Message Boards and Forums--Still Relevant
One of the oldest forms of online social media is the message board. I'm sure that many younger users of social media would disagree that forums/message boards/groups are not social media as it has been defined by Facebook, Twitter, et al.
However, I view online social media as any place where people can gather to exchange information, ideas, images, and share experiences. Message boards also have their own rudimentary version of curation; it is not as immediate and user-friendly as Instagram or Pinterest, to be sure. However, the searchable messages, file folders, and photo albums of the richer forums (think: Yahoo Groups) are most certainly the antecedents of the sharing and life-casting that we do on their modern descendants.
The Yahoo Group I run has been in place since June of 2005. It has nearly 5,000 members, averages at or over 1,000 moderated messages a month, and large numbers of photos and files the members can access. The Group recently passed 50,000 messages posted and the archives contain all posts in the history of the Group (unless deleted by the poster or moderator) in a searchable format. This is a highly-focused, very specific Group, yet is very active. Many sub-cultures and specialized interest discussion groups still rely on this hoary, old, but effective system to connect with like-minded people.
There is still value in the 20-year old forum/message board/group format. It should be recognized as part of the biosphere of the social media environment and-when possible-linked to its flashier, more in-the-moment relatives. Remember, with the advent of internet alternatives telephone chat lines were thought to be dead, but they have returned and are still part of the landscape. Don't underestimate older internet social media that still has a role to play, and to ignore them is to miss opportunities.
Showing posts with label Facebook. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Facebook. Show all posts
Sunday, July 8, 2012
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Klout-Why I Give K and What It Means
Because I am interested in all things social media, it seemed natural to sign up for Klout. The premise seemed simple enough: I would link my various social networks to Klout, and it would give me a 1-100 score on how 'influential' I was through those networks. Of course I was skeptical about the accuracy of their algorithm, but since everyone on Klout was being rated by (presumably) the same metrics, the scores would at least be consistent within its own reality.
Since that time I have read articles about people with moderate-to-low Klout scores being unsuccessful in job interviews for social media positions, something I found both puzzling and concerning. I also have seen a certain amount of gnashing of teeth and wailing in the (inter webs) wilderness about the (in)significance of Klout scores, and in some cases actual anger about them.
Instead, consider a simple way of viewing Klout: through the prism of authenticity. I interact with persons of interest, gather information and wisdom, and put out messages I believe are important. Since my networks reach across multiple social media platforms anyway, I chose Klout as a sonobuoy of sorts, pinging away to let me know when I was neglecting my interlinked social network activities. The key is to be authentic and let Klout reveal things to you rather than manipulating it simply to increase an already-suspect rating. Remember, by observing something, you may change it.
On Twitter I follow people whose thinking and writing interests and challenges me. As I wrote before, I use Twitter to engage with thought leaders and others with whom I have no venue other for interaction. When those people say things that move me, I keep them in mind when I log into Klout. Part of the Klout experience is being allotted X number of "Ks" that I can award to others on Klout and which they can in turn award to others. I 'give K' to those persons as an expression of my appreciation for what they bring to the Twitter experience. The problem lies with people who 'give K' with the expectation that they will in turn be given K by those persons. As with anything authentic, it is best to give K as a gift: no strings attached and no expectation of reciprocation.
How do you choose to give K?
Because I am interested in all things social media, it seemed natural to sign up for Klout. The premise seemed simple enough: I would link my various social networks to Klout, and it would give me a 1-100 score on how 'influential' I was through those networks. Of course I was skeptical about the accuracy of their algorithm, but since everyone on Klout was being rated by (presumably) the same metrics, the scores would at least be consistent within its own reality.
Since that time I have read articles about people with moderate-to-low Klout scores being unsuccessful in job interviews for social media positions, something I found both puzzling and concerning. I also have seen a certain amount of gnashing of teeth and wailing in the (inter webs) wilderness about the (in)significance of Klout scores, and in some cases actual anger about them.
Instead, consider a simple way of viewing Klout: through the prism of authenticity. I interact with persons of interest, gather information and wisdom, and put out messages I believe are important. Since my networks reach across multiple social media platforms anyway, I chose Klout as a sonobuoy of sorts, pinging away to let me know when I was neglecting my interlinked social network activities. The key is to be authentic and let Klout reveal things to you rather than manipulating it simply to increase an already-suspect rating. Remember, by observing something, you may change it.
On Twitter I follow people whose thinking and writing interests and challenges me. As I wrote before, I use Twitter to engage with thought leaders and others with whom I have no venue other for interaction. When those people say things that move me, I keep them in mind when I log into Klout. Part of the Klout experience is being allotted X number of "Ks" that I can award to others on Klout and which they can in turn award to others. I 'give K' to those persons as an expression of my appreciation for what they bring to the Twitter experience. The problem lies with people who 'give K' with the expectation that they will in turn be given K by those persons. As with anything authentic, it is best to give K as a gift: no strings attached and no expectation of reciprocation.
How do you choose to give K?
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
The Problem of "What's Next?"
In a meeting today, colleagues voiced concern about our organization lagging in the use of social media. They remarked upon what they had heard anecdotally about the 'un-coolness' of Facebook and describing how young users supposedly were fleeing it in favor of "places their parents don't go".
As I listened to them and then told them of our expanding Twitter footprint and the success we are beginning to garner, I was struck by the problem (perceived and real) of "What's next?". Our organization's focus is not social networking, but it is a tool that I believe is vital to accomplishing parts of our mission. The amount of resources we can devote to it is minimal, though, so any idea of being ahead of the curve is moot. Following clientele from network to ever-more-fragmented network is likely not a wise use of time and resources.
That said, mature social networks with a strong foundation and large following (Twitter, Facebook) are an excellent place for us to reach our audience. By leveraging our use these social networks, we can multiply our messages and gain the attention, trust, and partnership of our followers. In my opinion, we gain nothing by pursuing the latest and hottest, rushing into social networks we do not yet understand fully. It is better that we lag slightly, let the early adopters figure it out, then decide if it fits our ethos, image, and mission.
It is crucial that we be aware of and understand the latest and most influential sites, platforms, apps, and social networks. We can achieve this by scanning the environment and investigating these things on an ongoing business. I believe we can solve the problem of "What's next" by observation, tracking, and slow adoption.
What's next for you?
In a meeting today, colleagues voiced concern about our organization lagging in the use of social media. They remarked upon what they had heard anecdotally about the 'un-coolness' of Facebook and describing how young users supposedly were fleeing it in favor of "places their parents don't go".
As I listened to them and then told them of our expanding Twitter footprint and the success we are beginning to garner, I was struck by the problem (perceived and real) of "What's next?". Our organization's focus is not social networking, but it is a tool that I believe is vital to accomplishing parts of our mission. The amount of resources we can devote to it is minimal, though, so any idea of being ahead of the curve is moot. Following clientele from network to ever-more-fragmented network is likely not a wise use of time and resources.
That said, mature social networks with a strong foundation and large following (Twitter, Facebook) are an excellent place for us to reach our audience. By leveraging our use these social networks, we can multiply our messages and gain the attention, trust, and partnership of our followers. In my opinion, we gain nothing by pursuing the latest and hottest, rushing into social networks we do not yet understand fully. It is better that we lag slightly, let the early adopters figure it out, then decide if it fits our ethos, image, and mission.
It is crucial that we be aware of and understand the latest and most influential sites, platforms, apps, and social networks. We can achieve this by scanning the environment and investigating these things on an ongoing business. I believe we can solve the problem of "What's next" by observation, tracking, and slow adoption.
What's next for you?
Friday, June 22, 2012
Yet another Cassandra is crying "Facebook is dying!"
I remain skeptical about such jeremiads because I find the reasoning to be faulty. Frankly speaking, Facebook is unprecedented, so it's probably wrong to use standard metrics to define whether it is failing. Consider these points:
Bullet 2: Slowing membership growth for Facebook is inevitable due to the finite number of people who live on the planet with sufficient access to the internet to make use of it. That does not worry me. The question that should haunt Facebook's leadership and development team is: what is the thing that will cause us to lose members or cause them to spend less time on the site? The absence of a user-friendly mobile GUI for Facebook only hurts if someone creates one that is simple, attractive, and intuitive and does everything that Facebook does so much better than people are willing to try to drag their entire social media world (friends, apps, documetns, images, etc.) to another platfrom and start fresh. That has not yet happened. And unless that alternate choice allows easy importation of all of those things, it is unlikely that large, overlapping social networks are going to up and leave for an unknown.
Bullet 3: Zuckerberg has never put profitability ahead of his beliefs. I am firmly convinced that he has no interest in generating significantly more revenue than is needed to sustain/perpetuate Facebook. Those who saw Facebook as a quick-profit buy or expect fountains of future revenue to gush out through dividends will likely be thoroughly disappointed. It's not as if he hasn't made that clear from the first day on the Harvard campus, so others' dreams have nothing to do with his. His behavior suggests he does not see huge profits as necessary to achieve what he wants: connectedness of the human graph and radical transparency. He is not stupid, he knows that he will need capital to buy things that Facebook needs, but the company is already large and profitable enough to do that.
So, that all said, Facebook is still large, profitable, and seems determined to remain relevant. IPO failings (not of Facebook's making) aside, there is nothing happening below the daily stock market froth to make one believe that Facebook will not remain the social media leader for years to come, especially given its increasingly close relationship to Apple.
As Facebook prompts us on our home pages: "What's on your mind?"
I remain skeptical about such jeremiads because I find the reasoning to be faulty. Frankly speaking, Facebook is unprecedented, so it's probably wrong to use standard metrics to define whether it is failing. Consider these points:
- Social media is still evolving. We don't yet know what normal looks like.
- Facebook is a behemoth in terms of users, so something astonishing will have to happen to cause a significant migration away from it.
- Given the stock structuring, Facebook is Zuckerberg's show just as he intended.
Bullet 2: Slowing membership growth for Facebook is inevitable due to the finite number of people who live on the planet with sufficient access to the internet to make use of it. That does not worry me. The question that should haunt Facebook's leadership and development team is: what is the thing that will cause us to lose members or cause them to spend less time on the site? The absence of a user-friendly mobile GUI for Facebook only hurts if someone creates one that is simple, attractive, and intuitive and does everything that Facebook does so much better than people are willing to try to drag their entire social media world (friends, apps, documetns, images, etc.) to another platfrom and start fresh. That has not yet happened. And unless that alternate choice allows easy importation of all of those things, it is unlikely that large, overlapping social networks are going to up and leave for an unknown.
Bullet 3: Zuckerberg has never put profitability ahead of his beliefs. I am firmly convinced that he has no interest in generating significantly more revenue than is needed to sustain/perpetuate Facebook. Those who saw Facebook as a quick-profit buy or expect fountains of future revenue to gush out through dividends will likely be thoroughly disappointed. It's not as if he hasn't made that clear from the first day on the Harvard campus, so others' dreams have nothing to do with his. His behavior suggests he does not see huge profits as necessary to achieve what he wants: connectedness of the human graph and radical transparency. He is not stupid, he knows that he will need capital to buy things that Facebook needs, but the company is already large and profitable enough to do that.
So, that all said, Facebook is still large, profitable, and seems determined to remain relevant. IPO failings (not of Facebook's making) aside, there is nothing happening below the daily stock market froth to make one believe that Facebook will not remain the social media leader for years to come, especially given its increasingly close relationship to Apple.
As Facebook prompts us on our home pages: "What's on your mind?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)