Will social media eat itself?
19th February 10
Here at BBH Labs we’re big fans of all things social. We’ve spent time evangelising about the power of the social web and speculating about a future dominated by social businesses. We’re inspired and excited by a future where we can take our social graph with us anywhere we go on the web-a future beautifully articulated by Undercurrent’s Mike Arauz.
”There is no longer any interaction that an individual may have with a brand, company, product, or service that disconnected from all the people they know, and the people that share their interest in that experience.”
So we were more than a little taken aback by the findings of the latest Edelman Trust Barometer that shows we trust our friends and peers as a source of information considerably less than we did two years ago. The decline is particularly marked in the US where just 25% of respondents view friends and peers as very/extremely credible-a decline of 20 percentage points on 2008-but is also reflected in the global data.
It’s an extraordinary finding which calls many of our assumptions into question. The trust consumers place in peer to peer recommendations versus corporations has been one of the primary drivers of the social web, the excitement we feel about the potential for social business and the shift of marketing dollars from above the line to social media.
So has all our excitement been founded on a false set of assumptions? Is this simply an anomaly in the data? Or is social media sowing the seeds of its own demise?
It seems to me that there are a few different factors at play here:
In difficult times, we are drawn to authority: we want there to be expert opinions and definitive answers. There was a strange exhilaration around the collapse of corporate institutions 12 months ago which coupled with the explosion of the social web and the power of the Obama effect created a mood of revolutionary empowerment. Never mind social, people were talking outright socialism. But change has proved slower than expected and economic turmoil has led not to a new world order but to a tougher and leaner version of the old.
As the network expands, connections weaken: It is perhaps inevitable that the bigger our networks get, the less absolute trust we have in the individuals within them. There is, after all, a limit to the number of people we can possibly have meaningful relationships with. Leaving aside for a moment the challenges pay-per-tweet creates in itself, it’s interesting to note that it appears to perform better on smaller networks-to quote Jan Schulz-Hofen of Magpie:
”Smaller accounts tend to have a more hands-on approach with their followers and this results in a higher interest in advertised tweets. While the initial reach per post may be smaller, the response is overwhelming when compared to larger or celebrity Twitterers.” So can social media scale or do we need myriad small initiatives?
As social media adopts the behaviours of old media, it loses credibility: We’ve pay per tweet, but the influx of blunt commercial messages into Social Media does seem to be impacting trust. The very forces that drove the social web and the power of peer-to-peer networks- authenticity, independence, touched before on the potential problems of individuality-are challenged by the adoption of old world tactics in a space where there is so much opportunity to deliver genuine utility.
Genuinely useful and relevant uses of the social graph have been slow to emerge: Some of the developments we’ve collectively been most enthused by seem to have stalled in development. Adoption of Open ID or Facebook Connect by those services where it would be most useful is slow. The compelling vision of having our friends everywhere we want them on the web offering recommendations and advice still feels, for the most part, a long way away.
So if these are some of the challenges we face, what, as lovers of the social web and indeed as marketing professionals should we be doing? I certainly don’t have all the answers and I’d love to know what bigger and smarter brains think. Some starters for ten that occur though are:
Learn how to marry authority and inclusiveness: Too many brands in recent years have taken the undoubted truth that consumers no longer want to be dictated to and concluded that, therefore, consumers no longer want brands to have a point of view. “Marketing” has become a dirty word. But what the data tells us is that oftentimes, and particularly in uncertain times, certainty is compelling. Demonstrating expertise, confidence and authority is not a relic of a dictatorial past. It’s just that today we need to find new and engaging ways of demonstrating that authority, making consumers part of our experiments or our evidence.
Ask yourself if you’re offering anything useful: If you’re not offering something genuinely useful or entertaining in the social space, you’re simply polluting the stream. As tempting as it may be to simply get your brand’s name in there a lot, ultimately you’re damaging a medium that could do much more for you but may not be around forever if you don’t think carefully about how you use it. As Elin Sjursen of Made by Many points out, the current state of Facebook marketing may well be digging its own grave.
Find new ways to use the social graph:
As I’ve touched on, genuinely compelling uses of social data remain thin on the ground. So why aren’t we mashing up social data with purchase and location-specific data more? Why can’t I quickly and easily see what my friends are buying, rating and rejecting today? Innovations in social and real-time search are a major step forward but there is so much more we could do with e-commerce and beyond.
Consider the possibilities of smaller, tighter networks:
Smaller, more meaningful networks was one of David Armano’s key predictions for 2010. At the time, it seemed counter-intuitive as I considered the all-conquering power of Facebook and the wisdom of fishing where the fish are. But now, when I consider the potential of scale to dilute influence I begin to wonder if there is a role for smaller, specialist communities of interest or at least for a much more nuanced and selective approach to filtering. As my network expands, I may not want everyone with me everytime but I may want my movie-loving friends to come to Netflix with me, my geek friends to come phone shopping with me, my fashionista friends on Net a Porter with me encouraging me to buy more shoes…
But how else can we prevent social media from self-destructing? Thoughts, comments, inspiration welcome…
44 comments on “Will social media eat itself?”
or sign in using Facebook Connect
Enter your personal information to the left, or sign in with your Facebook account by clicking on the button below:
When discussing social media, it’s useful to step back to the earlier concept of communities of practice, were a small network of experts (thus authority) was able to create sustainable relationships and governance models.
From information filters we’ll advance to network filters, were our circles are created among common practices, and trust acquired within the networks. Whether it’s shoes or a mainframe server, it’s not so much about the platforms people are but more about the common practices and personal narratives relevant to the group.
Facebook, Myspace or Twitter have a role but as more people join the social web, the new communities of practice will be created around themes and not platforms. Ning excels at this, but it’s interesting to see business doing long term investments on brand communities.
“If you’re not offering something genuinely useful or entertaining in the social space, you’re simply polluting the stream.”
Thank you! I’ve tried to put that idea into words for so many people (mostly from small businesses and organizations) who want to make a Twitter or Facebook fan page for the sake of “keeping up with the times,” but I have failed miserably.
As ever, really enjoy your posts. Had a slightly different ‘take’ on the data and your interpretation i.e. “that 25% of respondents view friends and peers as very/extremely credible-a decline of 20 percentage points on 2008″
With the significant increase in people interacting via Social Media – perhaps (?) who is considered a friend or a Peer is undergoing a shift in definition. There once was a time when people considered themselves lucky if they had 5 real friends in their lives. The friend bar was set high…perhaps, with the advent of ‘social’ media interaction, our friendship bar has potentially altered, become more fleeting and bi-modal and if so, with that altering of friendship definition, our ‘trust’ of friends and the value they bring to us shifts with it…
Andrew
Excellent points all around. I particularly agree with the idea of creating smaller more focused networks rather than the bloated “friends” list that we currently carry around.
I wonder if that is one of the things that will eventually undermine Facebook. That one day people will look up and say “I don’t know half these people” and that smaller but more useful networks will emerge to pick up the slack. We see it happening in Twitter’s List option and with Google Buzz (though time will still tell how much that catches on.)
the gravity of advertising breaks down when it comes to quantum relationships
As Guy said, I think that “smaller more focused networks rather than the bloated ‘friends’ list” will create a stronger core community of people actively engaged in/passionate about that topic.
But as a user, when every imaginable activity has its own social network, you can’t possibly keep up–And in this age everyone expects you to. I literally groaned when I heard about Google Buzz and the thought of having to monitor and contribute to yet another social network. I groaned even louder when it automatically displayed updates from people I hadn’t talked to–or wanted to talk to–in years.
I’m probably slightly more involved than your average user, but, like most people, I have a variety of vastly different interests and sometimes I feel that if I have to register for, log into and keep up with one more network my brain is going to explode.
There’s a tipping point somewhere in all this, whether it’s the number of networks people are actively involved in, the rate at which they check in with those networks, the number of contacts they have on each network, or all of the above. I don’t see users completely disconnecting from facebook, though their use might become lighter–stalking friends from high school is too tempting. I do think people will become more selective about the networks they sign up for and stay active with. There are just aren’t enough hours in the day, especially for those of us that want to keep our 5 ‘real’ friends.
Thanks for the interesting article.
The problem isn’t the size of the networks, it’s the amount of advertising pollution on them. No one I know (unless they’re in a band) uses Myspace anymore because of this reason.
For too long, many brands have been using social media outlets without a strategy or concept. It’s as if, just because we’re in this special interface, good advertising isn’t necessary.
No matter what the media, there always needs to be a strategic, conceptual message, and it needs to be interesting. It needs to be truthful and smart. People don’t like advertising pollution anywhere. If all commercials were good, people wouldn’t want to skip them. If all direct mail was good, people would look forward to getting it. Same goes for social networks.
Great point. I think it may be a little of both but levels of “pollution” in the stream are definitely a factor. It’s a fascinating position to be in for marketeers. It’s tempting to simply pile in to the space to, as Clayton says, be seen to be “keeping up with the times” but the smartest thing to do, if you want the space to endure, is to hold back unless you have genuine value to add.
Great comments and builds here.
I think it’s absolutely right that the concept of friendship is changing and that we now use the term friend to cover a huge spectrum of relationships with very different degrees of intimacy. Perhaps that means, as Guy and Armando suggest, that smaller, more specialised networks will grow up alongside the mega-networks like Facebook.
Or perhaps we will find ways to create smaller network clusters within the mega networks. I love the idea of network filters and certainly things like Twitter lists are a step in this direction. I think smart filtering and clustering tools will be key here as, to Laureen’s point, the idea of creating and managing many more network presences feels unworkable.
Hey Pats! First, Congratulations on the new job, looking forward to seeing some new and exciting work.
Personally, I think some social network backlash is already beginning due to a general information overload. My overall take is that if Web 1.0 was built around “stickiness” and “walled gardens” and 2.0 around “networks” and “community.” with the quickly growing amount of low quality information, Web 3.0 networks will somehow be built around terms like “filtered” and “targeted.”
Seems like you hit on that point already.
The only thing to add is maybe consider what the role of ‘editors’ or ‘curators’ (for lack of a better term) might play in some networks by helping to better direct flows of information?
In experimenting with solutions to some of the problems you discuss, this is an approach I’ve been trying.
Still early days but I think more highly curated/filtered networks might be something well see more of moving forward.
Am with Adam’s last point entirely — we will likely see much more highly curated / filtered (also still not sure what the correct term will be) networks. However, am also convinced that in areas where curating, if you will, already part of the process in many spaces in relative isolation (literary & visual arts, etc.), we will see a great deal of collaboration / merging begin to occur as well.
Hey Adam, thank you my friend- exciting times! I really like the evolutionary point you make here about the move from a relatively closed to an open web to an open-filtered web if that makes sense. The point both you and Michelle make about the role of editors and curators is a great one and taking that a step further the idea of collaborative curation within the network.
Interesting findings and a thoughtful response. Thanks.
I can’t help but think the research questionnaire could’ve been better worded. According to the slide in the clip (“Trust in all sources of information declines”), people were asked about the credibility of “friends/peers”.
To build on Andrew’s point, surely there’s huge difference between our close friends and our extended network of contacts – peers – many of whom we’ve never met? I seek out and trust the views of the former group, whereas the latter’s opinions I treat with more caution.
One might even suggest that this conflation of “friends/peers” shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the social web.
But perhaps I’m being a bit harsh. Would be good to find out if the two were asked separately before being aggregated.
Patricia:
Provocative stuff. I am a bit suspect of the Edelman report as it doesn’t seem that suddenly word of mouth reco from a trusted friends could drop that much. And in the same report they talk about CEOs being the most trusted sources of business information. I think Andrew is on to something suggesting that the definition of “friend” needs a bit more scrutiny. We still believe information from real friends whose judgment we can attest to but we use the term too loosely. As for the power of smaller networks, nothing new here. Clay Shirky was writing about that three or four years ago and talking about how once you reached a certain size “network” it no longer had any real one to one connectivity but rather turned into a broadcast medium for the “celebrity” with all the followers. Yet, your post neglects many things that we know do work. Zappos customer service and interaction. Jet Blue’s support of travelers. The passion sourcing that enables something like Lemonad the Movie to get made. The ability for people to find their tribe (i.e. thenextgreatgeneration.com, which admittedly I created but has taken on a life of its own.) Yes, the latter are all about smaller networks rather than larger, but could never be achieved without the social web. Also, look at new models such as Hubspot, which is beginning to define entirely new ways for smaller companies to be found, to use social, to earn trust and to mobilize social networks. It strikes me that social media doesn’t belong to social media or to Facebook or to a platform. It belongs to those who use it and figure out how to turn it to their advantage, whether it’s to listen, learn, engage, discover, or even sell. It’s in its infancy for goodness sake. What, it’s five years old? Maybe? I doubt it will eat itself. I’m more confident that it will devour what appear to be more and more the dinosaur media. Finally, I agree that too many people bring old school thinking (broadcasting, paid tweets, traditional story telling) and techniques to the new space. But that will change, too. Remember the first TV shows? They were radio shows done with pictures. Just like the early web was brochures. Social media will continue to develop and emerge and there will be room for both peer to peer and authority driven content, engagement and interaction. In ways we’ve yet to conceive. Thanks for a stimulating post.
I get the sense from using the rather unfriendly Facebook and Twitter list functions that the networks don’t really want users to limit data. Perhaps when they see a drop in use, they’ll reconsider.
The credibility of “a person like me” in regards to “info about a company” only changed 3%, from 47% to 44% (page 5 of the exec summary). So the drop in peer trust wasn’t that precipitous.
We know a network can only contain just over 100 meaningful connections – we just didn’t realize that meant the fun would dissipate above that number.
Very important discussion that you’re bringing up here. I’d agree that we now find ourselves in a situation where the management, navigation, and filtering capabilities we need haven’t kept up with our exploding networks. We have so many connections and sources of information pouring in, and only rudimentary abilities to find meaning in it all. The greatest challenge that the social web faces in the next few years is to find signal in the noise.
Most brands have soiled the opportunity presented by the social web by being attention hogs. They came into the social web with a traditional marketing mindset: more attention = better. So they exploit every interaction they earn to get more attention. Nowhere is this as bad or as evident as it is in Facebook. Brands do whatever they can think of on their Fan Pages to create little attention-grenades that get thrown into other users news feeds, regardless of whether that other user has any interest in the brand or the message.
If brands want the social web to thrive, and want it to work for the brand, then they need to focus on quality and utility.
While I don’t feel that it’s the brand’s place necessarily to develop the next generation tools for filtering and organizing, I do think that there are healthier ways for them to participate in the social web. And you’re spot on with two of the most important things: 1) Have a strong point of view and 2) Make yourself useful.
Do this, and brands will organically create stronger (though perhaps smaller) networks of like-minded people. People who come together because they’re invested in something bigger than themselves, instead of just because it caught their attention.
Edward, thanks for such a thoughtful response (as ever) and for pointing me towards the survey in the first place. You’re absolutely right of course that the extraordinary potential of the social web is something much bigger than any one platform or current way of working. The initiatives you mention I think have used this new dynamic in exactly the right way, to do something new and exciting that we could never have imagined 5 years ago. The frustrating thing as you point out, is when brands apply the rules of the “dinosaur” media to this space and risk, I think, damaging it. But everyone is still learning and the speed we’re learning at is exciting.
Mike’s point about brand’s hunger to build awareness in the social media space epitomises the mis-application of old media values. There’s no question that awareness is a critical metric for some activities in some channels, but I’m just not sure that social media except in rare cases (e.g. Whopper Sacrifice) is primarily an awareness medium-or at least not a broadcast medium. So simply have a brand name re-surface a lot accomplishes very little versus genuine utility or genuine quality of engagement.
There’s a very interesting strand of thought emerging about the difference between peers and friends, different types or relationship and the number of meaningful connections we can have-Patrick and Erica both make great points here. Somehow perhaps this thinking will merge with the desire for smaller, stronger networks and we will have multiple smaller, more meaningful networks…assuming we can find the tools both to manage them and to make them permeable, dynamic and collaborative rather than closed.
[...] en estos medios, no hay por qué extrañarse, pero me ha parecido interesante el análisis que hace BBH labs y que me ha recomendado el gran @daniseuba, y lo que más me ha hecho pensar es la primera [...]
Back in 2008 I wrote a piece called Social Networks + Advertising = Amway (http://tinyurl.com/yd94jx7), where I talked about how advertising had the potential to hurt SM through the relentless need to use these new tools to sell. And we’re starting to see that now.
Think about it, would you like to be hanging with your friends and constantly have your conversations interrupted by someone saying “Hey, look at me. Buy me.” We use SM to connect with the friends in our lives, not companies. Yea, we’ll be fans and stuff, but generally only if there’s something in it for us.
In terms of trusting friends, as many people have already commented, our definition of friend is changing. We’re not really friends with everyone on FB or Twitter. So it’s not surprising that given the expanded definition of friends, our level of trust just might be changing.
Lastly, there’s a danger in how far brands are willing to “fake” friendships in order to abuse SM. There’s a character in the book “Pattern Recognition” who makes a living pretending to friend people in places like bars in order to sell a product. Chat up a cute guy and tell him he’d look good in a shirt from so and so. It creates a future of no trust, where we can’t tell who’s a paid shill and who’s not. In a world like that, we can expect our circle of trust to be pretty small.
All of these points ring true and a couple especially so:
- smaller networks: I’ve seen this personally myself and also working with on campaigns. Things can get as global as you like, but what’s the relevance to *me*? What do my friends, followers, networks think of things? There’s so much information out there, how can I curate it in a way that it becomes easily disgestible? That’s where things like twitter lists come in, local trending topics, google buzz (maybe!)
- usefulness – what’s the point in a downloadable widget/app/screensaver (delete as appropriate) that does nothing and entertains me for less that 2 secs? I’m not going to waste my time looking and these, or producing these things. A question at every stage of a campaign, should be, “what’s the usefulness of this?” and “will it still be usefull in a weeks time”. if not, then why are you bothering?
“Ask yourself if you’re offering anything useful: If you’re not offering something genuinely useful or entertaining in the social space, you’re simply polluting the stream”
I’ve been saying this for YEARS:
http://mrsbelmot.blogspot.com/2007/02/keep-internet-tidy.html
“So how do we prevent social media from self destructing?” – Personally I don’t feel that social media is anywhere near self destruction, it is just continuing to evolve and change. We have all gone through the period of trying to accrue as many “friends” or “followers” as possible and are now more focused on quality as opposed to quantity. The explosion of the size of peoples digital networks will obviously influence our trust in those networks, as mentioned above we need to define the term “friend” in the Edelman survey.
As social media continues to evolve the way its users filter “friends” and information will also continue to evolve with it.
Well those are my thoughts, thank you to all above for a lively and interesting debate.
When considering this issue it reminds me a bit of the situation in music industry. A new sound (or in this case, Social Media) is initially adopted by consumers. Then the big labels and corporations catch on and the movement gets diluted.
But the positive aspect of this is that those on the leading edge move on to something new that is still pure. It was inevitable that brands would jump in the Social Media pool – and just as inevitable that they would treat it like the caddies treated the pool at Bushwood. But in some sense we need that. We need corporate America to push the creatives to new spaces otherwise things stagnate.
So rather than bemoan the corporatization of Grunge or Hip Hop or Facebook, I see it as a driver of continued innovation.
This is an amazing discussion but…
It seemed to me, after reading through the executive summary a number of times, that the whole Edelman Trust Barometer dealt more with the issue of a brand/companies financial and operational health and reputation than it dealt with what we usually mean with brand/product reputation. Otherwise, why so much focus on financial experts as a trusted source of information?
I’ve run into few consumers who’s buying behavior was more influenced by someone on CNBC than by their neighbor’s experience with the product itself. It seems to me that the Trust Barometer is a little skewed in this direction.
And as my old history advisor used to say “What you see depends on where you’re standing.”
Good stuff, Pats. Just think – as Rich points out – it’s worth examining the survey methodology a bit closer. Not that Edelman do anything but a great job but it’s worth considering a. the sample (not entirely representative of the population at large) b. the fact that this is claimed behaviour (I’ve long argued that this is a pretty poor guide to what folk actually do – particularly the case with spotting and articulating how they decide – the “unreliable witness” phenomenon).
Bearing this in mind, I’m not sure that we could be confident of any significant change in the outside world. Or am I being too strict?
Hey Mark, thanks for your comment. You’re absolutely right about the sample construction and the fact that this is claimed behaviour versus what we seem to see happening which is the rise and rise of social media -in terms of numbers of users, types of usage and time spent with the medium. (Although none of that necessarily equates to trust versus likeability/enjoyment). I guess for me it’s a surprising and counter-intuitive piece of data which made me think (never a bad thing!) about if this is in fact the case, why it might be happening. Of course one could argue that actually we don’t do the same things as our friends or like to be part of a community because of conscious or cognitive levels of trust as captured by a piece of research but because of more Herd-like instincts-what do you think?
This discussion reminds of an interview with Brad Bird, Director of The Incredibles, Ratatouille, The Iron Giant, regarding animation where he stated, “….People think of animation only doing things where people are dancing around and doing a lot of histrionics, but animation is not a genre. And people keep saying, “The animation genre.” It’s not a genre! A Western is a genre! Animation is an art form, and it can do any genre. You know, it can do a detective film, a cowboy film, a horror film, an R-rated film or a kids’ fairy tale. But it doesn’t do one thing. And, next time I hear, “What’s it like working in the animation genre? I’m going to punch that person!”
Well..I’m not going to punch anyone but social media is not a genre….social media is not the goal…social media is not the end all strategy.
Social media is a tool that enables our marketing strategy.
And there are many tools for us to use. Sometimes, we’ll want to use engagement along the social graph and other times we may want to use other items in our marketing toolbox.
“Social media is a tool that enables our marketing strategy. ”
Ding, ding, ding…I agree with you 100%. I think people will realize your point over the next couple of years as they start spending more time/money on it and looking at their ROI.
Really interesting thoughts here. I tend to agree that overall social media is going through an evolution. After a period of genuinely explosive growth it is now entering a phase where we will start to sort quality from quantity as Tom says. And as Rick points out, without growth, followed by consolidation, there is no evolution.
From the current state of the market where everyone wants “a bit of social” we will start to use social media in a more considered and strategic way, thinking, to Dave’s point, of it as one more tool in our armoury rather than the answer to every problem, every time. (Remember when that was TV?!) As Katy points out, utility will become more and more important and this may in itself drive to smaller, localised networks although I do believe genuine utility is scaleable-Nike Plus is an incredibly over-familiar example but no less valid for that!
[...] friends and peers as very/extremely credible – that’s 20 points less than 2008. Go here for the full post – it’s a great [...]
[...] this another indication that the Summer of Social Media Love is a fading memory? See also Will Social Media Eat Itself? Some support for keeping Library 2.0, so maybe it’s just a rather robust way of engaging [...]
[...] Will social media eat itself? Will social media eat itself? « BBH Labs. [...]
nice post. i, like others, question the notion/rule – “ask yourself if you’re offering anything useful…if you’re not…you’re just polluting the stream”. One of the most appealing draws of brands using the social space, is that it’s risk-free (more or less). If what you offer isn’t useful, it’s as good as invisible. Brands should see the space as room for (low-cost) experiments without the need for damage control. Try out a few things, and see what sticks. I’m sure there are exceptions to the rule in the shape of some high profile online fuck ups. But i’d argue that not trying in the first place is a bigger crime. And… one mans pollution is anothers bookmark.
Hi Ilsa-totally hear what you’re saying about social media as an opportunity to experiment. I’m not sure it’s totally risk free-the Skittles and Habitat examples spring to mind as pretty high risk but I agree wholeheartedly with the need to experiment, to try things out and see what works. That’s one of the huge advantages of digital, no question, but I think we should be experimenting with things we believe can add real value rather than initiatives that are just about-as Mike puts it-awareness hogging.
[...] friends and peers as very/extremely credible – that’s 20 points less than 2008. Go here for the full post – it’s a great [...]
[...] good piece, from BBH Labs, Will Social Media Eat Itself, explores factors at play in recent research that suggests peoples’ trust in their [...]
[...] La cita la he extraido de este comprensivo, ilustrativo y tremendamente coherente post de Patricia en el blog del equipo más geek dentro de mis admirados BBH, el BBH Labs: “Will Social Media eat itself?“. [...]
Social Media is rather about relation but marketing. And, on Facebook you may filter your friends in that many interest specified peer-groups it ain’t necessary to move on to different platforms.
[...] Will Social Media Eat Itself? by Patricia McDonald, for BBH Labs [...]
Great article and thoughtful quotes.
It’s funny to see how most of the talk about social media is actually about the social mediators and not about the media themselves.
These media seem to offer a stage upon which mediators (people) communicate/act in a certain way which happens to intrigue us. Why is that so intriguing, I wonder?
If you believe social media is a metaphor for a differentiating instrument to look at human behaviour, what do we see then? What do we discover as ‘regular’, as ‘patterns’ or as ‘new’?
These are totally different questions than the ones most brands are asking us, namely, how can we use social media to get to the people we want to reach and make them aware of the existence of our products/services (etc).
Going back to the issue of smaller networks and more qualitative interactions, I’m curious how you can still genuinly listen in a large network. And whether genuinly listening is something you need to create a large viable network whether it is as a brand or as an individual.
You left me puzzled and curious for what the future will bring. Thank you for that
.
[...] to come By bitchwithcats I’m not a guru or a visionary. But after reading a few analyses upon social networking and a few talks with friends, I can safely predict some [...]
[...] The best way to look like a superfuturist guru is to predict the demise of the current big thing. Social overload is leading some to wonder if, rather than being the year of ubiquitous social web, 2010 might just be the year social eats itself. [...]
You had a number of good points. The one that stuck with me and got me thinking was “As the network expands, connections weaken”. This is very true, I relate this to “strong ties” and “weak ties”. Someone may have thousands of followers or friends, but maybe only two that could be called “strong ties” and this is where the trust comes from, not the greater number, “weak ties”
[...] These findings do not surprise me at all. The reality is that social media provides a platform for self-appointed experts who propogate their opinion across the social media sphere. The more opinions there are, the more social media platforms there are, the more chance that conflicting opinions get juxtaposed, creating uncertainty, therefore bringing into question “expert opinion”. Clipped from bbh-labs.com [...]