Is It Time for You to Grow Up Socially? 20

Debate is raging in the blogosphere and traditional media alike on whether a new movement is needed, one that focuses on “quality” rather than quantity, one that says strong ties are all that matter, one that says that going big is selling out. Geoff Livingston says we need to “punk” social media, for instance, seeming to suggest that large-scale, “produced” efforts are akin to what Nirvana called the “Radio Friendly Unit Shifter.” I’m being tough on Geoff, who I think only accidentally aligned himself with the “pro snob” crowd, which apparently feels that our personal brands should all be the digital equivalent of hip Village boutiques–nichey places with few customers and more attitude than effect. (This also points out the ambiguity of Geoff’s message, since he seemed to be saying we should do and accomplish more — not less — which is a fairly ironic message to call “punk.” But I digress.)

I have been playing defense. I wrote How can we be too connected? and The social soul is being battled for–this week, trying to get a handle on this surge, which I believe is a watershed, something akin to the great phase changes of internets past. The quantity of discussion and the emotional reactions generated by these various questions indicates that answers will be long in coming. They are the quintessential conundrums of our times.

For Marcana readers, the question is really a practical one. Organizations need audiences, and the plain-as-your-nose truth of communications (though one that the punk crowd doesn’t much like to admit) is that it’s all persuasive. It’s all meant to win people. Trying to say we don’t have motives would be absurd. We all know the joke about the people who want to nonconform just like all their friends do. John Sayles coined the perfect metaphor for it: The Anarchists’ Convention (affiliate link).

The issue is a lot simpler for professional communicators, for whom finding receptive audiences and creating compelling messages is often explicitly what they’re being paid for.

The issue becomes, then–how big can it get and still be “real”?

The answers is: “Much bigger than you think.”

First, part of this has to do with our place and time. Until now, humans have never had the technological capacity to be part of groups the way we can today. We were limited by our eyes and ears, our geography, our broadcasting media, our largely one-to-one telephones. Today, we can send and receive social signals on a scale never imagined before. You can be standing at 17,000 feet at the Everest base camp and video chat to a loved one on the other side of the planet. Robert Scoble can carry his webcam-enabled laptop into a surprise audience with Mark Zuckerberg and open a live two-way interview for the hundred or so people who had been watching his live stream (which, incidentally, was a boring shot of some sandwiches for quite a while before that). Telepresence is a reality. I’m here to suggest, therefore, that a concomitant reconception of the appropriate size of a social circle needs to be undertaken, just as it did when the telegraph and then the telephone came along.

Second, what’s so wrong with being highly social, anyway (and do you hear Nigel Tufnel when you read that?)? I’ve been reading futurist Jeremy Rifkin’s The Empathic Civilization (affiliate link), and he makes a compelling argument that we’re hardwired for connections and that most of our problems arise from not being connected enough. (And before someone says we’re not really connecting online–and just try to tell that to someone who has–read the recent research showing that people feel more connected as the result of being online, even if they don’t see each other as much.) No less a personage than the Dalai Lama says, “Though people often laugh when I say it, I myself always want more friends.Weak ties are fertile ground, and they are the glue of societies.

Now for the practical part: Scaling. I’ve written in the past about the band U2’s stage show, and how effectively they personalize the experience through set design, actual interest in the places they’re visiting, and a genuine love of their fans. You’ll meet very few former U2 fans–this band knows how to deliver, on a huge scale. Why is that? Part of it is the fact that scale is part of their identity. Fans enjoy sharing those experiences with many others; they expect it, even. So this is not to say that U2’s scale is effective for everyone–just that it can be done.

Or consider the Dalai Lama again. Here is a man who meets thousands of people a year, and yet he leaves a personal impression on an astonishing number of them. (That’s him in the picture above, by the way.) My wife tells this story: She was a photojournalist in Albuquerque when the Dalai Lama came to visit. She was part of a big crowd of press people following him as he toured the city. The entourage entered a local restaurant, where the staff brought the Dalai Lama a basket of sopaipillas, a local treat of deep-fried dough. The Dalai Lama looked my wife in the eye, pointed to the sopaipillas, smiled and rubbed his belly to show how much he planned to enjoy them. To this day, when my wife tells the story, it’s clear what a lasting connection he made through that one simple gesture. The Dalai Lama knows how to scale. He combines large-scale broadcast media with deeply personal acts to create not the sense that he is connected to every one who is interested in him but the sense that he could be.

The secret of scaling seems to be communicating to many people on a broad scale combined with communicating with some number of people in great depth — and then holding up those interactions in such a way that they illustrate something about yourself for many more people. Right about here, I expect that many people reading are feeling the bile rise. It sounds too calculating to them.

In many ways, this seems to be the core of the debate about scale. Opponents say it’s shallow. Proponents say it leaves open the possibility of depth.

It’s a question in many ways of authenticity. Ben & Jerry’s started life as a small-community brand and has struggled to fit into its corporate matrix without losing itself. A brand like Columbia strikes a better balance, perhaps. Even “causes” aren’t immune…some people become distrustful when nonprofit organizations get too big, even if that scale means economy and effectiveness.  The issue is clearly fraught with risks.  On the other hand, it’s pregnant with possibilities. By not scaling to an appropriate level–one that suits your product or organization or cause–you’re not fulfilling your mission. Don’t let fear be the guiding factor.

So much of this has to do with our inherent ambivalence about technology and mediation. We persist in seeing electronic interaction as less “real” than co-location. We’re always on the other side of a screen from someone, though. Our brains interpret signals from mechanical receptors and chemical transmitters to paint a picture of “reality.” When we talk on the phone, our voices are converted into electrical signals and re-created at the opposite end–you don’t actually “hear” my voice but a perfect reproduction, though I guarantee you’ll start really thinking about what “real” means if you really think about that. All reality is virtual. It’s time to stop thinking of electronic communication as subpar. In fact, for some things, it’s better than the old ways.

Here’s the basic point: If you want to grow–whether as a brand or as a person connected to other people in the world–do everything you can not to close the door to anyone. Imagine a business that told you, “Actually, please don’t fill out that customer contact card. We’re busy and just can’t be bothered with your interaction and keeping you up to date when you might never come back. Prove your connection to us and, after a while, maybe, we’ll return the favor.” Or being out in the world and someone saying, “Can I take a card so I keep up with what you’re doing?” and you saying, “Sure, but you can keep your card, because I know I won’t have time to care about it unless you change in some way that I can’t yet foresee.” You wouldn’t do those things in the “real” world, so why do them online? Yes, you’re going to end up with a lot more contacts than in the past. Get used to it–we live in a flat world in which, soon, anyone on the planet may hold your future livelihood in his or her hands.

On Facebook, I joked that we don’t need a social media Johnny Rotten, we need a social media Bob Dylan. I got lots of feedback. My point was only that we haven’t even reached the modern stage of social media, let alone the reactions to it. Punk got pwned a long time ago, my friends–it’s called postmodernism, and you really don’t want to live there. Let’s skip all that noise and work on being ourselves. OK?

So how will you react? Do you scale?

[Flickr photo by f_mafra.]


Will Reichard

Will Reichard has an MBA from the University of Mexico and is CEO of CrossCut Communications, LLC, a full-service marketing and communications company with a digital edge. His forte is messaging. From working as an editor at a Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper to articulating the selling points of an innovative customer focused nonprofit fundraising organization, he consistently helps to give voice to challenging but mission-critical ideas. He writes a blog on social media, public relations, marketing and technology and was recently invited to be a panelist on personal branding at the prestigious Crittenden National Conference. He is also an award-winning writer who has been published in outlets including Innovation: America’s Journal of Technology Commercialization and National Mortgage Professional Magazine.

About William Reichard

Will Reichard, MBA, President, has a broad background in social media, strategic communications and marketing, public relations, development, fundraising and business management. His forte is messaging. From working as an editor with a Pulitzer Prize-winning daily newspaper to helping establish capacity in an early-phase public relations company aimed at middle-market businesses to articulating the selling points of an innovative customer-focused nonprofit fundraising organization (United Way of Central New Mexico), Reichard consistently helps to give shape to challenging but mission-critical ideas. He is an award-winning writer who has been published in outlets including Innovation: America’s Journal of Technology Commercialization. Most recently, he has consulted for a wide range of clients through his company, CrossCut Communications, and has become a sought-after speaker and adviser on the field of social media and business, a role in which he enjoys applying his bachelor’s degree in cultural anthropology. He writes a blog on social media, public relations, marketing and technology and was recently invited to be a panelist on personal branding at the prestigious Crittenden National Conference. He has additional interests in change management, social theory, issues of diversity, and management of technology. He graduated magna cum laude in anthropology and recently completed an executive-level master’s of business administration with a 4.0 gpa, both through the University of New Mexico. He is a member of Beta Gamma Sigma. Reichard belongs to Social Media Club and the New Mexico Tech Council, is a member of the Albuquerque Independent Business Alliance, and belongs to the Business New Mexico network. He is involved in a variety of community efforts, including serving as president of Albuquerque Net Impact Professional and the board of the YMCA of Central New Mexico. He is particularly proud of his membership in the Rotary Club of Albuquerque del Sol. Available for speaking opportunities.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Is it time for you to grow up socially? --

  • First of all, I’d like to say that while I hate the word “pwned” and all variations that Gen Y has (absent-mindedly?) endowed the world with, and while Punk did indeed die as a cultural movement circa 1979, not long after it had actually started (even though Post-Punk was far more interesting to me, anyway), I do think that punk / post-punk / “alternative” / indie / etc. sensibility does continue to contribute meaningfully to the self-critique mode of culture.

    I agree that a social media Johnny Rotten isn’t a helpful model since nobody can effectively speak from that kind of pristine platform authentically as Johhny Rotten himself later freely admitted, and that Bob Dylan is much more helpful a model. I also think that there is a problem with culture that is eating away at it and us: the 900-lb gorilla in the corner which changes clothes every ten minutes but is ultimately the same gorilla since we arrived at the party. It’s the underpinning of exploitation that the party is powered by. Edward Said and others less admired have called it Empire. That seems way too large-scale for the individual to feel any responsibility for, however, to my mind. I’d prefer to call it spiritual lack until I find a better term. And predictably, that individualist perspective is quickly turned inside out into a concern for community. And not just the community of “all my favorite people / types” but a community that admits everyone. THAT is in my view, what’s missing from the social media picture, I said so way back at the beginning of this little site, and it holds just as true for me today. Social media’s “guru set” (okay, I just coined that) is a virtual cheer leading squad for capitalism’s exploits on the high seas of the world wide web, as if it needed one. Modulated in tones of “sharing” as a new model of capitalism (which I fully adhere to as a progressive model of capitalism), it still doesn’t connect with the dirty corner in the room where that 900-lb gorilla is still standing, still chomping down on third world bodies, bodies of working class Americans, perhaps even our own. Still grinning at us in a way that implicates us in a way that makes him invisible to us in the first place. His glare says “I’m you! Yes! You really are doing this!”

    I started this site to try to address the incredible lack of thoughtfulness that passes for blog conversation about the role of marketing in anything remotely resembling social progress. Not to create a soapbox for social change, but to create a soapbox for a new marketing that is willing to play a role in social change, to go beyond what marketing (and sales, or PR) thought it was appropriate to do before because there wasn’t sufficient momentum and causal stimulus.

    It’s not all that important to me about numbers in terms of response. Not all content is easy to respond to. Some of the people I respect most in the blogosphere have few if any comments–yet I read their blogs not for the comments but because they speak courageously to social progress within the context of business and free market capitalism. Now that some of the hard edges of that capitalist system have altered a bit, I think it’s even harder to formulate words or response to address that. We don’t know anything about how those changes affect the playing field. Do they go too far? Do they go far enough? Should I just keep doing what I had been doing till that point? Some people lose their minds in reactionary ecstasy and cry “socialism” (when I think they mean to cry “communism”) while others on the opposite end of the react-o-sphere fawn in awe of unknown change while people are still hurting and jobless or under-earning.

    What I like about this site is that real people who are committed to more than a piss-poor fleeting popularity or pure free market principles are speaking their minds from their hearts about what they do and why they think success comes from the good parts of themselves instead of the worst.

    And also, there is a dynamic that has been brewing on this forum for some time that I think will in the end prove more useful than anyone could have anticipated. I’m glad to be a part of the discussion going on beneath the discussion.

    • Mark, first off, I just have to say–this is the kind of comment that writers live for. And it’s a great reminder to me that if I’ve piqued the interest of the Marcana community, I’m hitting my target audience precisely. It’s great to talk to people who “get” me. That, first and foremost, is why I’m writing here for.

      You’ve touched on so much here that I have a feeling I’ll be chewing on it for a while.

      So, some first thoughts:

      “Pwned” was definitely chosen for that inflection. It reminds me of a guy I used to work with, who would have said, “If everything can be owned, then nothing can be owned.” I think what bothers me about it is the sense that everything’s a game, that everything should fall or be conquered, that it’s all competition.

      What I read in your response is a wish for real inclusiveness. It’s such an elusive concept, and, as you say, one that probably comes about more in the doing than the planning. It comes from a lot of discussion, a lot of fumbling, a lot of thoughtful reflection. And in all fairness, my reaction is primarily to what punk has become, rather than what it was initially.

      I have loved the reactions to this post in part because it’s clear we’re all trying to figure what we mean. I hope I don’t sound as if I’m advocating scale for the sake of scale–just that I’m advocating not scaling down just because we believe that scale is “bad” somehow. Capitalism gets conflated with rugged individualism so often that both ideas lose something.

      The final piece I’ll just hypothesize about out loud is the “empire” concept. That’s a common charge against the “corporate” model as well–that it detaches us from the result of our actions. And I agree…personally, I think public ownership of companies is one of the great problems of our times, one that has driven huge problems. At the same time, strong ethical cultures are in my opinion the only real way to overcome those issues, and I think social media can be of great help there (to the point of empathy). They can facilitate feedback so that phenomena happening on a large scale need not be destructive, though they often have that potential. And in an interconnected world of 6B people (perhaps to hit 9B before it begins to subside), I am concerned that we need to learn those processes to have any chance of surviving.

      Great, great stuff. Thanks again, Mark. So much here to think about–sure to prompt further posts from me at the very least.

      • Just another thought here: I don’t think people are being honest enough and vocal enough about how they really view the world via social media for the feedback function to yet even fully come into play. Loose canons who rehash political talking points are quickly turned off, and rightly so, I think. And yet, that is nearly the end of the entire matter of a public forum. Either people use social media strictly to network and make money, or they may also use it to echo talking points, but I don’t see people talking social issues in any detail except in formally written pieces in articles and on website forums. I don’t see people really chatting up discussions about social issues and about brainstorming to fix them. This is my greatest disappointment with social media. I keep expecting the whole Iran protest thing to extend out to something that ISN’T playing into some special group’s preconceived outcome. It’s like everyone expects some brilliant entrepreneur or startup to find a solution to every problem. It’s great when they do, but it’s debilitating to the whole when the parts lie fallow waiting for some “genius” hero with means to create progress on actual problems. Perhaps, and this is something I strongly believe, we’re expecting too much of the consumer, to gulp down huge texts when everything should be video or interactive. Anyway, great chatting with you here about it.

  • Anonymous

    Nice post! Very intelligent analysis of scaling in social media!

  • Pingback:

  • Pingback: Small BUsiness News: Social Media Metamorphosis()

  • Pingback: Small Business News: Social Media Metamorphosis |

  • Pingback: Small Business News: Social Media Metamorphosis | Home Wealth Project()

  • Pingback: Small Business News: Social Media Metamorphosis : Merry Python()

  • Pingback: Small Business News: Social Media Metamorphosis | Free Web Design Tucson()

  • Pingback: Creates Custom Newspapers for Twitter « Small Business Center()

  • Pingback: Who Should You Follow on Twitter? « Small Business Center()

  • Pingback: Small Business News: Social Media Metamorphosis | USA UPDATE NEWS()

  • Pingback: Small Business News: Building Your Small Business Empire « Small Business Center()

  • Pingback: Small Business News: Social Media Metamorphosis | Forum on China Goods Bay()

  • Pingback: One on One: Greg Gianforte of RightNow « Small Business Center()

  • Pingback: Social Media Metamorphosis |

  • Pingback: Are you thankful for positive social media?()