many people’s lives?

•Automobile sales were one of the first to experience the infiltration of informed customers, thanks to Edmunds and Kelly Blue Book

•The insurance industry has likewise been affected

•Mortgages and other loans, stocks and other investments, even simple banking transactions can occur with an institution we never physically visit.

•The medical field is experiencing an increase in informed patients with companies like WebMD

•And there are many more, and more to come.

So what’s in it for me?

In The Relationship Economy, the sharing of knowledge (like the sharing of many other factors) will produce revenue. Another way of saying that is by sharing knowledge you are engaging in economic development. Let’s examine economic development from a two different perspectives.

Personal economic development benefits the individual, who must acquire and implement the knowledge, and their family, who benefits from contributions by all of its members. We are all part of an organization of some kind, so let's look at it from a wider perspective. Organizational economic development benefits the smaller groups, like one’s team or section, which also benefits the individual (and their families). Economically benefited individuals and groups ultimately benefit the whole organization. And from an even broader perspective . . .

Community economic development starts at the local level, where projects including workforce education and development are launched and nurtured so they can raise the income of those (individuals) in need. At the state level, economic development includes a variety of cooperative projects and strategic expansion initiatives. Sometimes there are regional developments that engage in economic stimulation – often these are cooperative operations with private and public organizations. When economic development occurs on a national scale, there are multitudes of players involved. Projects at this level take a significant amount of planning

But we don’t like to change!

It’s difficult to get people to change – even if it is in their best interests. It can be even more difficult to get groups of people to change. Ultimately, in order to provide an environment for change there must be an identified need.

Some examples of needs (or wants) resulting in change include:

•Open Source software

Open source is a software development method that uses distributed peer review and transparency of process. The need that brought about the The Open Source Initiative (OSI) was better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in.

The OSI is a non-profit corporation formed to educate about and advocate for the benefits of open source and to link different open-source community constituencies. http://www.opensource.org//

•Creative Commons licensing

•Creative Commons provides free tools that let authors, scientists, artists, and educators easily mark their creative work with the freedoms they want it to carry. Individuals can use private rights to create public goods: creative works set free for certain uses.

•Creative Commons can clearly identify copyright terms from "All Rights Reserved" to "Some Rights Reserved." http://creativecommons.org/

•Voice over Internet Protocol

•Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), allows you to make voice calls using a broadband Internet connection instead of a regular (or analog) phone line. Some VoIP services are proprietary, others allow you to call anyone who has a telephone number, and some services allow you to use a traditional phone connected to a VoIP adapter. http://www.fcc.gov/voip/

•Video creating and sharing

•A variety of new technologies, websites, and social network domains like Facebook and MySpace, has motivated large numbers of individuals to create videos and post them on the Internet. This trend crosses the individual and corporate space, and is expected to continue to grow. Current examples include YouTube, MySpace, and Google Videos.

•Blogging

A blog (web log) is a website where entries are commonly displayed in reverse chronological order. Many blogs provide commentary or news on a particular subject; others function as more personal online diaries. A typical blog combines text, images, and links to other blogs, web pages, and other media related to its topic. The ability for readers to leave comments in an interactive format is an important part of many blogs.

Network Power

The power of a network is related to the amount of knowledge held by the individual members, how much they share with others (and re-use from others), the number of others with whom they share and the capability of the network to generate new knowledge.

For an organization, the network power equation requires.

•Hire and retain people who have a high level of expertise (and therefore a large amount of knowledge).

•Hire and retain people who are natural sharers.

•Hire a diverse population of people so that the knowledge they have is varied; i.e., there is enough similarity so that they can understand each other, but not so much that they all know the same things.

•Put in place a work environment that encourages and enables knowledge sharing.

The bottom line is power is knowledge shared. Through knowledge management, you can increase the power of your organization exponentially to solve problems, to invent new methods, and to overcome physical distance.

(Smith, 2001)

Technology-Enhanced Synergy

Synergy happens when a group of diverse individuals gets together and collaborates. When forming a strategic team, it is important to find a variety of personality styles, backgrounds, and experiences. Only by interacting with a heterogeneous group can we experience the real power of collaboration. The results of these collaborations often contribute to the overall knowledge base. Previously established networks can also be used to disseminate this collective knowledge.

There have been many recent examples of technology-enhanced synergy. Though many of these exist in the software world, their application in similar models in the “real world” can be easily accomplished.

•Wiki is software that allows users to create, edit, and link web pages easily. Wikis are often used to create collaborative websites and to power community websites. Wiki is from a Hawaiian word for "fast." A defining characteristic of wiki technology is the ease with which pages can be created and updated. Wiki technology and style has been used to create

Encyclopedias

Dictionaries

Textbooks

News

Quotes Listings

Search Tools

Learning Resources

(Wiki, 2008)

•Open Courseware is a free and open digital publication of “high quality” educational materials, organized as courses. The OpenCourseWare Consortium is a collaboration of more than 100 higher education institutions and associated organizations using a shared model. The consortium includes:

Defense Acquisition University

Harvard Law

Johns Hopkins

MIT

Michigan State

UMass Boston

UC Irvine

Notre Dame

. . . and many others

Topics come from a variety of academic subjects, including Philosophy, Biology, Calculus, International Relations, Adolescent Health, and Statistical Reasoning are offered – completely free. (http://www.ocwconsortium.org/)

So where do we start?

What do we need to do to create a Knowledge Sharing Culture? We need to start with making knowledge sharing the norm in our life and the life of our organization (Gurteen, 1999). We need to regularly encourage people to work together more effectively, to collaborate and to share. This will help instill the habit in the lives of others in the organization, and will go a long way toward making organizational knowledge more productive

But remember:

• We are talking about sharing knowledge and information – not just information.
• We share knowledge to help the organization meet its objectives. We are not doing it for its own sake.
• Making knowledge productive is as important as sharing knowledge.
• Changing a culture is tough. It means seeing the world in a different way, and revealing hidden paradigms like the tacit acceptance that “knowledge is power”.

It starts with you!

• Knowledge sharing begins with the individual. Each of us has his or her job, objectives, and sphere of influence.
• Sharing is about being more open in your way of work and in your relationships with other people.

(Gurteen, 1999)

We can get there from here!

The most effective way to create a knowledge sharing culture is to start at our level. The higher up we go in the organization the more effective we will be in changing the knowledge sharing culture, but we have to start where we are. We must implement knowledge sharing and show others the results.

An organization’s knowledge assets include explicit knowledge (concepts, procedures, and routines) and tacit knowledge (experience, relationships, and know-how) (Chun, Williams, & Granados, 2007). An organization’s knowledge assets develop over time, and can be difficult to manage. Quite often the knowledge needed to solve a given problem already exists within an organization, but locating the person, document, or server holding the knowledge is challenging. Many of us have our own methods for knowledge management. Is your desk covered with sticky-notes? How do you retain knowledge that you know you will need some day? Hopefully some of the ideas you have seen here will help you in your quest for knowledge sharing!

What do you think?

References:

Chun, M., Williams, M., & Granados, N. (2007). Managing Organizational Knowledge: Insights offered from the Southern California aerospace industry for managing knowledge assets. Available at http://gbr.pepperdine.edu/072/knowledge.html

Gurteen, D. (1999) Creating a Knowledge Sharing Culture. Available at http://www.providersedge.com/docs/km_articles/Creating_a_K-Sharing_Culture_-_Gurteen.pdf

Smith, R. (2001, May 9) Knowledge Management – The Road Ahead. Presented at "Unleashing the Power of Partnerships", the 2nd Conference & Expo of the Staff Exchange Program of The World Bank Group, Washington, D.C.. Available at http://www.rgsmithassociates.com/Power.htm

Wiki. (2008, January 30). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 19:38, February 1, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wiki&oldid=187815038

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?

Local Social Network Commerce -- taking us back to the old days?

In a previous post, I suggested that local businesses and government services could enrich our lives by taking part in the social networking phenomenon. I was already aware of an application (that's such an inappropriate word given the power it brings) called Business 3.0, that allows you to create a profile of your business, your products and services and sell them on your social network site.

Facebook Pages allow businesses to connect with theirr customers on Facebook similar to the way they connect with their friends. Through a Facebook Page, users can show their support by becoming a fan, writing on the business' Wall, and other actions that automatically generate News Feed stories.
It's designed for all types of businesses:

Restaurants Bars Cafes Health and Beauty Pets

Local Stores Parks Attractions Sports Teams Games

Artists Musicians Politicians Non-profits And many more...

So start your business, build your business profile, install the B30 app, and get busy, right?

What can we imagine with this? I'm thinking a back-to-local movement for businesses who are tired of losing business to the Amazon's of the world. Roll back the local business strategy (before my time) where everyone knew everyone, and those who lived in the town shopped in the town. Could it be that we could see a resurgence in local shopping? Is it time for the Mom and Pop stores that were pushed out by Wal-Mart to push back?

I'm thinking a local presence in my Facebook neighborhood, where the gas station lists their current prices (one can hope!), and the local grocery displays advertised specials. The library can send you a text message when that video you wanted gets returned, and the barber shop posts their mood as "bored, come get your hair cut now).

The local nursery can post receipt of a bunch of new shrubs as a bulletin on their profile, the local newspaper (if they are still around) can have "top friends" based on who gave them the scoop on news, and the local bank can tell all their customers that a new branch manager was hired and they are having a meet-and-greet this afternoon.

Reservations at the best restaurant in town can be made with a text message, the pavilion at the local park can be reserved in seconds, and you can schedule a yard-waste pickup from your pda. Local politicians can share their vision for the community with minimal cost, and the local car dealer can post "just arrived" specials.

The sky's the limit . . . but it's only for those with vision.

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?

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?