blogstring.com

Last week I went to the Social Media Club Boston’s event and have been thinking about the debate questions ever since. The format of the conversation was this: Claims about social media were read, and participants were asked to vote whether they agreed or disagreed. We were then given 10 minutes to debate, and at the end, we were asked whether we’ve changed our minds.

With that said, here are some of the topics, my thoughts, and tangents.

1. “The focus on personal branding has resulted in the cult of personality and egomaniacal tendencies - me too, me first, just plain ME.”

This is the one topic that has stuck with me all week. Are we, the users of facebook, linkedIn, blogging, twitter, etc., simply shameless self-promoters? Are we trying to build a “personal brand” at the expense of adding actual marketable value?

When you google your own name
When you base your self-worth on the number of twitter followers
When your mood changes based on whether or not people commented on your posts

What does that say?

My first reaction to the question was: I don’t think social media is the cause of a cult of personality and egomaniacal tendencies. I don’t think that egomania is necessarily a result of using these ego-broadcast platforms. Egomaniacs have existed for the span of human existence, with or without digital communications. The social web has simply made it easier for self-promotion on a worldwide level in a fast, nearly effortless, free way.

Another thought was this: When everyone is using social media for promotion, people need to build a “personal brand” out of necessity just to stay competitive.

So my opinion: Though social media allows the egomaniac to relentlessly self-promote, it is not the social media tools that cause a regular Joe to become a narcissist.

2. “Social media leads to ADD/ADHD and poor work performance.”

Yet another topic that asks whether the existence of the tools is responsible for the associated behavior. I thought this was a very good question. It’s the new media/web 2.0 version of:

Video games cause violence
Harry Potter books make children shun religion
McDonalds causes obesity

All claims that start with a behavior and back in to a relationship.

I think that the point of the claim is that constant multitasking can be detrimental to work quality. I can agree with that point. It is difficult to keep focused on one project when you’re answering IMs, posting messages in twitter, and writing on walls. But like the first point, I don’t feel that it’s the tools that are to blame. Again, it is a question of behavior and choice.

So my opinion: Social Media can only lead to poor work performance when you let it. Like online shopping, playing videogames, there are some things that are constantly available distractions. You can choose to spend some time using these, or you can go overboard and allow distractions to drag down the quality of your work.

3. “Social media is all about promotion (not relationships or content).”

I am about to split hairs here. Since the statement says “all about”, I’m going to take the easy way out.

Social media isn’t all about promotion.

If I’m on facebook and want to reconnect with some old friends, I’m doing so for that reason alone: I want to find old friends. I’m not trying to promote my blog, get them to do something for me, pay me for something, etc.

So my opinion: based on that, social media is about connections. Whether those connections are used to meet up with friends or build a personal/professional network, the common theme here is connecting. The purpose of connecting is another point entirely.

4. “Social media (as a term) is dead.”

This came up at a meeting of the Social Media Club.

So my opinion: um…….huh?

5. “Link lists and Twitter posts are appropriate for reposting in blogs and feeds are good.”

This produced a fairly heated argument with audience members saying that they are angry when a blog post is nothing but a link list. They were actually upset by it.

I was really intrigued here. To me, if I went to a blog and saw just a bunch of links rather than a full blog post, I’d have the following decision tree:

Situation A. The link list brings me to relevant blogs
Result: I’m happy, as the blogger has shown me other sources of information. I smile.

Situation B: The link list brings me to useless information
Result B1: I remind myself that, though the blogger’s lengthy content is useful to me, I should steer clear of his/her link list posts. They’re just not for me.
Result B2: I no longer visit the blog.

6. “SEO is unethical because it games the system.”

This was my favorite topic, because it really addresses a larger issue. Sure, spamming a la Ron Paul supporters on Digg and Reddit is annoying. Creating multiple splogs, bombing blogs with comment spam, and creating link farms are simply evil. But I don’t want to confuse the issue here, as SEO is not the same thing as spam.

I don’t see a problem with optimizing your site so people will find it. In fact, I can’t see a reason you wouldn’t do that. The best search engine optimization is simply creating relevant, compelling content, and promoting that content to communities of interest. If a site scams the system and gets a top search result, it won’t stay there for long. Search engines have subsisted mainly because they have effective systems in place to punish the cheaters. Otherwise, the sheer force of the spammers would make search engine results pages largely irrelevant, and mostly filled with pages containing viagra ads.

To me, this debate really illustrates the fact that search is broken.

Maybe the idea of direct democracy on the web just doesn’t work.

With search engines operating on a system of popular vote, the motivation for stuffing the ballot boxes are high. Maybe we need a technical equivalent of the electoral college to ensure that the scammers are kept at bay.

Easy, easy……I said maybe. And I also said “technical.” I’m not talking about people here.

7. “Social media evangelists don’t pay enough attention to traditional media.”

I think this was more a claim that “The people that are pressing for their companies and clients to spend ad/promo money on social media are doing so at the expense of pushing traditional media spends.”

Um, could be.

But if it means social media evangelists spend too much time online and don’t pay attention to mainstream media, well….

I just got cable on Friday
I’m listening to the radio right now while posting
I see billboards every day on the way to work
I’m about to bring Superbad back to blockbuster (2 days late….ugh)

But first I’m finishing my blog post.

I guess they’re right.

Technorati Tags: SMCBoston

Filed under: social media