Quid Pro No

Chris,

Until reading this post and these comments, I had never understood the point of one of my favorite parts in the classic book, "Go Dog Go." If you recall, 3 or 4 times throughout the book 2 dogs coming from opposite directions meet on a street corner or some other locale. They have the same discussion every time:

Dog 1: "Hello, do you like my hat?"
Dog 2: "I do not."
Dog 1: Goodbye
Dog 2: Goodbye

They each walk away, noses in the air, alone, in the direction they were originally headed.

The last time they meet Dog 1 is wearing some badass, Mad Hatter/kitchen sink hat the size of small house. Dog 1 asks Dog 2 something like, "Now do you like my hat?" and Dog 2 says something like, "I do, I like your hat very much." They happily walk off together, arm in arm.

What I like about the dogs is that they can be direct and almost rude to each other, even though they live in the same town and see each other all the time. Paradoxically it's harder to be that direct in social media where a friend is frequently a stranger that you have no real world connection with and won't see on the street in your town, or ever, for that matter. Perhaps fear of viral retribution keeps everyone in a zone of polite following, friending and silent ignoring.

When invited to something, there really is no reason to say "I don't like your hat," but to politely decline or ignore, just as you did. Most of the time that's easy since there's a mass invite of some sort. It sounds like this guy made a special point of asking you. I don't know how you politely declined, you may have done what I am about to suggest. Perhaps in the future if you remember that the person bought your book/joined your fan page/interacted with you in a Twitter convo or you would like them to do that someday, you can offer a richer polite decline along the lines of "you've been such a good support to me, but I really can't be much help because I don't know enough about it and can't give it the time you deserve." Maybe your polite decline sounded like "I do not like your hat" to him and he just would have been happy with a little deeper acknowledgement of him and his support for you. Who knows? The point of all this is, Who cares? His reaction was his problem, not yours.

There is a tremendous difference between even your best online relationships and your best real world relationships. The former - even the very best ones - tend to be more polite and guarded, and therefore less honest. It would have been nice if you had said to the guy "I do not like your hat." and he had said goodbye and went on his way. But it sounds like he expected to be treated as an online relationship - polite reciprocity followed by a complete lack of engagement - and you treated it as a real world relationship.

Online relationships won't be real relationships until you can think and act the same as you would in the real world. You have just gotten there ahead of some, but it has to happen for all of us for all the reasons you wouldn't have 50,000 friends in the real world.

So next time some online friend asks you the equivalent of "Do you like my hat?" ask yourself whether this online relationship warrants real world, honest behavior. If not, say "yes I do." and take the hat - sign up for their stupid app or fan page - then keep walking in the same direction you were headed. When he or she is safely out of sight, stuff the hat in the trash. Unsubscribe, ignore, or never login again.

Hello. Do you like my solution? Either way, Goodbye.

Some of the smartest, real-world, street-savvy advice on social interactions I've seen to date, Cathleen. Thank you!

I recently received this email:

--Hey Seth,
I am following you on Twitter and have been for a while but have not gotten a follow back from you. I am going through my account today, doing a little house cleaning. I don’t want to un-follow you so, please, begin following me so we can keep communicating.
Thanks, “Mike”--

I told him I "didn't like his hat" (love your use of that story) and that I was sad our only interaction was an unpleasant one.

Give a great networking tool to somebody who doesn't know how to effectively network and the results will always be the same: failure.

Now if he'd only changed the wording to say that he'd been doing house cleaning THEN looked at his list of followers, that would have been more personal and I might have liked his hat a bit more. =)

Thanks for posting, Chris. I've never seen you wear a hat but based on your general sense of style, I think I'd like it. =)

Seth,

Thanks so much. I think Chris does a great job of bringing these questions out in the open and having us puzzle it out with him. He helped me a few years ago when I had maybe 30 followers. I got a DM from a guy to let me know he was breaking up with me as a follower. "you're a nice girl..." I was traumatized. That's taking the real world too far, a silent unfollow was all that was needed. Glad this post introduced us.

Wow, so he engaged you in a conversation because he wanted to interact and expected you to be equally as interested in what he had to say? Then he went in for the "guilt-follow"?
I'm pretty much the opposite - I assume that many of the people I meet on twitter are very successful and may not have time for me - then I'm honored when they follow - and even more honored when someone like @ScottMonty or @skydiver actually replies to me!
Great answer Cathleen, and thanks Seth for sharing!
V-

I read a book one time that deals with situations sort of like this. It is called "No More Mr. Nice Guy" by Dr. Robert A. Glover. Not to get too deep, the book deals with relationships, passive aggressiveness, and one sided social contracts that make people seem like great folks but really are just setting up situations for reciprocation.

This is one of those one-sided contracts. You don't agree to the social contract, but the other party still perceives that the contract is in place and expects payback. In other words, a Nice Guy as labeled in the book. He did something great for you, now where is the payback.

The book is aimed at men and is a great read. It deals with trust and expectations and how to overcome being the "nice guy." Also how to deal with "nice guys."

I guess this is one of the things you will come up against as your social stock rises. Let incidents like this roll off your back. It is not you. you give more of yourself than almost anyone in this space, unselfishly at that. Don't feel guilty because someone else expects a social contract out of you.

Cheers,
Eban

Very useful info here, too, Eban. Thanks for the book recommendation.

Who hasn't thought about this at one point or another?

What's difficult is when someone crosses the line and uses the relationship to create social pressure. It's so weird, because most people are conflict avoiders, right? So this is taking that on its head, because they are using the percieved distance online interactions create this illusion of, and use that as leverage to create a situation where now YOU have to avoid conflict you didn't even create!

Eban, it really resonated with me the part about social contracts. There are so many percieved social contracts out there it's silly. Because some I just flat out don't agree with on principle. But even disagreeing with an expectation could get you labelled as Mr. Bad Guy.

So, to flip this back to me, I think about the situation I was in lately where I had beta invites to a program that was doing an affiliate offer, where anyone who signed up under me would get a coupon and so would I. I wanted the coupon, but also, I didn't want to be one of "those people." So what I did was go through my address book and only e-mail the people I know personally who would actually be interested in the service -- and tell them that something was in it for me and for them.

And guess what happened? One person responded back with an affiliate offer of her own! It didn't really apply to me, so I declined it, and felt perfectly fine doing so, but I did wonder -- what does she think of me now? Did that bother her or offend her that I sent her an offer but I declined hers? Luckly she's a friend and it didn't bother her, but it did bring all these questions clearly to the forefront. Will I send out an affiliate offer like that again? In the end, is that coupon that I get worth the relationship perception I might be creating by sending it?

I don't know. What do you think?

I think you already have your answer, Chris - it's all about relevance. You can be relevant and interesting to somebody but that interest and relevance may not be there the other way around. In fact, I think it's pretty rare.

We drift towards X because we want to learn from them. Do we have something to teach them in return? Perhaps but it's unlikely to be in the same topic, and that means at this moment the answer is no.

This is an excellent post (as always!) and I can certainly understand your position. It's sad to be on the other side of the equation though.

I used to be able to Tweet a lot. Then family responsibilities changed, and I don't get to use Twitter as often. I haven't changed the way I tweet, just the frequency. But I get a, "what have you done for me lately" vibe from a lot of tweeters. I still try to retweet, post links to friends and interesting articles, and be conversational and friendly, yet I've lost droves of followers - people I was genuinely interested in being connected with. Maybe I said something that upset them, but I suspect it is just that I'm not there very much right now.

Last night I couldn't sleep, so I used one of those "see who you follow that isn't following back" programs, and I was stunned at how many folks I used to have conversations with who have dropped me. I actually cried because there isn't anything I can do differently. I can't tweet as often so I guess my value dropped to zero with these friends. I can understand - priorities change, people find value in different ways. All I can do is continue to positive, offer folks praise and congratulations like always, and do the best I can. Because like you said, "It's not all about me".

But it still hurts. I hope this doesn't sound like I'm whining, I just wanted to show the other side.

Thank you for posting a thoughtful and thought-provoking article. All the best to you!

The same happened to me. I found hundreds of people that I've met in person and that I consider friends who had dropped me. It was a bit of a punch in the belly. Here's what I told myself (so steal it for you): they have other priorities, but it doesn't mean I'm worth less. I'm worth every bit as much as the day I started working so hard.

And that, Marti, is why I'm still proud to follow you.

Awww, now you're gonna make me cry again (I'm very emotional these days). Big hugs to you. I will never drop you!

Marti - I've had similar things happen recently. I went back through my favorites - what else is there to do when you have a book to write - and found all these @replies from people and to people that I don't follow or communicate with anymore. I couldn't even tell you why. I've been feeling melancholy about it, but I end up going back to my point in my comment to Chris, some of these relationships aren't as real as you think or hope they might be unfortunately. And people get busy or don't have time, etc.
One follower in particular dumped me and it puzzled me so much that I sent him an email apologizing for whatever I had said or done, but got no response. I comforted myself with another thought from my comment to Chris, that whatever it was, it was his thing not mine.
The other thing I told myself is that maybe some people have started consolidating their info. Now that you can get your Twitter stream on Facebook and FriendFeed, if you use those more it might make sense not to follow on Twitter. I don't know, probably nobody does that, but it makes me feel better to think so.

Anyway, I think the whole "add value" is a lot of crap especially if adding value is defined as Retweeting- that's just playing telephone. If you tweet something nice, thoughtful, funny or smart once a week, you're adding value.

Gary Vee made a great comment at the 140 Conference. He said that even if you have only 1 follower, that is 1 person that cares about what you have to say. Just like I tell my friends when their boyfriends dump them, "you're better off without them." So if people are unfollowing us, that's a blessing because then we are not giving our energy to people that don't appreciate it, same as when we unfollow them.

Anyway, I love all your hats and I, like Chris, am not only proud to follow you, I'm proud that you follow me. (If you still do, I better check - ha ha)

Love,
Cathleen

Cathleen, you are a doll - of course I'm still following you! I deeply appreciate your reply and take your comments to heart, especially, "some of these relationships aren't as real as you think or hope they might be unfortunately".

I love the comment you mentioned by Gary Vee. I will try to remember all of this wonderful commentary the next time I feel a little blue about losing a follower.

Wishing you all the best on your book, hon! Thank you for your reply and wonderful attitude!

Ooops, should be in fact. Still learning to use the smaller keyboard on my son's laptop.

Now see...you sound like someone I'd like to follow. ;) (in fast...just went and took care of that) This is kind of what makes me a little nervous about the whole...I'll be a good twitterer if I "add value". What does that mean? I post a certain amount of links? I RTed 62.5% of the time? I don't spam, but there are still people who don't follow. Does that mean I don't have enough "value"? C'est la vie!! I'm me.

Great question about "returning the favor," and no easy answer. I think it boils down to (as most human interaction does) the level of connection, commitment and relationship. If you have a vested, committed relationship with a person, as a true friend you know well, a family member, a co-worker, etc., you may well be inclined to join their Real Estate group even if it doesn't hold much interest to you, as you are already more inclined to support this person's efforts due to your existing relationship, that has developed over time. It has much less to do with reciprocity and much more to do with being in a "relationship." I see this "connection" as very different from TRUST (your current keyword <wink>) as you can easily trust someone you don't know that well or are not strongly connected to, as the trust can come from many other levels and sources. But that's quite another discussion... In the world of so-called Social Media, the tools make "quid pro quo" so easy, and the underlying (and perhaps artificial) importance of friends, followers, contacts, etc. might be putting undue (unwarranted?) pressure on us all to pay more attention to the reciprocation, and less attention to the relationship. Long term, the real value is always in the relationship!

Thanks for prompting some morning brain activity!

Here you go smarty pants. Now you have my drivel on both channels.

I often call this my greatest weakness. While we have all heard the saying, "You can please all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot please all the people all the time." that doesn't keep us from trying.

People who don't get that don't understand internet etiquette to begin with or have trouble peeling back the onion to really use the social media karma machine as it was intended.

This is why even today you still see marketers using social network wrong and as a result wasting their time and our time. They become reactionary and get their feelings hurt. YOU ARE A CAR SALESMAN. Come back when you are really ready to engage me the consumer and the organic process.... Read More

With all this being said, I am still waiting for the LinkedIn acception from you, Chris. Bastard. hahah lol

Hahahaha. Thanks for double-dipping. I teased you but I'm glad that you shared.

Wait... you are? (LinkedIn). Will you re-send? linkedin at chrisbrogan dot com for an email address. I don't see you pending.

Crap. I even gave you a better than average invite with references to OODA books you would've liked via our convo last time you were in Cbus. I'll re-send in case I become famous.

I don't know what my deal is this morning. Most un-PC SOB. It is 10:28 and still no coffee. Probably a sign I need to quit. Maybe I'll take up smoking. I've gotta stop laughing at my own jokes. Fail on self-amusement.

Many of the other commenters already nailed it, so instead of repeating them, I'll add some historical context.

The Wikipedia article on "gift economies" is one of the best I've read on any topic and full of interesting historical and current day examples.

If you're rushed, read the 'Social Theories' section on Lewis Hyde and Marcel Mauss.

One great example that sounds......familiar:

Native Americans who lived in the Pacific Northwest, practiced the potlatch ritual, where leaders give away large amounts of goods to their followers, strengthening group relations. By sacrificing accumulated wealth, a leader gained a position of honor.

Chris did this without the plan to gain a position of honor, but over time it was inevitable.

Great comments, everyone. Keep up the great work, Chris.

Wow. Thanks for this, Clay. Julien Smith and I are interested in variant economies and currencies, and I'm going to go read the article now.

Glad you pitched that in.

I was listening to some audio of Thomas Leonard the other day and he was talking about one of the highest levels that he believed he could evolve to: being a "cause". He believed that once he could become a cause of good things without caring about what happened after he caused it, and without having to experience reciprocation to feel good about what he did and himself then he would have evolved to one of his highest states.

I found this to be quite profound and is something I learned as a Crisis and Suicide prevention phone counselor. People call in, I would help them as best I could, and then they would hang up. I never got to know what happened to them, I needed to feel empowered without knowing my effect, I had to be empowered with the fact that I tried to help, that I was a cause.

If a person follows you, or invites you to join a group, or any other social act on the internet they have started a relationship, they have been a cause, and they need to be satisfied with that no matter what the effect they receive is. Be satisfied that they have added value (possibly) to someone else, and not worry about what happens in return.

My life is becoming much simpler as I begin to realize that I can be a cause, but I have no control, and should have no expectations over the effects.

At least from the thumbnail description you gave, the problem in this case came from the other person: it was *they* who made it a quid pro quo -- or tried to. Bad on them.

In my experience, it's incredibly important to reach out to people in the spirit of giving: sure, it would be good publicity for my project X to say "Hey, Chris Brogan will be there" or "You know, Chris is a member of that" -- but I'm not going to invite you, much less pester you or try to make it a quid pro quo, unless I think it's something *you* would really profit from doing.

One more note: your book costs less than $17. I imagine an average hour of your working time retails for well north of $50. So the person attempting to do the quid-pro-quo-ing would seem to have a very poor sense of the economics involved. :)

Add a zero on that hour of my time (at least that's roughly what I charge), so you're right that it seems to be a reasonably well-priced alternative. And hey, you get an hour of Julien's time and I bet he's not cheap, either. : )

Precisely, Chris. :)

Even if you expanded the scope from all the hours you *bill* to the grand total of hours you *work* (incl. blogging, traveling, etc.), it's *still* presumptuous of anyone to think that their purchase of your book -- which brings you a couple of bucks in royalties -- in any way obliges you to give them an hour of your undivided attention.

Time is valuable and there are finite limits to it.

Trust is earned.

The question is "what is the relationship?"

Following on Twitter can be done easily and perhaps the value of that micro-relationship can grow over time. When someone wants you to "try their new app," that is another story: they are asking for your valuable time, and NOW. Being snitty because you said "no" means they were actually not asking, they were really demanding.

Few in anyone's life have any right to do this, online or off. If the snit was someone you had a relationship with maybe you could go back to them and let them know how that made you feel. If there was a real relationship, perhaps there was a misunderstanding.

Expecting reciprocation is an unrealistic expectation. Gotta earn this.

ThomasWatehouse hit the nail on the head...

I wouldn't buy a book, or read a newspaper, if I wasn't interested in its content. Therefore I don't expect those I follow to follow me back, or vice versa.

I agree. Maybe I'm taking the wrong view here, but I think it's important to connect only with things that interest or are otherwise of value to you. Otherwise it's all just numbers and there's no real commitment to any of it, which makes building relationships a challenge. I hope I don't upset anyone, but I try to only follow people I feel I can (and want) to keep up with. I probably don't really "get" social media like I should in terms of its greater implications for relationship-building and business, but I just don't understand the value to the individual in following more things than can actually be read.

It's about adding value. If I add value for you, then follow and enjoy. I don’t desire a sense of duty or obligation in my relationships.

I don't expect reciprocal behaviour in this environment and I don't engage in it. I follow people on twitter because I'm interested in what they have to say. Sometimes they follow me back, sometimes not. Sometimes we end up engaging in dialogue, sometimes not. There are far too many people who appear to be following countless others just to build their own follower count.

Facebook is a bit different as you can't "follow" someone without their approval. However I keep facebook pretty much to people I know, so it's not an issue. I do ignore plenty of facebook requests to join one group or another as I suspect my friends are just sending them to everyone anyway.

We may like reciprocal behaviour but we shouldn't expect it. It's the expectation that someone will behave exactly as YOU want them to, forgetting that they have their own lives, motivations and reasons for doing it their way, not your way. It's insular and ignorant to demand such behaviour. Some may regard such actions an only polite but when being polite takes such time and effort, then it's impolite to ask it!

I'm happy to hear your take, particularly because of your national upbringing. It may be stereotypical, but I think of your culture as the ultimate in polite and reciprocal. That said, your words validate my thoughts more.

I think the problem is that there are so many "blogging" websites out there telling us the same thing over and over and over. We get confused. I think we really expect the "famous" bloggers to follow us and pay attention to everything that we do based on the "great advice" that we have received.

I have learned very quickly that most of that advice does not work and I simply have to work hard at being recognized and make sure that my content is the best that I could possibly write. In my case I still don't have anywhere close to big numbers, but I am slowly networking with people who I feel are attempting to help me. I am satisfied with that because it is more personal.

Sorry, I got a bit off topic, but my point is that we (newbies) are being taught that if you stalk your favorite blogger you will get noticed, and magically get thousands of visitors.

If you think that being noticed makes you instantly interesting to thousands of people, that doesn't even make sense. Know how I got my community? One recommendation at a time. It took me 8 years to get my first 100 readers.

Interesting thread, and very helpful, but this is by far the most useful take-away for me:

"It took me 8 years to get my first 100 readers."

Can I tell that this makes me feel so much better about my own blogging? Reading some of the social media "experts," it's easy to get the idea that a significant reader base can be built in mere months, leaving many of us to wonder what we're doing wrong. Thanks for being honest!

Maybe I'll just put that out there in a separate post. You're not the first person who said that.

In this CRAZE of late with the hype to get thousands of followers to establish yourself as an expert from those tweets to get 1000 followers in a day or software programs used by many people (including the gurus and experts who've popped up this year on Twitter) to create a false sense of authority.

I think it would be a great post Chris to share that story and really how it would refreshingly stand apart from these experts of late who are trying to take the shortcuts to real success & authority in the industry.

Yes, I agree. I'd love it if you'd write about the time factor. I am sad when folks seem to be in a big fat rush these days instead of favoring a take your time and do it right, kind of pace. The unholy rush isn't going to help anything. :)

Chris, you've started a fascinating discussion (again) and it's going off in a number of directions, as good discussions usually do.

But I hope this specific point about how long it takes (and how much work, commitment, passion) for a network to grow doesn't go unnoticed.

We talk about "emergent" networks or communities as if they happen without any effort by anyone. It seems to me the kernel of what it takes may apply to your reciprocity question, too. For a network to start, grow, and endure, it has to provide value to those who participate. It isn't necessary for me to give value directly back to you immediately. But the value I get over time should induce me to put something back into the network and add to the value you get over time.

I don't see relationships as transactional. I'm fumbling for the right word, but maybe "organic" or some such? Over the long term, it could be more valuable to you if I wrote a post in my blog mentioning yours, or retweeted the link from Rachel that brought me here. You may never even know that my "help" ... helped you.

I think people who look for immediate "return" on their "investment" in a relationship won't end up ever experiencing a real one.

Tom

Brilliant! Thank you for getting us back to basics. Real, long-term relationships with people who are loyal takes time and trust.

Wow, that is a helpful piece of information right there. As someone who is just launching her solo career and will be blogging soon, it helps to get some perspective regarding readership. My expectations are now more realistic after reading this. What's that John Houseman used to say? "We make money the old fashioned way. We earn it." Same goes for readers.

The people online who seems to reciprocate with no discrimination are the same who then complain about social media networks having so much 'spam'. I hold that we shoudl share what we can and appreciate people who want to follow, and vice versa. Quite a few people I follow on Twitter are knowledgeable in their area and share information that is useful to me as a small biz - I don't expect they want to follow my art tweets in return! ;)

You summed it up perfectly, it's not "all about me".

There's far too much politeness for the sake of politeness. Take the Twitter example: following because someone follows you makes no sense - that's just inviting spam. It also makes no sense following everyone, then using an app to filter them all out - that's just totally fake (and downright rude).

I am of the firm opinion that honesty is always best. We're not responsible for how other people feel, so - in answer to the question - no, I wouldn't follow back. Not without a good reason. But if I did, you can guarantee the mutual following would be worthwhile.

If anyone ever wanted some solid proof that automatically "returning the favour" is a bad idea, just look at how many followers you lost in the recent Twitter de-spamming. How many? Hundreds? Thousands? That was all wasted "politeness".

Very well put.

Courtesy is as important online as it off -- and I think that includes *not* reciprocating every request/follow/subscription. You make connections in order to pay attention to them, to learn, to share -- at different levels, perhaps.

I have different areas of interest, at different levels of involvement, and so does everyone else. I write mainly about a several rather specific areas [folk and Celtic music] and do not expect everyone I may contact because of another interest or project is going to want to know about that. I do not always reciprocate, nor do I expect others to do so.

I only reciprocate when I know the person very well and see a benefit to my business and what I am doing. In the end, social media does not supplant basic business principles and etiquette. The people who truly understand this are the ones who know you and trust you more than anyone else. Others who don't and try to play off you are just being misguided. Cool post, as always.

Chris, I agree with you. I follow people who share information about things that I am interested in. That way I am smarter and a better advisor to my clients, my family and my friends. However, following and friending everyone that comes my way will build my network in terms of numbers, but would lessen my network's value to me.
I can understand that someone would be disappointed when someone doesn't follow them back. But in the case of the real estate company's fan page, how can someone expect you to be a fan when you have never used their services?

I, too, am of the belief that reciprocity is not an online standard. I didn't come into the world of Facebook and now, Twitter, with the notion that I would have to follow someone who follows me, or join a group just because my friends were doing so and invited me.
I reserve the right to choose wisely no matter where I am interacting.
Perhaps this kind of thinking leaves me with just 33 Twitter followers and 16 friends on Facebook, but so be it. I've always stayed on the road less travelled and the Internet isn't going to change that.

@chrisbrogan its a decision I thought long and hard about on different occasions regarding this reciprocal mind set in social media and I came to the conclusion its wrong and not necessary.

By being "blindly" reciprocal out of a feeling of fairness is not actually being fair to anyone, you, or those following you, in fact it dilutes the value of both parties involved.

Take the example of reciprocal links between sites. Because someone links to you on your site, do you immediately reciprocate by linking back? No. Of course not. Its a matter of choice on your part and theirs. The fact that they are linking to something means they see value in it, why would they or should they expect anyone to reciprocate back for this reason alone.

Its not a slap in the face or a matter of saying "They think I'm great but I think their stuff is crap" its just not something you are obliged in any form or fashion to do for a whole multitude of reasons from SEO, value to your own readers, person value, and the relationship (or lack of) with the other body.

I don't feel any requirement to follow everyone back, or accept every group request or fanpage. Why should I? I don't go to the pub and accept every drink offer or buy every person who walks in the door a drink, even if I did I see no reason why they should all reciprocate and they wouldn't either. The same goes for every personal and business relationship I have. I meet a lot of people and businesses but I do not form friendships with them all or do business with them all, its not possible because its not always going to work.

Taking from your example of refusing to join the new social media application where you decided not to and you got the reply, “Thanks. I’ll still buy your book.” That just makes me laugh. I would consider distancing myself as quickly as possible from this person and their childishness. Who are they to expect or demand that you do something you have obviously assessed and decided "its not for me, sorry". To them I say, take it on the chin for gods sake, its not the end of the world and to you Chris I would suggest you forget about feeling awkward.

Would you have felt awkward if they had asked you to join their knitting club when you have no interest whatsoever in knitting? I think not.

I like the way you are trying to get a handle on trust relationships in an online world. It used to be about going to the same university, having met over coffee for 30 minutes, having a trusted friend in common, being part of the same family.

Now you make the call based on skimming a LinkedIn profile, browsing someone's Tweets, and/or reading someone's recent blog posts.

I don't think that people should approach online relations with the idea that 'everything must be reciprocal' or with the 'I gave you a present, therefore you have to give me a present' attitude. This is not how we deal with people in the offline world (at least I don't!), and I don't believe this should be how we operate in the online world.

As for twitter... I do not follow back everyone who follows me. If I believe they are somewhat relevant to me, and what I'm doing, I will (this covers the majority of people who follow me). I follow many people without any expectation of being followed back because I want to learn from them and their insights.

If I recommend you, Chris, in a #FollowFriday on twitter, I do not expect you to return the favour and would be astounded if you did. Your word carries far more weight than mine, and your recommendations far more weight than mine. Just because I take the initiative to do something of possible value for you (recommending you to my followers) does not mean you have to do the same for me. This expectation would be completely unreasonable.

My end opinion? Reciprocal behavior is nice, but should never be expected.

I like doing things for friends and strangers, but I don't do it with an expectation that they will do something for me. In fact, I'd rather they do something for someone else. There is more satisfaction in that. The internet clouds the issue of "friend" - my online friends and offline friends are different.

Chris,

As Sheamus says, I think you have your answer. Netiquette does mean treating people as well as if they were right in front of you. It doesn't mean quid pro quo, just like... if they were right in front of you.

If I buy a pizza in your shop, are you coming to my office to hire me the next day?

Not likely, UNLESS I turned my wait for the pizza into an opportunity for a killer conversation AND we got to know and trust each other that quickly AND you developed as keen an interest in Experience Design as I have in pizza. Economics simply doesn't function that way.

So for the most part, quid pro no is the rule IRL and online. To get snippy at you for not having an interest in one more social media outlet is childish and just a little bullying. To have expected a yes from a busy guy with his fingers in many social media pies also makes me think the person didn't know you too well in the first place.

'Scuse me now, I have to run and get a pizza. ;)

Regards,

Kelly

Conditional acceptance and expectations have been causing strife in human relationships forever. Would you tolerate someone saying “I’ll love you more if you take out the garbage.”?

Do you think it would be a huge loss to you if someone unFaned or unFollowed you because you did not Fan / Follow back?

My answer is no.

I work on the premise that if you Fan my business page or follow me on Twitter, it's because you think I have something of value to share with you. If you are sharing something that I find to be of value, I am more then happy to do the same... if you're not - sorry. If I lose a fan or follower because I did not reciprocate, I do not consider it a loss as their motive for connecting me was not about sharing or having a conversation.

Just two weeks ago I got a hostile tweet from an indignant follower who warned me that unless I reciprocated, he would unfollow me. What a twerp! I never asked him to follow me -- why should I be burdened by an obligation initiated by an action he took of his own free will?

I don't expect people to reciprocate when I comment on their blog or even follow them on Twitter. To me its like we're all at this big party, carrying around our drinks and socializing with people we have never met. If you wander over to me, there was something that attracted you... maybe it was a conversation I was having that you overheard, maybe you had the same drink in your hand that I did, maybe your friend was talking to me, whatever. Once you and I meet at that party, maybe we find out we have lots in common and totally hit it off, but maybe we don't. Maybe that is it for us, a couple minutes of casual conversation and then we drift off again.

Forcing intimacy online is just as odd to me as it would be to attempt to force conversation with someone at a party whom I did not know and had nothing in common with. Its just plain awkward.

Funny, when I read this, I think about how much this matches up in the real world when we met at PAB. I wandered over, and we started chatting. : )

A tough thing indeed and something that I think every day is getting harder. I've run into similar situations more then once and it is never an easy thing.

The way I've always approached it is that I give and help whenever I can, especially when it comes to a Friend, but I know that I can't always do it. Anyone that is truly a Friend will understand this and while sometimes the friends I make on networks and such instantly assume they can have the world from me, they need to realize that is not a reality.

I give you something. I help you with something. I do so because I want to. Not because I ever expect anything in return. I think most people approach things that way, but I know it is not everyone.

Like many who have already commented here -- I follow people and organizations that provide information that I like. It is about the content they deliver. Yours, Chris, by the way is FABULOUS -- I'm an unabashed fan!

I bellieve more in an abundance approach, rather than one of reciprocity. Your successes in no way limit mine.

I'm a *newbie* too, and learned quickly that as my numbers, of followers grew that there were some that I didn't want to have as followers. Twitter Karma is a wonderful way to review and unfollow or block those that you do not want to see in the stream.

And I learned to vet all my followers through TweetLater, and I do follow them because when I scanned their tweets, there was useful content. Also, like you said yesterday, if the content drifts or no longer seems relavant, I will unfollow, only to control the information stream, not as a judgment.

And I stopped all the auto DMs with another application. It allows me to focus on what I truly want to see. And I love TweetDeck because I can group my "Tweepers" -- the ones I really want to see and follow.

I set some artifical limits about social media platforms when I first got started, largely because in my field our compliance review processes are VERY present and I believe they are there to protect us from ourselves. I still only use MySpace with family, mostly to keep track of my niece and nephews pages.

I only invite *real* friends and acquaintances on Facebook, I do accept friendly invitations from folks who are real and interesting and interested in me -- some nice friendships are developing there. I don't seek fans because I'm not permitted to have testimonials displayed. I do *fan* businesses that I use and support locally. I don't have any interest in playing all the game applications, but others do and have fun with it.

In LinkedIn, I accept all invitations -- one never knows where or to whom a connection may lead. I suppose that sums up what I'm trying to say -- or maybe I'm writing in circles. Ciao for now.

Being able to say "no" respectfully and politely is another aspect of being authentic. Why build an expectation that will not come true?

As my social media engagement goes up I am increasingly being asked to recommend people, products, etc. I want to truly help people where I can but in cases where I really don;t believe in something, the best way to authentically help them is to say "no."

@markwschaefer

I don't expect reciprocate behaviour. If I follow someone on twitter I don't expect them to follow back, and I don't automatically follow back either.
The fact that I find someone's tweets interesting does not mean he would find mine interesting. And the other way around.

I can understand that some people decide to unfollow, unfriend, etc. if they are not friended/followed back, but if I follow everyone then I will lose every value I have in these things.
And anyway, if somebody follows you only to be followed back, what is the value in that?

I think you are right to say no if it doesn't add to your agenda. If ppl see it as invite exchange program, then they've got it all wrong. Same goes for linking to someone's blog: just because I've linked to them doesn't mean I should expect them to link back.

This practice is actually taught by some of the high profile marketing gurus!

Which? The insistence of reciprocation?

I only "expect" reciprocal following/joining from people I met in real life of ones I have truly connected with online.
Anyone outside of that is a bonus.
I understand that not everyone can believe in your vision or same the POV on life, but it is great to see that you have touched SOMEONE...
If I see someone that has a group that I would not usually join, I will forward that information out to people who may need it.

I think that if you connect, follow or friend anybody for any reason, then the real value of the underlying social media tool is lost. I think there's a fundamental reason LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook give you the option to ally yourself with only people you know or have a compelling reason to get to know better and that you're not automatically associated with the entire community from the time you join. I believe that reason is to let you keep yourself from diluting your valuable interactions. Thanks for the great post to stimulate chatter.

What about the thought that a great idea can come from anywhere? If you're really picky about who you follow, you can miss out on a lot of great ideas/thoughts.

That's why I love Tweetdeck. I can segment those who I follow (ad folks, favorites, social media folks, etc.) into columns. The key for anyone I follow is this ... if he/she tweets stuff I find interesting/helpful/etc., they get moved to a column that has fewer people in it. Those I read and interact with regularly. The "All Friends" column gets scanned when I have time and there's less interaction.

Chris, I read a funny quote that says "If we're here to serve others, what are the others here for?"

While its funny it also is instructional, especially in the context of discussion you've started here. Life is NOT just about reciprocating. It's about being true to yourself and knowing you'll do what's right regardless of what others do think or say.

When we serve others and we do so for the pure joy WE get from serving them, that's a selfish yet wonderfully giving act. It can and should stand on its own. It does not need nor should it expect reciprocation.

When we serve others because we expect them to return the favor, it taints the deal. It sets up both people for a bad experience. It's no more than a negotiated transaction even though the "contract" may be invisible and implied.

To answer your question directly, we probably do expect reciprocal behavior (much of the time) but we should not. Each act should stand on its own. Just my humble thoughts on a Saturday mornin!

Your humble thoughts are welcome here, Kevin. Thanks for that quote, too. I haven't thought too hard about that, but yes... what ARE those others hanging around for, anyhow?

: )

Chris, I appreciate this blogpost a lot. As someone who works in Higher Education, the message we share with students is the same..... Social Media tools are for connecting with others, sharing ideas, and building relationships. If people stick to those goals for using Twitter/Facebook etc., everything else will fall into place. Our competitive nature sometimes clouds our vision, but we have to remember that building your #whuffie takes time and doesn't happen over night. Thanks again!

i am not sure what your reaction/decision would have been had this happened when you first started out, chris. i wonder if how one feels about this varies with where one is at the social media lifecycle, if there is any such thing. for someone who has just started out, perhaps the options to say no are fewer than those who have been through the grind and are already well established.

i have just started blogging and i already feel this i-scratch-your-back-you-scratch-mine attitude is beginning to weigh down on me. personally speaking, i would never do it nor would i like it if someone were to be nice to me just so i can endorse them along the way.

finally, i also wonder if guy kawasaki or any of your friends had come to you with a similar request, whether you would have reacted in the same vein. the reality that we cannot escape is that eventually we are nicer to people we know and need in real life, and that extends to social media as well.

i believe give and take would continue, whether we like it or not; admit it or not.

You've got a few points here. One is, "does popularity change the equation?" Oddly, it works against me. People believe that I'm being snobby if I don't reciprocate. People believe I'm not supporting them the way they support me, etc. I believe it's easier to say no when you're not as well-known, actually.

The other point: do I reciprocate when a friend asks for something? Let's separate the depth of friendship.

Real (and realish) friends: You mentioned Guy Kawasaki. I consider Guy a friend because we've done many things together over the last few years. I don't call him to complain about the kids, but I do ask him for advice and we share ideas together.

Online friends: I like many people online and appreciate relationships more than fans.

I reciprocate if it makes sense with real friends, provided I can stand behind my decisions. With online friends where I might not know them as much, I'm a little less likely to reciprocate.

Is that fair? I don't know. I think so.

What's your take?

hmm...your response to point one is actually surprising. i would have thought if one had say 50k followers, a few taking umbrage at not receiving "support" the way they define it shouldnt really make much of a difference, no? whereas a beginner would need all the support s/he could garner. having said that, i guess the number of those seeking 'favours'/reciprocity would also go up as one accumulates more fans. interesting perspective.

on point two - so you do agree relationships matter. i guess that is the key to reciprocity. build meaningful relationships first. reciprocity would eventually follow. and buying books/subscribing to a feed dont a relationship make. that's my learning, chris. thank you for this discussion.

Relationships are everything, dear lady. Without them, I am nothing.

The answer is karma. If you believe that what you are doing contributes to the good of everyone else, then there is a balance of karma. Though you may not return exactly what you are given, it all evens out in the end. Keeping score is just silly and immature.

The level of reciprocity [and courtesy] we expect at:

a] an open to public stall at a fair: this is twitter

many will stop and look
a few will talk to you
some will comment and move on with additional info from you
others will promise to drop into your store
meeting you at the fair doesn't allow anyone to invite themselves into your living room!

b] an open-to-public, store that you own

people visiting your store can and do become loyal clients if you serve them well
they spread word about great services you offer
and the friendly store owner who cares about customers and talks to them everyday
anyone can visit your store, but if they misbehave you can and should ask them to leave

c] in your living room, which is open to friends [or friends of friends]

You decide who you want in or not
I also think its advisable not to create an overlap between store clients with personal friends
Its good to be polite and firm about this for your own sanity

This is how I choose my level of reciprocity.

I really like this perspective!

Business relationships, for the most part, are transactional. Friendships are not.

Fascinating how the lines are being blurred between the two at breakneck speed. You are not the only one trying to figure these things out, and I always appreciate the way you bring these issues to the table, Chris. This very dilemma has led me to conversations that range from in-depth discussions of the meaning of friendship with people I have never met before to conversations with my kids over the inappropriateness of them using air quotes to describe my “twitter friends” to discussions with high-ranking business executives over the implications of such trends on their companies ROI. It’s all pretty cool.

Are we friends because a technological application has labeled us as such? Of course not. Am I guilty of sometimes trying to equate friendship with someone I really just want to have a business transaction with? Yes, guilty as charged – although I try hard not to be that person. On the issue of reciprocity: whether business or friendship, both parties need to agree to have a relationship to begin with. period.

Finally, I’ll just add that try to be as helpful as I can be, knowing that it is both a good business model and a good friendship model. But I refuse to feel awkward when I say “no” to something that doesn’t make sense to me. My friends know this about me. (That said, I can see why you would have in that particular case.) Hope that helps. :)

Provocative comments to match a provocative post. Your second paragraph reminded me a great deal of the male/female relationship but is also appropriate in a business relationship or platonic relationship as well (I'm dying to make a joke here but have plenty of time to reveal that I sometimes have a crass sense of humor). =D I agree: both parties need to agree to participate. At the beginning and for the long haul. Enjoyed your comments!

For me, social media is just an extension of how I would normally conduct myself. The same common sense and reasoning applies. If someone is following me that I see is belligerent, negatively focused, selling something I am clearly not interested in or only in it for the # of followers they have, then I am not going to follow-back. If the person's tweets show sincerity I will follow-back, even if what they focus on isn't my game. It stretches my knowledge, gives me a chance to share info that I wouldn't have known about otherwise and in general, I find makes for a more well-rounded experience. Reciprocating everything isn't viable or sustainable. It muddies the water and the message you're trying to get out. I think authenticity is key; be about what you're about. If someone follows you fine. If you chose not to follow them, fine. FB and Twitter are different critters, as are LinkedIn, etc. Each place has it's own set of criteria that you personally have to determine. You have to set the kinds of boundaries that you comfortable with in whatever platform you're networking in. Don't apologize for doing what you feel is best for you. If it's done unselfishly and politely you've got nothing to lose.

You've hit on a strong social contract - reciprocity. For some info on it check out Cialdini's "Influence" - he talks about how reciprocity is one of those things that - as you've said - puts us in an uncomfortable position - and in many cases we reciprocate in order to remove that uncomfortableness. It is a very strong influence principle and shared worldwide.

Don't feel bad - it's normal and expected - and that's what folks with ulterior motives prey on. As all of the great comments above have said - it's all about relevance and relationships.

Normally reciprocity is good for a social relationship as it helps move the relationship forward. However, when there is no "relationship" to begin with it isn't as big a deal - but our brain can't distinguish and that's why you feel bad.

PS - no relationship to Clay Hebert

Being in business means saying no, a lot. We've just discussed some of the myriad of requests we all get. There is no way to do it all.

I can never control the reactions of others, but I can continue to improve the way I say no gracefully. Saying no can be a positive thing. It keeps me focused on my business. It frees them up to look for a better match.

There is a whole truckload of advice on how to do this well. Like any other business skill, it takes practice.

Great question. Like you, I face it every day. I finally decided to treat online relationships like I do IRL. For example: I have quit following back on Twitter, am deleting people I followed back in the beginning when Twitter was smaller, and only follow people I have something in common with, know, or post great content that can teach me something. I also have separate accounts for health care (ushealthcrisis) with @Karoli and @azentrepreneurs for my startup conferences.

With Facebook, I friend people I've already met IRL. I accept friend requests but if I don't recognize the name I don't add them to my feed. I have several different lists, too. And I don't become a fan or join a cause except in exceptional cases of true belief.

On LinkedIn, a site I hate, I maintain a public CV and accept connections as a courtesy if I know the people. Very hard to get me to write a recommendation for you, though, even if you write one for me:-) unless I mean it.

These curations and filters allow me to be authentic without relinquishing that joy of discovery or my "privacy."

thank you for forcing me to collate my thoughts around this crucial subject, Chris. I would friend you anywhere:-)

I follow @hardaway on Twitter, and read her blog today, which led me back to my Gold Standard, Chris, and this amazing discussion.

I think Francine's blog and quote from it, above, summed it up really well, and made me feel better as a Twitter Toddler, that I have been selective in my following and following back. But I was amused to find myself "hurt" when I dropped about 30 followers in one day without a clue. How could I feel any emotion about that when I pretty much have no idea who most of those tweeps even are? Yet, it's easy to turn it into a popularity contest.
@sanderssays posted a question last week asking if you are "patient enuf to build an organic following via good tweeting & targeted follows? Or do U need social steroids?" I answered I was trying to "go 'organic' all the way. Tortoise and Hare tweeting!"
His reply? "Ambitious!"
Why? I know I as a marketer I should aim for a big, broad following, but I'm going with quality over quantity. For now.
Until I get earn a whole entourage and get a SM S-head. (See my explanation on confusing one's personal brand vs. social media personae: http://mosshysteria.blogspot.com/2009/03/you-mi... )

Simple. Cap the number you follow at 150 because you are a Dunbarite. Drop people when they do no longer value to "your" group. This opens space for new follower(s).

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

Why the need to reciprocate? I continue to read about this with regards to social media and relationship building, yet I don't feel the reciprocation builds the relationship. The relationship is built on providing value to my life, and my returning that value in some way.

If you invite me to your group, I am only going to accept it if I feel it will be of value to me. I am not going to accept it because you are "Chris Brogan" and I expect something in return. If I happen to invite you to a group, I should expect you to use the same criteria; is it of value to you or not?

Thank you,
Phil

Thank you Chris Brogan!! I posted on my blog yesterday a frustration that I have been having lately on Facebook.

Facebook is my warm, fuzzy place where I want to minimize business transactions to ground zero. But, I want to get to know strangers to see if they might be people who I can befriend or who choose to befriend me.

I use Facebook for friends and family. True, I can set up other groups, but I have other networking sites for those "things". Facebook is where I want to wake up in the AM, grab my coffee, turn on the computer, pull up FB and see what family and friends have been up to.

Your post asks if reciprocation should take place. I say: it depends.

Welcome to my house, if you don't mind taking your shoes off.

Ciao

Hi Chirs

Oh, this is always such an interesting subject to read/write/discuss about. Last year a whole discussion started on my blog about true "givers gain" principle. The comments really added value to the content because it was all relevant and given freely ;-)

I'd like to quote one of those comments I think just nails it (and it resembles what Kevin said too: the joy of giving)
"When one genuinely gives, it is offered as a gift. There are no strings attached. What we find in life is that by offering ourselves in unselfish ways, people sense that there is not an ulterior motive. The satisfaction comes from the act of giving."
(Written by Steve Roesler)

Karin H. (Keep It Simple Sweetheart, specially in business)

Social contracts are the issue and, especially in the world of sales, the assumed contract of too many sellers is reciprocal action. Traditional salespeople give to get, which means they aren't really giving at all. Instead, they are taking a unilateral action with the expectation it will cause others to provide the desired response. When the "buyer", who may or may not have ever been in the mind to buy anything, fails to respond as expected, the seller feels cheated. Amazing but all too often, very true.

I do not automatically follow-back on Twitter. I did at one time, but frankly Twitter is full of people selling stuff that does not interest me in the least. And the auto-DM "thank you for following me" messages that immediately try to sell me something are aweful, usually yet another of the "increase your followers by hundreds" scheme that will lock me into a dreaded API quagmire. Further, I have no interest in dating, I am married; I have no interest in real estate, I own my home and love my community with no plans to move; I have no interested in buying sex, not that being married always satisfies that area (hey, I'm a man). However, there are real estate and dating focused Tweeters that I may follow because they have something for a greater common good to contribute, which is my interest.

I do not believe there is some inherent social contract that comes with social media. Tom Collins writes in another comment that he doesn't see relationships in emergent networks as transactional, with which I agree, but isn't sure of the term he would use instead. "Organic" is a useful term when referring to how I prefer to "build my list" of followers and friends, but the descriptor I am looking for in describing the nature of those relationships is transformational, rather than transactional.

Hi Chris,

I think it depends on how broad the definition, usability, and portability of information is to the person who's making the decision to follow, join, etc.

Let's say someone who is well-known on Twitter creates a page. I follow them because I like what they say, I am interested, albeit peripherally, in their stated focus, or, I just think they're kinda neat as a person. I may not even partake of their product, yet something about the person interests me enough to follow them, to listen to them, to interact, and to potentially "join" their activities. Someone like Gary Vanerchuk (sp?? @garyvee on Twitter) fits this. I don't drink wine, don't go to wine tastings, have no clue about the difference between this red and that red wine. But for me, someone's vibrancy, business acumen, human-ness, intellect and just-plain "person-hood" entices me to hear what he has to say.

Let's take another look. Let's say I sell real estate (which I do). Let's say someone isn't interested in real estate unless they're doing a transaction, which is the tack a lot of people take. I'm not offended by that. Let's say, however, that there's a broader scope of real estate that has a decided effect on the local economy and even on economies of scale nationally. And, that what I ever say about real estate has its local component, state component, national and even international components. Whatever I say about real estate also has to fit within a number of other scenarios and particular criteria, including my licensure in specific state(s). Now, I do have a "fan" page, and I haven't really "invited" anyone to link to or join it or whatever the phrase is, because I actually just haven't found "inviting" people as such to be something I enjoy. The focus, at that point, appears to be a little too much "about me" versus about listening to others.

Point being, if there is a broad enough reason to have a peripheral interest in someone's industry or, a wider scope of thinking how and what the person has to say could be of value, then that's the criteria I use to follow someone, friend someone, or talk with someone in real life. I could be wrong, but that's how I look at it.

I hope this makes sense!

Gina Kay

Things ain't like they used to be, Chris. And that's both a good and a bad thing. I've been thinking about this a lot and it's fascinating to explore how we manage ourselves when pushed to full utilization.

I think you've got it, Peter. Things aren't like they used to be. Here came everybody, and we all got what we wished for. Now we have to deal with it:-) I am with the people who say that curation is the key to the overwhelming amount of content that comes through social media.

I think it depends on the situation. I have felt this same awkwardness when someone requests that I become a "fan" of a specific group or business. Generally this would happen when I knew the person but had not done business with the new service provider. In the end I decided that my criteria for becoming a fan of a business was to have used the service at one point, was satisfied with the service, and would be comfortable recommending it to a friend.

Bottom line is this - make up your own criteria for joining/friending/fanning and stick to it consistently. If you are consistent in your treatment of others they should not become upset - if they do, they are unjustified, at least in my humble opinion.

Hope this helps!

A "follow" or interaction of any sort can't and shouldn't be perceived as automatic, expected, or deserved.

They -- being whoever decided to freely follow, subscribe, or purchase that I provide -- did it because they found my product of value. It was interesting, it was intriguing, it was relevant.

But just because they felt that about my product, doesn't necessarily mean I'll feel the same about theirs.

It's not because I don't like them as a person, it's not because I'm judging them.

But to automatically believe that because you "put yourself out there" -- into the digital, no handshake world -- you deserve unconditional reciprocity would be incorrect.

I'd like to think I provide valuable information worthy of similar behavior. But that doesn't mean I'm insulted when that doesn't happen. If anything I'm encouraged to keep going -- to work harder to get to that point.

Joining a group, following on Twitter, making a transaction -- it's all earned.

Intimacy, when granted online or in person is evidence of our freedom of choice executed based on feelings of trust and levels of interest. Forced intimacy, in any situation, is evidence of exploitation.

One has the power to fuel our happiness; the other simply leaves us feeling used.

I feel there are two types of social media connections: strong and weak. Strong connections are things like a friend on facebook that you know in real life. You share pictures, videos, even your relationship status. Weak connections are like ones on twitter or me following your blog. We're not friends in real life but information is still shared (not quite as personal info but solid info nonetheless.

I think weak connections are very important and can develop into stronger connections. Weak connections allow people to interact without much risk. I can follow someone on twitter, but they don't have to follow back. In facebook or linkedIn you have to mutually agree to be friends.

So I'd say that with weak connections there is no obligation to follow back or join someone's fan page because they joined yours. You can choose which weak connections you want to strengthen if you think there's something cool there or you want to know more.

If somebody follows me and I find his/her conversations interesting, I follow back. If not, I don't. I didn't expect you to follow back, but I think this is why social media is wonderful. The rock star can follow the fan. The fact that you did says a lot about the kind of person you are. Now I know why you have a community around you. In the same way, I can 'dare' invite you or converse with you because in the social media ecosystem, the boundaries between a 'somebody' and a 'nobody' are dismantled. If you decline, it'll be ok with me. If I tweet you and you don't respond all the time, it's still ok. But that's because I already have a clear set of expectations, ethics or guidelines in my mind. I guess you just have to do what you can and the majority of the community will understand. On another note: not sure if this is relevant or applicable to you, but maybe some sort of 'delegation' or involvement of other members can help you have more time to address questions, comments, etc. Involving others in the conversation so to speak?...

I think we need to do what feels authentic for ourselves and our businesses. It won't please all the people all the time but it will please most. You come across as always authentic. This is an unfortunate reaction but it is the other party's problem not yours. Thanks for all that you share with us.

So....Does that mean...you WILL or WILL NOT be joining my voltron action figure fan page? j/k Chris...As usual this is a great read.

I think it's important for people who are beginning to engage in social media to know that its not a spamming game nor a mass follow game. Those people are missing the boat. It's not about how many followers you have or how many people are listed on your fan page. Loren Feldman has been preaching this FOREVER!! Wake up people. Don't get your panties in a bunch if someone doesn't follow you. These people simply DO NOT GET IT and it frustrates the piss out of me.

Furthermore, I think people are making a mistake by getting their feelings involved, much like in highschool, where they expect things to happen according to an unspoken list of social rules. Follow me and I'll follow you...

PREPARE FOR BOLD STATEMENT (makes sense to me)

If everyone followed everyone - social media would fail! (agree?)
social media would fail because we wouldn't hear anyone's message.
In two words = Epic Fail

I am very selective with whom I follow. Not because I am a snob, it's because I want to make sure that my channels of communication don't get noisy. And, frankly, a person only has so much time to be an "ACTIVE" part of any one group. So joining hundreds of groups and following everyone who follows you in a gesture of reciprocation doesn't make much sense (which reminds me - I need to do some housecleaning on my facebook account)

What we have to remember is that people follow for several reasons, some good, and others bad. People receive "good" follows from others because they provide value and engage in meaningful conversations. And then there are the "bad" follows from those who want to gain another follow number (which makes them feel/look important), spam their links, and push their agenda.

Chances are somebody is just not interested in your tweets or fan page, and that should be ok. If it's not relevant to their lives it doesn't make sense to follow/join.

People have to remember that if they are not contributing to the conversation or adding any value then they probably will not get a reciprocal follow.

Not sure that I made my point cohesive but I just had to say something about this because Twitter and facebook are getting worse each day with idiots who don't know what they are doing and I personally #BlameDrewsCancer for those who mess up social media.

#LIVESTRONG

Always entertaining Chris. Thanks for getting me fired up this morning.

All my best,
Preston Taylor

I think much of this simply has to to with the fact that we human beings are emotional and communal: it's natural for us to want our relationships to be reciprocal - even in business activity, our human side can influence our reaction to No.

Of course, reason takes a different approach and understands that not all relationships benefit from reciprocity. I may benefit from following your content, while you don't benefit from mine. In that case, there's really not much economic or social incentive for you to reciprocate. Purely logical beings don't have any problem with this.

But we're social animals and we enjoy reciprocity regardless of the logic behind it.

How do I handle: I tend to reciprocate if the other person offers something of value (even if it's not exactly quid pro quo). I explain my reason, short and to the point, and hope the other person is self-actualized. (Alas, that's not always the case these days, but c'est la vie.)