fbpx

Can someone explain conversation?


The other night while interacting with folks in the #Blogchat community, one person asked: “Can someone explain conversation?” As I was watching this Twitter dialogue fly by…this update caught my attention. The context to this question, how to build a community of conversations on your blog.

Let’s define a conversation: “Informal interchange of thoughts, information, etc., by spoken words; oral communication between persons; talk; colloquy.” Thanks Dictionary.com.

So how can you have conversations on a blog, you might ask. Well, to have a conversation…there has to be an exchange, a dialogue, two or more people have to engage in social discourse. People have to engage in conversation.

Before there is exchange of dialogue, there has to be the introduction of a thought. Someone must take the time to write something that invokes a conversation. So how do we write to engage in a conversation on a place like a blog? Well, we must write passionately. Some of the most successful blogs that I read are ones that write straight from the heart. They write about topics they are passionate about. These blogs are the written form of their advocacy. They have a reason to write, they have a strong sense of ethics.

These blogs have a system of measurement. When I mean measurement, they do not necessarily mean that they measure the number of clicks or actions. They measure something that quantifies what they write touches another person in a way that engages  a response. Whether it is clicking, referring, sharing, commenting, etc…they have some sense of measurement.

These bloggers/writers know who they are “writing for” or “writing with.” Hmm…what does that mean (writing with)? Well, they have determined in their mind who they are talking “to” or “with.” And as the conversation around this topic increases, the writing moves from a one-way monologue to a dialogue of conversation allowing a community to write with each other.

This blog has focus, a passionate focus. Each blog post has a passionate focus. With this focus to the overall message with each and every post, consistent writing follows. Consistent writing establishes and reinforces the credibility in this ever growing space, allow the search engines to index more words spreading the reach. This focus allows audiences to connect with content, and a relationship begins and grows. This blog is the type of community that mirrors a tight community like Facebook, but has the mass appeal of Twitter.

People engage with the passionate content and respond by returning to read more. Then…maybe they take the time to nudge over the hump and comment. They might even sign-up to subscribe to the blog, then reply via email. People read, react, and engage with the content of a blog. Passionate writing invokes a change, the change to see a point-of-view differently thus wanting to further the conversation. They reach out.

Conversations build and multiply. As more and more people respond and comment to passionate writing, community of conversations build in the comment section. People not only comment about the passionate writing of the author, but also respond to others’ comments below the post. Those who came to connect with the author of the post connect with other commentors…a community is building.

It all started with passionate writing. Someone writing from the heart, consistently. Conversations.

Crossroads: Building a Community or Distribution Mechanism – A Self Examination


It is my humble opinion that there are two types of use of Social Media outlets, those who use it to connect with a community and those who use it as a distribution mechanism.

Building a Community
Wiki defines: “The word “community” is derived from the Old French communité which is derived from the Latin communitas (cum, “with/together” + munus, “gift”), a broad term for fellowship or organized society.” We are human creatures and we feel the need to connect with other like minded individuals. We use technology as a means to connect with this community. This technology to socialize with a community is what I define as Social Media. They use these technologies as facilitators to exchange language, common discourse.

Distribution Mechanism
Using “Social” Media outlets to only push information as mass communication. No interactivity, just one direction flow of information. Open an account, and broadcast…no reciprocation. This can be on a global basis where a account is used specifically to broadcast information, or even on a very local situation where a campaign only delivers information over Social Media accounts, information one way for a finite period of time.

Can you do both and still be social…and it still be considered Social Media. Why should we define this? Well, because  we are users of this media…we should think about how we use it when interacting with a community. Think about it, do you get annoyed when someone continually updates their “Status” yet when you try to communicate…there is no response? Some even consider that Spam?

Wiki defines: “Spam is the use of electronic messaging systems (including most broadcast media, digital delivery systems) to send unsolicited bulk messages indiscriminately.” Do we spam the community each time we send out links, content, etc. without engaging in conversation within the community. Or is it when we broadcast over and over again, in bulk?

Marketers each day are beginning to include “Social Media(s)” as a distribution mechanism, another place to increase the SEO for their sites…is it all about SEO? Is it all about the massive homogenous linkage system we call the web to make Google happy on our behalf. Noise?

Now, I realize (that if anything) this is a self reflection to better understand an rationalize this medium. To better understand how we can use it more for the community engagement and less for the marketing, one-way pushing of information.

Social Networking Spam
Wiki also defines: “Social Networking Spam is spam directed at users of internet social networking services such as MySpace, FaceBook or LinkedIn. Users of social networking services can send notes, that may include embedded links to other social network locations or even outside sites, to one another. This is where the social network spammer comes in. Utilizing the social network’s search tools, he/she can target a certain demographic segment of the users, or use common fan pages or groups to send notes to them from an account disguised as that of a real person. Such notes may include embedded links to pornographic or other product sites designed to sell something.”

Do we Spam our friends everyday with our latest blog posts, our marketing links, our causes, our clients messages? It really does not feel like a conversation. I do it…write a blog post like this, and update my status so that I can share it with the world. I do it in bulk…because I update my status(s) multiple times in a week with a link. Do I create the noise that I am trying to resist?

Do we encourage our clients to use it as a distribution mechanism? Or do we eloquently phrase it so they feel like it is another touch point. Is this community really opting in to conversations when they freely click “Follow” or “Like”?

Sometimes I think we have to define and self examine our practices so that we better serve our clients and our community we so generously cherish. We are humans you know.

Say NO TO FOLLOW! A little self-reflecting rant.

Enough of this Follow Me stuff! Seriously, I follow enough stuff already. Follow me tells me you are going to push your brand, your thoughts, your ideology on me…one tweet, one post, one update at a time. Really, are we so self-indulged to think that everyone has something so important to say that we must follow everything. That is not social…it is a dictatorship of push notifications.

Say yes to join! Join the conversation, join the community, join the fun…join not follow.

Think about it the next time you set-up a campaign. But who really wants to create a campaign, everyone creates campaigns. Why not create communities. Communities do not follow everyone in the group, they join a conversation. They area community of people with common conversation.

How about just share! Share the conversation.

We are so excited that we have created a social media account, we want to stamp it on every freaking media outlet from television, print, websites, post card, etc. We place icons on these pieces with something that says “Follow Us.” But how do we follow you when you do not even put the URL for us to click and type. I guess “you” spent so much money on these campaigns, you feel like you have to tell everyone and include the social networks to make sure the “target audience” follows the message. But what happens after you follow? Seriously, what do I do after I follow. Should I sit back and feel excited that you are now going to overwhelm me with updates and not even let me join the conversation. Because when I follow you, you do not even have the common courtesy to respond with a conversation after all of your push notifications.

We are so excited that we created these campaigns, we do not even think of the un-sustainable effect they will have with a “Follow” mentality. Why…because what is going to happen when the person who is pushing the information leaves, changes, looses interest in the campaign. If it is all push, then the community is not leading the charge…the community is the sustainable part of the message.

Say no to Follow and yes to Share! Go find the community and build the technology around the community to facilitate engagement.

“Follow Me” just does not work?

There is this big trend that has been going on for a while, especially when promoting our Twitter accounts, asking people to follow you. You see it on CNN, on blogs, in marketing collateral…it is the common jargon when asking individuals to join the community.

I guess it all started with the fundamentals of Twitter with “Following” and “Followers.” But are we a community of leaders. Following suggests we are leading the pack, heading in a direction and the people in our community are right behind us as we dive through our social conversations.

Are we really followers or we just a part of a community of social exchange. When you are interacting in your social communities, do you choose to follow someone. Think about it for a second. Let’s say you go to the grocery store and meet your next door neighbor for the first time. You have a conversation and realize you have something in common. Maybe it is a football team or your kids are in the same algebra class. You choose to continue the relationship, choose to get to know the person. Are you clicking the follow button? Or are you joining a community of conversation that is ultimately building a relationship wrapped around trust.

Twitter has created a discourse wrapped around “Following.” It is a community of fun conversations, interactions, and relationships. But there are many who have chosen to take on the “Follower” discourse as literally as many interpret the Bible. It is the golden truth. We as marketers even leverage the discourse as we build campaigns for our clients. The goal of this literal discourse, create a “Thought Leader.” We build these accounts, set-up blogs, create fan-pages, develop YouTube channels to become “Thought Leaders.” But who are we leading?

Are we really thought leaders in this wide approach to social media communities. Do we really have followers? Is it necessary to tout that we have so many followers? Is it really ego driven and not about community? Do we let it get to our head so much that it has become a pecking order, like the high-school popular crowd. It almost builds a dichotomy, a distinction between the haves and the have nots as we watch individuals/organizations rack up big “Followers” numbers. Or is it really about sphere of influence. We want to increase our followers so we can influence more and more people with our message.

It can be addicting, where everyday we click to see if our numbers have changed. Is it mass media or is it a definitive way to measure success. We use the numbers as a ROI metric which helps marketers calculate value for the dollar. Followers…and interesting choice of words.

Have you sat back and really thought what it means to have “X” number of followers on Twitter. I kind of like Facebook’s approach to the whole thing…”Friends.” We have connected with our “Friends” and we have an exchange of conversation. We get to sit back and watch our friends enjoy their day, and we just say hello or even “Like” something when it strikes our fancy.

Building a community of conversation is not about followers, it is about like minded individuals that chose to engage with one another. The discourse of “Followers” will always be there but we should interpret the language in a different way. We should “Engage.” We should rethink how we interpret the number of “Followers” and “Friends” in our social networks, remember it is a community of people and they are humans.

If these social networks are supposed to be the digital metaphor of our human, social interactions…would you walk up to someone, shake their hand, share a story, then ask them to follow you? Maybe if you are politically minded. Instead you would listen and try to find another time to meet and chat again. To bad we have to chose online to “Follow.” I still like the idea of clicking to find a “Friend.” It makes more literal sense.

Why not take the Dalai Lama approach to our constituency bases and and let them lead the pack?