What We Have Here Is a Failure to Converse

February 24, 2010

Perhaps I was wrong. In this new 2.0 era, I thought communications was all about having conversations.

Conversations require interaction where people talk and listen. Maybe I’m missing something, but I observe a lot more talking than listening. It seems everyone has something to say and everyone is clamoring to be heard. To me, it looks like the talkers far outnumber the listeners.

Was I mistaken to assume that things would be different with the arrival of the social media revolution? Am I naive in thinking that people would connect with each other because 1) they were genuinely interested in what others had to say and 2) they actually had something of value to share?

As we interact, as we share information, we connect with each other. Social media give us the tools to connect and converse. Sometimes during our conversations we’ll encounter negative or inaccurate information. Does that mean we should immediately end the conversation? Should we refuse to talk because the conversation may be a little awkward or uncomfortable? Absolutely not! Read the rest of this entry »


What Is 2.0? A New Era Defined

February 17, 2010

We hear a lot of people talking about the 2.0 world we live in. Marketers refer to social media tools as Web 2.0. The titles of business books increasingly contain that magical number—2.0.

But what does “2.0” mean? How are things different now than they were before? What has changed?

For starters, let’s agree that the social media revolution has created an entirely new landscape—a 2.0 world. The changes are so profound that those who do not understand it will soon find themselves on the sidelines, confused and perhaps even angry that the world has passed them by.

The social media revolution is really not that confusing. The more we understand and embrace the changes, the more powerful social media will become. Here is my brief comparison of the differences I see between a 1.0 and a 2.0 world:

Let’s look at the nuances between the two. Read the rest of this entry »


How to Think Strategically in a 2.0 World

February 10, 2010

I believe the social media revolution may be the greatest advance in communications since Gutenberg invented movable type.

A critical mass of people has joined the revolution. Their enthusiasm has prompted them to talk about their “social media strategy.”

There is nothing strategic, though, about either movable type or social media. Both are tools—means to an end. They are inventions that help people communicate quicker and better.

At first, I loved the phrase “social media strategy” because my mantra has always been strategy before tactics.

I’ve often criticized people who act before they think. I have little patience for people who try to communicate without first asking themselves some very basic questions.

Non-strategic communicators don’t really communicate. They just make noise. They write news releases without knowing why. They produce brochures without having a target audience in mind. They bore us with PowerPoint presentations because they have not given thought to what they want us to do with the heap of meaningless, irrelevant information they’ve just dumped on us.

Just because we’ve moved into a 2.0 world doesn’t mean things have changed much. The proliferation of noise continues. People tweet without having a clue who they’re talking to. Too many bloggers ramble on without thinking things through.  Nonprofits create Facebook fan pages with no real understanding of why. We live in a world where too many tactics are not tied to a strategy, so the clutter and confusion accumulates. Read the rest of this entry »


What Do You Do (In Seven Words)?

February 3, 2010

A friend of mine, Mark Whitaker, is an experienced market research professional. His official title is Strategic Research Consultant at The Kansas City Star.

That’s an impressive title, but what does it mean? What does he really do? What impact does he actually make?

In seven words on LinkedIn, Mark summarizes his job as “helping you find the information you need.”

I really like that “job description” for three reasons:

  1. It’s simple. I can understand it without having to translate industry jargon.
  2. It’s differentiating. It really describes what he does, not what his company or co-workers do.
  3. It’s outwardly focused. He describes what he does for others. He focuses on the benefits he provides, not the process involved. Read the rest of this entry »