For a couple of weeks, I was in a rush and only updated my status in Webjam, continue with some conversations here and in LinkedIn, invite people in Facebook to read/re-post old things that I revisited and thought they are still relevant (at least for me)… So, I’m back!
During this period of time I was also thinking (at least for a couple of hours a day) and paying attention to social networks, communities… and specifically, I was looking at our interaction…
To give a framework to my thoughts let me present some figures:
- Brand 3.0 members @Webjam: 500
- Brand 3.0 newsletter subscriptors @Webjam: 200
- Brand 3.0 members @LinkedIn: 4,200
- Brand 3.0 fans @Facebook: 160
- Allegro 234 members @Allegro234: 200
- Allegro 234 fans @Facebook: 160
- Allegro 234 followers @Twitter: 500
- Cristián network @LinkedIn: 1,500
- … Xing, Inusual, Marketing LATAM, Digerati, Libellus,…
So, I’ll talk about interactions between a good number of people (it’s not a direct sum…. some people belong to several networks at the same time)… Let say 4,500 approx. Fair?
We use to talk, and this began with Adam and Eve
It’s interesting to see two issues:
- The quantity of people in Facebook and Twitter talking about Facebook and Twitter
- The recognition as a new paradigm that we are talking
Adam and Eve talked… Actually they also mantained several dialogues with God, situation that could be considered as the first online virtual dialogue… They also talked with a snake…
The points are that neither them, nor us (in our offline life) use to talk about the tools that we use to be connected… At least in my case, when I use the phone I don’t establish dialogues about the terminal that we are using, or when we are drinking a beer with friends we don’t talk about our vocal cords… The other point is more complex and perhaps a psychiatrist and/or psycologist is able to explain it better… We were, are and probably will be gregarious; so, by default we are rational dialogical animals (we also smile… which is an unique characteristic of human beings).
Activity generates dialogue, sometimes deaf
As Alberto mentioned in WOW 2.0 and yesterday in the iBGC ’09 (Bilbao, Spain), activity is essencial in social networks to produce dialogues. I agree with this, however, in some cases (more than you can imagine) activity generates activity. Period.
- LinkedIn group: Somebody begins a discussion. After few days you can see 10 comments, but most of them are not considering the other comments, or even worse, the comment is used as a way for self-promotion, to show how smart is the one who is writing that post… From a dialogue generation to a deaf dialogue
- Facebook wall and Twitter: In a normal day… from 100 Twitts and or FB wall comments, four are related and could be considered as a sort of dialogue, 20 are RTs’, other 20 are emoticons… and the rest, God knows what the hell they are
Activity could generate dialogue if it mantains certain relevance. And if this dialogues are generated at corporate level, they should be carefully thought. Dont’ you think?
Brand experiences are built on dialogues… Alleluia!
For companies, dialogues help to build their brand experiences… Alleluia!…
This is not new. Actually, almost every experience is based on dialogues. The experience exist because we talk about it. Social networks allow us to tell more people, more easy and more quickly the sort of experiences that we are living.
But, before social networks, we also talk about our experiences… and now, for those companies that still do not have their own social network, people are talking about that experience…
Control is a pre-Methuselah historic illusion. To try to control dialogues is futile; we can only observe and give some intention.
Personal branding in a world where brand are something personal
A side effect of paying attention to social networks has been to see all the efforts to build, sell, promote… personal branding.
We wish to be different, unique, cool… Following an online process to improve our personal brand (I would say “personal brand” because it’s understandable, actually, we should say personal image) looks, at least, funny… If we all follow the same process we will become a sort of “Mini-me” of others.
You can build your image online promoting activities that generates good dialogues. And to do that, you have to be honest and show you as you are… and not as the manual suggests that you should be. No? (Canadian question)
‘Dialogus interruptus’ are unproductive
Yesterday in one of the valuable Twitts that I read, there was one from iBGC ’09 so interesting when one of the speakers defined Twitter… He said: “Twitter is a sort of dialogus interruptus”…. He was right!
‘Whatever interruptus’ is unproductive by default… Babies aren’t born, ideas don’t see the light, dialogues aren’t generated.
Experiences are based on dialogues, on fluid dialogues… And fluid means:
- You talk, he/she talks
- You talk and wait (I deleted several people who I began to follow because their comments were like SPAMs)
- The dialogue evolves
- You feel great because something interesting (and perhaps new) is co-created
The law of diminishing yields
The day has 24 hours and there is no plan to change it. Neither hours of 120′, nor days of 36 hours. Pregnancy takes 9 months (at least till now)…
We have certain time to read, to interact, to talk… certain time to work, to think… certain time to enjoy with our family, friends… Time is a scarce resource… As talent, knowledge, creativeness.
We have a real limitation to belong to an infinite number of social networks and seriously participate on them.
The message is simple: “Become relevant, create activity, generate dialogues, be passionate… and before all that, please, consider that on the other side of the cable there is another person”… That should be a great experience!
I’m learning this!… It takes time! 🙂