Do You Have To Touch Every Conversation

Agreed, and glad to know I'm with good company of people who tried Plurk and didn't like it!

I posted a comment this morning in twitter about one of Seth's blog posts. Not because I wanted him to see it, but because I wanted to say how I enjoyed it. I think Seth gets it like Chris gets it. Zero-in and be passionate. Everything thing else will follow...

Seth gets Twitter. He discusses it's use in Tribes.

Completely agree. As the saying goes:

"There are plenty more fish in the sea."

If one doesn't fit you, go with the one(s) that does.

you seem to have your own little research pond Chris.. i've kinda spread out.. but in the end... the BBS/Forums with all their drama cannot be controlled as easy as the followers on twitter..

Good stuff, Chris.

You're not on Squidoo, either!

Here's the thing, the simple way to think about it: enter a media market when you can get through its Dip.

If you can be the best social media consultant on Twitter, if you can be Laura Fitton, then sure, go do that. If you can be the most influential soccer analyst on a regional chat site in China, go do that. But if you're just going to be in the mix, yet another bodega, yet another brand of shoes, why exactly should you spend the time?

I don't use Twitter because I'm not willing to use it halfway, and to use it all the way would engulf me. I like being a polymath, and being a polymath on Twitter means following and leading thousands of people, each conversing all day long. Can't get through that Dip and still be me, so I have to take a pass.

The same way that people in Lithuania or Paris or Sydney shouldn't be offended because I don't do live speaking gigs there (it's too far, not their fault), don't worry that I don't use Twitter. It's comment about time and focus, not about what it's for.

Ah so true!

It's that Power Law curve coming into effect as well...there are just so many conversations, how could an individual be effective across all of them and deliver results?

It's like saying one should use 4 different word processing applications, it doesn't make sense.

Agree on Plurk; I have enough Karma things to worry about without someone adding to it all :-)

I asked my students how many of them have read blogs in the past week. Hands shot up. Then I asked if they had commented. No hands. Maybe one.

No one knows you were there if you didn't comment.

A real comment. Not a 'visit my blog' type of comment.

So in order to participate in the conversation, I suggest leaving a comment every now and then. Just to let the blog author know you were there, and to let other readers see that you were there too.

If you are commenting on something you find interesting, other readers of the blog might find your posts interesting too.

Great post! Seth certainly has better ways to get his point across and twitter is not the *only* social media service out there.

There is no need to be part of every conversation. You have to pick your places and OWN THEM. With all the tools out there nobody can keep up with every single platform.

Use the few that you truly like and use them well.

This is why "It's better to be first than it is to be better". Twitter has a certain critical mass that has carried it far and away of other option with "better" features or interactions. I went through a phase where I tried to get onto to all of the network and use Ping.fm to try and use all of them. Great if I just wanted to broadcast to all of them, but the real value is the interaction, the conversation. I've pulled back to just Twitter (well Facebook for friends & family).

I love that line: "Do what you plan to do, and do it well"

It's all about using the tools that fit your goals.

You're not going to see me swinging a 42-oz bat at the cages because I'm essentially a box with sticks. I don't have the pipes to move lumber that large.

Seth and Chris make it perfectly clear that being where you want to have impact, and being there fully, is the name of the game.

Frankly, I'm here to enjoy the energy and the info that flows off of the smarties. They're the fish I'm following. If I can share that smartness with the people following me, all the better.

I've never really bought Seth Godin's reason for not having comments. I think it's probably more along the lines of "I want everyone to think like me and am secretly so insecure that I can't handle it when people don't....hence why I created a closed social network and go on there only to talk to people who buy/read my books". You can have a blog with open comments and not necessarily participate in them - I use to do it all the time when I blogged politics. Post something controversial and then let my readers hash it out among themselves with little to no participation/work on my part. He could do the same thing...but then no one would go buy his book to get into Tribes ;-)

To your point though, if you force yourself into the conversation without really wanting it, it's just going to come across as inauthentic, thus defeating the point in the first place. I'd rather talk to someone who's excited about being part of a conversation than someone who's forcing themselves to out of some ridiculous notion of obligation.

Great comment, Mr. Steve Garfield! It's an evergreen topic I try to preach now and then in subliminal ways. I suppose I should be more as-a-matter-of-fact about it.

Are we ever going to get over the idea that one person's version of what works for them and their business, personal tastes, or level of commitment just isn't the same as everyone else's? And why do we keep trying to get everyone to conform to our idea of what's "right"? Haven't we proven over and over again - and preached through social media itself - that personal nuances and connections are what matter, and the end game is not the tools, but the more global sense of community and contribution?

We'll quote Seth until the cows come home, but we'll turn around and smack him (or anyone else for that matter) when he doesn't play by our rules. And to that, I call bullshit. He's found a way to contribute to the larger whole that's valuable, compelling, and whether or not you agree with him all the time, his ability to distill marketing into fundamental concepts has transformed businesses and our industry as marketers. I don't remember the last time any of the rest of us - myself first and foremost - knocked a crowd dead at the TED conference.

If Seth cannot bring himself to enable comments on his blog, then he should not have a blog. He should have a frequently updated Web site. The very definition of blogging is two-way communication. He has already achieved the status of "guru" but to really be credible in the space, he must participate on some level, not just observe. That is what CBS TV does. They broadcast and observe viewer reaction. OLD SCHOOL. FAIL.

Very interesting post, and a great comment from Seth on his rationale. Reminds me of the Jack Welch mantra of "if you can't be first or second in a market, don't bother."

j

I was about to respond to Seth's reply email with this, now I'll just post it here:


I was probably trying to convince you, to get more of you in real time.

I was going to counter your reply with this fortune cookie wisdom:
"Ships in the harbor are safe. But that's not what they were built for"
(was just reminded of that on Twitter, ahem)

But then again, stealing from the Giving Tree didn't work out so well.

"I understand my limits, which is the first step to a happy life"


You know best how to be Seth Godin.

Oh look, a friend is tweeting about orange cows, gotta go...
;)

{Thanks Seth}
Ed Shaz,
Good health to you always!

I love this response. A lot of people I work with at our Agency, Pace/WPP, ask me "should I be on Twitter?"

I usually tell them that it is fun to play with, and that it can serve as another "AP" type feed... but that "No, you don't NEED to be on Twitter."

That being said, I feel pretty special with my 129 followers. I'm not, but I feel pretty special. And I like it - even though I can't fully utilize it nor can I become a serious presence there. But I still love this sort of a crowdsource for up-to-the second info, as well as the links to amazing sources of information.

I think this line of thinking really has to do with one's "popularity". Mega readerships and followers would be a lot to manage for someone like Seth, a best selling author, world-renowned in his space. If he set up a Twitter account he'd be bombarded by requests and follows and the maintenance would be steep, for sure. You've talked about similar experiences with managing your own followers and fans here on your blog, Chris.

However, for someone like myself, I'm a smaller fish swimming in a much smaller pond. It doesn't mean that I have a less valuable contribution to make. I simply am able to manage my inputs and outputs better because my audience is that much smaller.

For me personally, my participation in social networks is not an all or nothing thing, because at this point in my social networking journey, it doesn't have to be. In my opinion, it's a matter of scale.

I'm starting to find a natural rythym between blog, Facebook, Twitter, and Friendfeed that feels right for me, for what I do and what my objectives are. But it can be all consuming for fear of getting 'missoutalitis'. Comforting to hear smart people say there's no right or wrong answer.

Chris,

I think Seth Godin explained it very well as did you. As an old friend, Alan Cohen, likes to say "Keep the main thing, the main thing."

In our business we develop people into direct marketers of their own valuable message (and brand). We instruct them how to strategically move their message forward to targeted prospects, in this case the employment niche, in order to secure interviews leading to a job.

Maybe the best idea is for people to reverse engineer their own business goals. Examine who are their target markets, industries, niches, and people. The evaluate where these targets "live and communicate" within the social media construct.

I am still trying to ensure that I am in the right place at the right time. It's truly keeping the main thing the main thing.

Thanks for the thought provoking post.

Dean Guadagni
Inner Architect

You may not be Twittering, Seth, but a Tribes fan of yours is: http://twitter.com/sethgodintribes

Agree with you on this one, Chris. And hey, don't forget the millions of message boards around the world, Utterli, Seesmic, Flickr ...

Really, if you wanted, you could spend all day bouncing from site and community to site and community trying to join every last relevant conversation. Know what would happen, though? 1) You'd still miss some 2) You wouldn't get much else done.

Pick your handful of sites, social networks, and communities where you'll participate, and then make sure you're accessible should someone from another group/community wants to reach you. This way, you're in touch (enough), focused, and sane!

Bryan Person | @BryanPerson

So often people try to be everything to everyone. You can't be on all those sites and be effected and engaged. What good are you being on every site sort of? You need to be there or not. If your sort of there you will get a lot of people from every site mad that you are never there enough. Pick you place and be happy there.

Wonderful topic. Ironic to see Seth nailing it in the comments when he doesn't even allow his readers to do the same on his blog. Not complaining, just saying it's funny. I kinda like the idea too but I personally enjoy some of the golden nuggets that readers leave in the comments, not just on my blog but in every blog. This blog has an extremely high rate of gold in the comments as Chris points out every time the comments provide better content than the original post.

As for picking and choosing which platform to select? I agree that it's a personal decision that each of us has the right to make. Some services rub me the wrong way but strokes others right in the sweet spot. and so it goes.

Personally, I love twitter but lately I've been drifting towards Friendfeed for several reasons. First, the realtime feature rocks (www.friendfeed.com/realtime). Second, they now allow you to pust any post in FF to Twitter so you can now have your cake and eat it too. You can still communicate with everyone on Twitter as well as every other network you belong to. It's the best of both worlds.

OK, some of you will say "I tried FF but it's like drinking from a firehose....it's too noisy....blah blah blah". Well, they've added more features that help you filter all of that data so you can control the flow any way you want. You can create lists to show the streams of anyone you want as well as rooms for groups or topics. Look here. http://screencast.com/t/2PzhDufH

So, for me, this works out great. I can keep in touch with many more friends and receive far more info with just ONE tool...one login. I also like the ability to post images and videos in the Friendfeed stream unlike the text only Twitter stream.

Good stuff once again in the comments.

Pai
http://friendfeed.com/paisano

Chris, if I didn't know better, I'd say that was a great peel off of my post on the quality of your social net. engagements.

It almost feels like information overload - there are too many grops, social networks, usernames, blogs etc to keep up with!

Good conversation starter, as always, Chris. I think this all goes back to everyone having to find the best way for them to use these tools, and to figure out the best tools for them. I would see no point in blogging if I could not get comments back from my readers. I'd just quit if I someone told me that I could only blog if I refused to allow comments. On the flipside, I bet Seth would quit blogging if someone told him that the only way he could continue, is if he HAD to allow comments. Just different approaches, don't make either of us right, or either of us wrong.

With any social tool, I always look at how the 'power' users use it. I look at how Connie Reece or Pistachio or Jennifer Laycock uses Twitter. I look at how Teeg uses StumbleUpon. I look at how DebInDenver and OnePinkTee use Plurk.

The bottom line is that there are too many tools for everyone to use them all, and too many 'strategies' for each tool for there to be a 'one size fits all' method. My best advice is to be curious about all the tools, but only use the ones that give you value, in whatever terms you define.

I am the "Only Dog Blogger on the Internet" I write a blog as a DOG, it is not ABOUT dogs. I am the BEST dog blogger around because I am the ONLY dog blogger.

Now, you'd think that would be enough to get me out of the dip, but I'm running around in the cul de sac, chasing my tail using Twitter, blogging and for what? No advertising, no book deals, no nothing. Even "pit bull Sarah" got herself a book deal and I am way smarter than she is.

Sometimes, the world you choose to be the best in can be way to small. I think mine is. Wonder what Seth thinks.... wonder if Seth cares....

Great food for thought. Its obvious that you cant be everything to everyone, but you can really be something to someone real. Its about targeting and the best use of your platforms and links to people.

Beth

Seth does not fail. By trying to impose rules on how people are supposed to blog it probably is you that are failing.

The joy of blogging is the removal of parameters on how you express yourself. Blogging is not rulebook. Some have comments, others do not. Some express personal feelings, some do not. Some use correct grammar, some do not.

But as someone who has been blogging since day one, to tell another how they need to express themselves on their personal site is bad form.

The joy of blogging is you are doing it for you. Not an editor, not a teacher, not a neighbor, boss, or family member. Unless that is your goal.

Email Seth, my guess is you will get an answer. That is how he communicates with his reader. Email him something good and you will get a long reply.

But the concept that one has to adhere to rules goes against all that blogging is.

I've joined many of the web 2.0 services out there that have come my way. I'm sure there are many I don't even know about - and some that would probably suit me better than some I have got now.

I feel that if I don't at least try some of the services that I become aware, it could have been the 'one that got away'.

However, I don't feel a need to sign up for everything just to be everywhere.

So this is what I tend to do. I join if I like the look initially. I use it. If I find myself using it regularly, then that's good. If not, well I simply don't use it.

For example, I use Friendfeed a lot. I like the interaction, and the atmosphere. I find it engaging, and often invigorating even. I find useful links to sites, some of which give me information that I can use in my personal or professional life.

Now a lot of folks seem to have an and/or mentality about Friendfeed and Twitter, but I use both, considering them to be different beasts, and for different (but overlapping ) purposes.

I've got a Plurk account, but I find it way too slow - I'm good at skim reading, and you simply can't do that with Plurk, so I tend to only go in there when I get reminded, and when I've got a few minutes of playtime - i.e for idle chat.

I've signed up too, with Pownce and Tumblr, Not that I am suggesting they are bad in anyway, but find that I rarely use those.

I feel that it's can be too easy to try and spread oneself too thinly on the ground - rather in the cloud - and then there is the danger you became a jack of all social media networks, and a master of none.

Ok Steve G, I'm here, soaking it in, but then I read CB pretty much every day, so I don't always comment. Since I'm here I may as well say why I read most of what Chris writes, because that's easy. Besides the fact that it's good, it's almost always about someone else. Someone's dad told me half a century ago, "Some people talk about people, that's ok. Others talk about things, which is fine. But when a person talks about and shares ideas, they're usually actually saying something."

I agree that engaging in platforms where conversations are valuable and where you have the capabilities/ablity to actually be apart of the conversation is probably the best way to build solid relationships. However, I do wonder, the potential the lies in reaching out to untapped audiences on the platforms that we aren't currently using. Understandably, you can't touch every audience, and we probably wouldn't sleep if attempted to, but what about if we could wander into new waters and attempted to catch something we aren't accustomed to? What value could come out of that? Or is it just that simple, "fish where your fish are?" Do we have to accept that fact that even our fish are spread across so much water that we need to pick and choose which body of water we tap into?

Yup, Seth (as usual) has it right. Choose the spot you will be the most effective at - it's way too hard to be all things at once.

Deb
www.debworks.com

You don't have to touch every conversation, but being aware of them and engaging where appropriate makes sense. A lot of it depends on the approach. If you are going there because your intent is to drive them back to your blog "where they should be", that's one thing. If instead, it's to add value and participate, then that's another.

I know I miss conversations. I tend to get most when they flare up on socialmedian, FriendFeed, Strands, Facebook or other places, but I'm not batting 1.000, and that's okay. Fishing where the fish are makes absolute sense in that I shouldn't be forcing people to come out of their comfort zone, but maybe my being there makes them uncomfortable in the first place.

@Levi - oh, I don't use Twitter for play. I've doubled my business earnings from Twitter. Twitter is the new telephone. 100 years later.

What seemed like common sense to me was apparently the most startling revelation at my recent presentation at Thin Air Summit... Not every tool is right for every business or person - choose the ones that are going to work best for you and focus on them.

You and I have similar usage - except that I don't blog as frequently any more. (Burned out after 7 years of posting more than 1x a day elsewhere.) I love twitter - but I get why Godin doesn't use it - because he'd probably end up using it the way I do, and he couldn't do what *he* does if he did.

What remains a mystery to me is why ANYONE thinks it's their business to determine how someone else should be using an internet tool. We can't say "don't do X this way!" or "you should use Y this way" and expect someone else to do it. What we can do is say "you don't accept comments on your blog, ergo, I don't want to be a part of that community" or "if you used Twitter, I'd follow you, but since you don't, I guess I'll just connect with you elsewhere."

There's no "right" or "wrong" way to use Social Media tools. There are only "best practices" in order to achieve certain goals. We each have to determine our own goals and adjust our usage to achieve them. Seth seems to have a good grasp of what his goals are, and what does and doesn't work to make those happen.

@Tom Royce Right on.

I can't imagine the calculations social gregarions compute to protect their downtown reputations. But, it brings up some interesting questions.

Is authority more important than communication?
Are communication and reach related?
How is reach related to how personable someone appears?
If you job is online, can you have fun online without calculating your reputation?

I really liked Ed's "You know best how to be Seth Godin." I'll add a little "Amen, Sister" to Amber, as well.

I'm always a little bemused at why people think they get to tell Seth Godin, or any other blogger, that he "has to" do X or Y, or that he doesn't really have a blog because he doesn't have comments. How does any of us gain the right to tell other bloggers how to run their gig? The whole point is that we each define our thing the way that feels right to us, isn't it?

One of the most interesting insights Seth Godin has articulated, IMO, is that none of us has the right to anyone else's attention. Posting comments on Seth's blog is not our right. Getting him to listen to us is not our right. We can earn it by being interesting and relevant, but he has a finite number of minutes on earth just like the rest of us, and he doesn't owe any of those minutes to any one of us.

Seth's comment here was fascinating to me. My personal aim on Twitter is just to be absolutely Sonia. For my readers who want more Sonia, since I only post a few times a week across both blogs, Twitter is the place to find that. I don't follow thousands and I'm not followed by thousands, but it's a way for the people who really dig me to spend more time hanging out.

I'm still not really sure I "get" twitter, but it is helpful to update by facebook status (and I really don't "get" facebook, to be honest).

I don't have much time for conversation (which I think is probably true of most of us). I have to pick and choose which conversations to participate in, so that I can actually have a meaningful life. Otherwise, it's just all yelling into the wind.

Twitter could be useful if ALL of my family and friends participated, but to be honest, plain old IM/text/email works just as well for their needs.

I find it interesting that when someone (Seth or anyone) does not use a "social media product" that those who are evangelists of the product have to claim that person is out of touch.


Nobody has the time to keep up with all the platforms, technologies and products that exist (and more are coming!). People have to make choices. We each get 24 hours per day, and our individual lives will only allow us to participate in a limited number of communities.

I never see those who don't use a platform call themselves or anyone else "out of touch" for using or not using it. Only those on the inside call those on the outside names. Seems a little self absorbed.

thanks for the post Chris. Always make folks think.

I don't think anyone 'should' be on Twitter. I'm there because I enjoy it, it works for me and it helps me to feel creative and connected.

I'm not sure it matters what Seth Godin does and doesn't do by way of social media practice. That isn't what he's teaching us. He's teaching us about leadership, and business, and new ways of thinking about things.

I'm more than happy that he channels his energy into bite sized posts and bite sized books that anyone can pick up, understand, and action.

Great comment from Seth. If anyone hasn't read "The Dip", I recommend it. At least he is practicing what he preaches!

I might be changing my answer above.

I'm sorry Seth.
But YOU taught me about remarkable and purple cows.

And you know what?

This remarkable right here wouldn't have happened otherwise.
And extraordinary is too valuable to miss.
I Tweeted this the other day.
Then Chris just tweeted it again, so I retweeted.

This woman is remarkable!

http://twitter.com/LindaWyatt/status/1021197972

Not to be too Machiavellian about all this, but a big part of this has to be about audience segmentation, too.

First, you can't be everywhere. Even Brogan.

Second, like any other business, you should concentrate not only on the outposts where you can be a leader, but more importantly, on the outposts where your customers congregate in the greatest density.

Why don't I do much on YouTube? Because I don't believe that's where my customers (PR firm owners, mostly) congregate. Why do I focus on Twitter and LInked In? Because I've seen how they create traffic to my blog, which creates speaking gigs, which generates clients.

At the corporate level, using tools like www.rapleaf.com to understand what social media outposts (or frontiers) your customers are using, and building programs to engage in those areas is 100% a best practice, and I believe that's essentially what Brogan and Godin are advocating here.

Depth kicks the ass of breadth. Always.

We all have just 24 hours in the day, and we all have goals in this life. (At least I hope we all have goals). Our goals help us set our priorities.

Social media is great. Keeping up with friends and contacts is great, but as in every other area of our lives, the key word is BALANCE.

No one can keep up with everything that is available, so we have to pick and choose what is right for us and those choices as Chris points out will be swayed by where the "fish" we watch to catch hang out.

So what works for you is good, just dont forget, BALANCE. We all have a life offline too.

There are many tools available and as mentioned above in the comments, there's nothing you "should" be on. Use whatever tools work for your needs, wants, and passions.

I think sticking within one realm is more effective than spreading yourself thin over many.

Perhaps the "real world" connection is more valuable than any of the other sights mentioned--and it seems most of the "All Stars" that you mentioned, including yourself are "on" the "real world." I asked Seth Godin a question in an e-mail and had an answer in 1/2 day--and I have found this kind of generosity across the board from the real "players." If you opt out of Friend Feed,or any other site... but work in a lunch, or a phone call you might otherwise not have had time for, seems like a gain to me.

Chris
This is certainly one post where i could "hear" the passion in your voice. Maybe those who wonder "why" have an under current of fear that they aren't at the most popular parties - to use a high school metaphor. Human frailty.

Great conversation on this wall. I often feel bad for companies that are being harassed into joining every conversation online. It sometimes just doesn't make sense for a financial services or pharma company to be an active member of facebook, twitter, the blogosphere, etc and run a normal PR outfit facing traditional media as well. Best quote "Fish where your fish are"

There's something to be said for focusing on your core strengths and, more often than not, spreading yourself thinly over as many social networks as you can does nothing to help further your objectives.

Better to build a bastion of strength on your preferred medium (whether it's blogging, Twitter or Social Network X) and build your community around yourself.

@TomRoyce excellent response to Beth. Imagine how the world would be if we allowed the flow of information to be controlled by the mass media aka CBS News agencies of the world?

Oh yeah that's exactly what I point out when I talk about the world of communication and networking 30yrs ago. Citizen had to control over the flow-now we do. That flow includes whether we want to take comments on our blogs or not.

This is a great conversation and a much needed one that everyone needs to engage in. Participation should always be quality over quantity, in everything you do online.

I'm on Twitter and Friendfeed because, for me, that's where my "fish" are. Facebook, too. As for the others, I don't worry about them for the same reason as Chris.

I have said at several speaking engagements that you have to choose the social media platform(s) that work for you. I give most platforms a chance, and if it turns out not to be my thing or further my mission in any feasible way, I don't participate. SM is not one-size-fits all. What's skin tight on me might be a perfect fit for you. That's the beauty of it. The sheer number of choices is what scares many newbies to death. One woman literally freaked out asking me a question about how she can't control all of these emails coming from facebook. My response: "Unsubscribe. Just turn them off." Her response: "Oh, I can DO that?"

"fish where your fish are"

That is the perfect analogy. If you do any fishing and are even remotely successful, you must go where the fish are. Otherwise you're just casting your hook out into the water with the hopes that you get lucky. To be successful (not just lucky) you have to know where the fish are and be there.

Excellent post, Chris.

@Seth Godin Not really sure I agree with that. It's pretty much the same as saying "I can't be the life of every party, so I'm not going to go to any parties."

Twitter is a lot of things to a lot of people (like that old joke about five blind men describing an elephant) but primarily, it is a endless stream of conversation where you can chat, listen and learn. I suppose, if you are Seth Godin, people would expect that you are an expert in certain things, whereas being a dog, people have very low expectations of me. That's ok; I contribute where I can and learn what I need to know.

Today, I learned about MarsEdit from @guykawasaki I have been looking for something exactly like this for about a year. Tomorrow, I'll probably learn about something regarding Web Analytics I did not already know that I can turn around and sell for some money to someone who will think "I'm bloody brilliant!"

Another way to look at it. The longer Seth stays away from Twitter, the more of a chance each of us has to pull away from him. Can't be a guru of everything forever. Love ya, Seth, but it is literally, for me anyway, a dog eat dog world.

Chris, This was a timely blog for me...Being new to the Social Media scene, at first I thought I had to join every conversation Tweeted. After all I did not want to appear uninteresting, dull or uninformed. Now I just relax and blurt out my opinions,thoughts, positions on political matters,and beliefs like a tipsy parrot with turrets syndrome. =)

As far as Master Seth goes, I believe what he does with his blogs...Comments open or comments closed is his purgative. It is a question of style not courage....Sheesh! Seth has his niche, maybe reader hand holding or cheer leading is not part of this niche.

Have been using Tweeter as a Social Media University. In six weeks I have lurked and learned enough about Social Media to tie it to a Humanitarian vision...but also can see the dangerous pitfalls of some Social Medium Platforms.

Good blog, Chris.
I would be sorely amiss not to mention that I have met so many brilliant and wonderul people in Facebook and Twitter. People I would have never met if I had not left the light on and hung a "Welcome Sign" on my Twitter avatar.

Be Blessed,

Chris - thanks for validating this. Social Media is only one aspect of what I'm doing to help grow our business and I can't let it be all consuming (at least not yet). I've made my choices where to focus my time, but then when I see someone talk about Plurk or Pownce or some other platform, a little part of me starts to get anxious and wonder if I'm missing something.

I've come to terms with the fact that maybe I am but that's okay. I can't be everywhere and more importantly I don't think I need to be. I think this is sometimes a hard realization to accept, especially for us newbies.

P.S. Loved the video blog - nice to put a voice with the face.

I think the point of your post for me is that I choose what social platform on which/in whichf I participate are those that fit with my individual strategic plan. I don't choose a platform simply because a famous does or doesn't...I'm not privvy to their strategic plans; I read this blog, Chris, because you offer real value in information sharing; I read Seth's blog for the same reason; I am learning to use Twitter because it fits with my strategic marketing plan - I chose not to use Plurk because I just didn't like it. I've evaluated my precious Time and can only spread it around so far and still have time to play with my parrot, George and visit my grandson.

I think this is a really good post, an important subject to think about. It is easy to get overwhelmed with the amount of sites out there, because there a zillion, but you can get involved in a certain amount in a real way. Your presence is seen when you interact and comment, and participate in the conversation, and you simply can't do this in every network. You shouldn't have to either to be able to have a social web presence, am I right?

While I think there is a value to ping.fm ( I actually just joined it today) I think the real value is in diving deeper into the networks that you ARE actively involved in. I like the title of this blog a lot.... Do you have to touch EVERY conversation?? Absolutely not.

I only understand what your point is in theory, but you and I have two different problems. You are trying to make conversation better and I'm trying to keep it going.

A good goal might be meaningful conversation...being engaged with your target audience to the point where you both get something out of the interaction. For some it's possible to be present in numerous conversations across multiple platforms while for others, remaining engaged is only possible on a limited scale. As for Seth, he may not allow comments on his blog or be on Twitter, but he (promptly) responds to emails from the Tribe...to me, that's being "in the conversation".

I love this post. I've been debating on dropping my activity on a few of the social networks I'm on and after reading this post, it has given me the urge to drop a few more than originally planned :)

I haven't the bandwidth to be everywhere; I haven't all that much to say about many issues - but I'll comment on some.

yes, Seth doesn't have comments; he actually says why he doesn't.

You want to comment about something he's said? Blog about it. Point to his post. Trackbacks show.

If it's interesting, you'll get the benefits of the comments on your blog.

Stick it on friendfeed; see the comments on it there.

I'd rather have his blog as it is, without comments, than not have Seth's blog.

Thank you for this post!

I have been trying to get into Twitter over the last week and although I get it and know why people use it - announcing what I'm doing or what I'm reading every two seconds of the day just isn't my thing - although I'm still trying!

I agree in that I don't think it's possible to reach every conversation that you find relevant and trying to is just going to give you a headache!

Hey Chris,

Interesting points but I'm wondering do you have any research to back this up or is this just your point of view from inside the bubble?

I go to social media events all the time and we all drink the Kool-aid and love what we all do but outside of our group there are people who make money and have been making money for years selling products that have labels that don't appeal to the social media crowd. These are labels that have been tested and sell to the masses making millions and millions of dollars a year.

We all live two to ten years in to the future. When is someone from social media going to make millions and millions per year?

There are doctors and lawyers at parties I go to that don't read blogs, don't watch online videos and have never heard of social media or Twitter. I'm not saying they are right or they are wrong or that we are right or that we are wrong. (I love Twitter but I can't get into Pownce. I want to get into Friendfeed but just haven't made the time.)

I'm just saying that there is a lot of preaching to the choir inside our bubble and there are people inside our bubble who have drank the kool-aid and believe the gospel of social media but they have yet to make any money from living in the future.

I see that we social-medians often look down on companies that "just don't get it" but those companies are making and continue to make hundreds of millions of dollars. We all preach that those companies are doomed or dead but yet they continue to function they continue to employ they continue to manufacture products that sell and they don't have blogs or even have twitter accounts and they certainly don't have a comment section on their printed marketing materials.

Has anyone in social media made over 100 million dollars in one year?

Has anyone in social media made over 1 million dollars profit, not gross but profit in one year?

Do we in social media really get it? Or are we just happy with ourselves, our new found popularity and are we just proud of our self proclaimed untested, un-monetized labels?

If we have a product with a label that bloggers think is crappy but that people still want and that people still buy do we really need to touch any conversation in social media?

Are we, the ones in social media, the ones who really "just don't get it?"

@Tim Street: Amen.

I wrote this in an email to a co-worker this weekend, but did not send it, thinking it might just be a little too negative. Now, after reading your comments and several other comments on some blogs that are part of the "Gen Y Mutual Admiration Society" I'm thinking it may just be dead-on accurate.

"I see all this Web 2.0 stuff we are doing for the brands like running on a treadmill... always more to do, nothing ever done, going nowhere, and getting no customers.. I am beginning to think it is all a crock of shit anyway, spewed out by HubSpot and those like them just to sell their services.. all this crap isn't getting page views as Web 2.0 shit is just a bunch of people shouting at each other with megaphones! Nobody's really BUYING anything.. they are all SELLING. And, as long as you can sell Web 2.0 "air" and get people to buy into it, you're good.. like a big MLM scam... I believe in relationship marketing, but I think the bubble has passed where there now are more people getting into it to sell rather than buy.

People/companies that got in a long time ago, like narms.com, tourneycentral.com, guykawasaki, chrisbrogan, dooce etc are doing just fine because they have traffic, momentum, etc. but trying to launch something new get people to give a flip?? I'm thinking it is a long, long, long road uphill, paved with rocks... "

Hey Rufus,

I still think social media is valuable. I make money from doing it but I'm not yet making a really good living or making millions.

I started a blog last year about the monetization of online video. I didn't make any money at it at first but now a year later I get paid to speak, I get paid to consult and there are video projects that come my way because I blog about viral videos. I also happen to produce a video series that gets millions of views so that doesn't hurt either.

I'm not saying social media is bad, I'm just saying I'd like to see some research and see where people are making real money using social media.

NBC Chief Executive Jeff Zucker's commented sticks in my head: "Our challenge with all these [new-media] ventures is to effectively monetize them so that we do not end up trading analog dollars for digital pennies." (New York Times, March 10, 2008)

@Tim Oh, I'm there with you. I think SM in the mix is good, but like everything else, if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Way back in my puppy days, I worked for this really large Fortune 500 company who saw the future of at-retail services move from product assembly and display into merchandising, etc.. They "set the world on fire" and after two years, we made our first million in revenue. There was a lot of back-slapping, hi-fives.. we knew everything about this business.

A year later, I left to join a competitor and REALLY got to know the industry. If you weren't in the $10million + club, you just weren't a player. These folks did not spend hours designing a form or week-long retreats learning management techniques; these guys were front-line "get er dun" types, from the top boss down to the at-retail reps. That was the way REAL at-retail merchandising got done.

And the Fortune 500 guys at my old employer still kept drinking their own Kool-Aid and in 2004, they folded.. got bought out by Canadians no less (not that there is anything wrong with that...)

These Web 2.0 guys remind me of that Kool-Aid drinking crowd. When you get inside this Web 2.0 bubble, your view of everything can be very myopic. In the past year, it has turned from a community into a shout-down, shout-out fest where everybody is talking and nobody is listening.

Now, I will go quiet on this topic as I have already barked way too much.

PS I like Jeff Zucker's quote. I think I will keep it and use it one day.. thanks.

Whatever social medium you use, touch as many as you can; at the end of the day, social media = relationships and that is where the real value is.

I am in the plurk, but I hate. goodbye

Seems to me that it comes down to creating an effective strategy for 'out-posting' as you would call it Chris. Taking your advice, I have become active in four outposts, and aggregate information and capture my own content with two. Before I sign up for yet another service, I always ask myself, who am I trying to connect with and how will this serve my strategy.

Great post. I agree with you Chris. Ithink we each have to choose the social media tools and communication strategies that best work for us. Do you is what I say and release the need to judge why others are doing something different. They do what works for them. And that's what makes the world so groovy. We all have different approaches. Learn from others. Take the lessons and information you need for your life and business, and move on as my Internet savvy 69 year old mother with a Facebook account and several email addresses says.

After understanding what a polymath is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymath)it brings me back to a fishing quote by G. Love "dreams are like fish you gots to keep reelin'". A couple of threads through all these comments: (1) point, (2) passion, (3) personality and, (4) perseverance (source: Short and Taton). I would argue you if you can't commit, or keep reelin' it's not a worthwhile or sustainable social media tool.

Fishing is a great analogy.

Brings back memories of taking customers to fish north of Ontario, Canada. The real fans brought their fly rods while the rest toted regular type ones.

Nonetheless, we all had a good time.

So I have elected to learn and join communities via LinkedIn, Facebook Twitter, but am smart enough to read others' blogs to at least keep me informed of the tools they are using.

I really appreciate, and relate to, this post.

Just last week, I started following you and some others on Twitter considered to be "on top of it." For the life of me, I just can't keep up with Twitter, and I can't get the hang of it. Yes, I understand it, but it sometimes overwhelms me.

On the other hand, I know the only way I'll figure something out is to just jump in and give it a try. So we'll see what happens. But there's no way to keep up with everything going on in the social universe, and doing so means you'll do it all at a mediocre level, at best.

Too many people, too many conversations. You can't be everywhere, unless you are Q.

This is a constant topic I'm discussing with artists. My big thing is not wasting time in places you don't have any positive feedback or revenue from. Why waste time in Myspace or Pownce if noone is there that is worth talking to? or believes you are worth networking with?

@Michael Darwin - Even though I really have nothing further to add to this conversation, I had to give you props for the reference to Q. Brilliant.

I Agree

At what point do the social media platforms become just one big playground and everyone finally realizes all this new conversation bollocks is just the slick, virtual version of all the old conversation bollocks?

Yes, you can make contacts and money by hanging out in bars and golf clubs and conferences et al and chatting with like-minded people too. And guess what? These are called conversations also.

"I don't do this because I don't like it..." Of course not Chris. Why should you like everything just because it's new and comes through your computer. Just like the people who prefer to hang out at the chess club instead of the golf club.

I don't understand how normally intelligent people are so starry-eyed over shiny graphics and the fact that you can have business conversations in your pyjamas from home.

Chris Brogan in comments:

"I’ve doubled my business earnings from Twitter."

That would be an excellent article...

d

Completely agree that you cannot join every conversation going on out there. It is important to find the sites that work for you, but also pay attention to the other conversation occurring.

Taking a page from a small child's playbook- eating when hungry, playing with what you find engaging, inviting in those who can play nice and add to the experience...it's all there.

Focus on actively participating in what yields positive results.

In response to Timothy's comment: Different folks get excited about different stuff. Personally, I enjoy online interaction, and I enjoy face-to-face interaction too. I don't get starry-eyed, but, it can be quite time-saving being able to have a business conversation or meeting sitting at home in your pajamas. I've often had to drive across town to such meetings, wasting time getting dressed up; time driving there and back, and money spent on gas, only to find the meeting (like so many are) was largely a waste of time.

I try to get a feel of "every" conversation in all other social media but I find that TIME isn't on my side. I don't have the time to update myself or whatever, in every social media. I feel Tumblr, Plurkme, Xazzle and Twitter to be the easiest to use but somehow I spent more time on Twitter (that cartoon bird worked I guess!)

It's not totally about which social media is better (each one has its flaws and strengths) but I feel if you focus long enough in just one social media, over time you can 'build' a community who's interested enough to follow you - even if you post infrequently. Even if the build-up is slow.

Oh sorry - I meant Zazzle!

P.S. Fully agree with Amanda "Focus on actively participating in what yields positive results."

There's no such thing as a 'social media expert' and we can't be on every platform, all of the time. Would we suggest to a client that they do that?! No. So why should we? It would be completely unmanageable, there would be a lot of hit and miss and there's no way we could give quality time to each and every one. Focus on what works best for you... thankfully there's so much out there now to choose from of which I am glad because that's enabled me to give up blogging - shock horror! Hurrah for microblogging!

Some (and only some) of the SocNet rock stars can spread their focus. The make money from being able to do so. But thats a very special talent. Most Social media specialists seem to have it to some degree or another but, again, we aren't all SocnetRockstars or Social Media Specialists.

I make my living from SAP, so that what I try to docus on with twitter &tc. It is difficult to focus, and I loose it sometimes and start socialising. But my SAP work (which i do enjoy) pays the bills, keeps the wife and kifs feed and happy, so I need to focus their rather than go surfing after the latest shiny toy that Scoble reports on.

Of course, I do make time for the later, but if I'm using the 'net to further MY brand, i have to focus on what I'm good at / doing.

Great post and thread, and it inspired me to buy The Dip for my Kindle. Today I plan to quit some things!

Hmm ..definitely ..
it infact reminds me of the last time somebody tried to approach me on twitter forcefully.
Definitely marketeers donot need to be all over the place.

I like the simplicity with which you get things across.

Recently I became a member at friendfeed and now am wondering whether I did the right thing.It broadcasts my comments to everywhere - from linkedin to facebook to twitter . is it needed ? my conversation at one "cafe " as you put it so well need not be influenced by or related to my comments at a different platform.

Reminds me of the recent faux pas from Guy Kawasaki when he placed his blog post url "art of laying off..." on twitter. His presentation was actually for a very different audience and quite bang on. It brought in some needless flak.

I strongly feel that social media is not a platform for selling.For instance, sometimes we get some direct sales pitches for products and services.It doesnt take long to un-follow. People who do that may actually be alienating their audience.

It is a great place for possible buyer and seller to see each other and become aware of the sales potential but the moment sales pitches start happening its time to shift.

Agreed Chris, offer input where you can add value. If you're following conversation for business purposes I think people must bring something to the conversation - a different perspective or new information - rather than just chiming in to be noticed. Further, if do have a specialization in an area you should be offering it the communities where your knowledge is valued eh.

Such is the real world, people get involved where they have an interest and can be a part of something. Those that are not involved in a particular community and have alterior motives than giving to or serving the true interests of the group are easily identified.

Who really has time to be involved in every conversation? If you do, how they heck do you do any work :).

Always love your posts Chris -Thanks.

I agree, Chris. You should use the site(s) that work well for you. One can't be on every social media site and do well at the particular one or two he deems most important. That's because he would be spreading himself too thin, and wouldn't have the time/creativity to focus to on getting what he needed from the social media forum that is most important to him, nor the time/creativity to give to others on the particular social median that was his favorite.

I'd say it comes down to choices. Which sites are going to help you meet your goals? If you are spending time on sites that will not enhance anything for you, your blog, or your online presence, why would you stay on that social media site? Even if you want to help others, unless you feel called to particularly help at that particular social media site, go elsewhere. You can help others (while still helping yourself) on another social media site. Just help them where you feel you should be! Don't waste time where you shouldn't be, life is too short. I have seen far too many bloggers do this. They join any and all social media sites because they have heard a particular site happens to be the "cool" site to join, with no regard for why they have joined the particular site. Ask them and they have no idea why they've joined. Now they are caught up in social media to the extent that they sometimes seldom blog. I've seen it happen. It's a trap to be guarded against.

By the way, your last few posts have been excellent. As always. I loved the one about "What Arists Can Teach Everyone About Social Media" http://tinyurl.com/9hu85r Very excellent! Thanks for sharing.

Krissy :)
visit my main blog: Sometimes I Think
visit me on Twitter: www.twitter.com/iamkrissy

Great post. For me, the bottom line is, there are so many different conversations going on out there, no one can be a part of them all and still have time for themselves.

Chris, great your post.
I believe that some social network has a too large set and this leads to a wrong interpretation of his use by final utents.
Facebook in Italy's a garbage container !
Ciao and good work to all your reader.
Gennaro de Concilio

Really, too many media sometimes confusing.