Not if you’re smart about it. These social networks are billboards. If you believe in the information superhighway, our profiles on these networks are billboards on the side of the road directing you to Chris Brogan’s general store, just off Highway 66. My MySpace profile is a billboard, not a destination - my web site is the destination.

Woe to the shopowner who confuses the billboard for the store.

Another great analogy … how do you respond? What do you want? An aggregator or a complete solution? Neither?

Maybe they’re big box stores … you start with Caldor and Bradley’s then Crazy Eddies then Radio Shack then The Wiz then Circuit City then Best Buy and then … Amazon?

Yeah, there are tiers of quality in your personal brand when it comes to web presence. The key is to keep the little ’strip malls’ (and ‘billboards’) as updated and current as the showcase site so that they redirect traffic, to where the brand is represented best.

Blogger may be old and less functional than a modern Wordpress site, for example, but it sure indexes the information fast on Google!

Are you asking to leverage the spatial metaphor to show our co-location? Reminds me of geocities in the late 90s.. you had a “home page” in a specific neghbourhood. Your URL was actually like a house number, and you could browse your neighbourhood. There were houses with for sale signs (available URLs), houses that were really elaborate and cared for (I believe this indicated recently updated), and houses that were quite run-down. They really had this whole sense of community going on.

I actually served as a “community leader” where I would go through my neighburhood, check sites for signs of TOS violations and offer support to people who were having trouble getting things started. It was actually a pretty neat idea, that whole fostering community way before “social networking” and “online communities” became the buzzwords they are today.

Here’s a slightly different spin from a guy who is not quite sold on the personal brand thing, I could argue either side of the issue.

I believe social networks are bars or for those that don’t drink restaurants. They are attractive at first for atmosphere, but if there are no people or the crowd (even if small) doesn’t satisfy some desire you have then, you will stop going.

I see Rubel’s point with the concept of renting or buying. To some extent that concept is more self-centered and a business oriented approach. To use your mall metaphor, does that mean Rubel is an anchor store? Is that how social sites view their ability to attract eyeballs (translation $) by getting A-listers with built in networks? perhaps.

The issue of technology aside, that being in Twitter’s case if the technology becomes unreliable as to not allow communication which is what holds everyone together then surely another destination will be found.

In its raw form and in theory social media is about the group not the individual. I like Chris “$.99 Margarita” Brogan, and will surely try a meal or two at the restaurant he suggests, but it is not the only place I will eat.

I know Chris will agree, if we see a place down the road that looks interesting we’ll try it, hell I might even buy, and we will both be richer for it. (well I’ll be out a few extra bucks, but you know what I mean.)

And here in his house, I love what you’ve done to the place. The remodeling is great, love the color pattern, and thanks for inviting me over.

The equity you bring to other social sites is a fraction of that place. In the physical world, if you hang out in a bar, bring your friends, buy them drinks the smart bar owner will appreciate your patronage in some way.

One can also make the case that an individual wants to share with those in their network fun, reliable sites (bars), places where there is both atmosphere and good food. By doing this, that individual’s equity rises, maybe not directly their digital real estate, but something more important, their reputation. (or is this their personal brand? Could be)

This issue gets to the business side of social media. I take no positions here, just providing some food (and drink) for thought.

An interesting analogy, but one that for me highlights the problems rather than the benefits. A chain of stores requires a huge infrastructure to manage and maintain their retail presence. Those stores that receive little attention by management will become run down, dirty, and can tarnish the brand.

Chris Penn’s billboard analogy makes more sense to me, but still presents the same challenge: how do you maintain so many different networks? If you “friend” me on one service, do you “friend” me on all of them? And if you do, how many times will you be exposed to the same message? At what point does it become too repetitive? And how in the world do I keep all of those billboards from looking like the ones along the highway that advertise gas at 99 cents per gallon?

I do really love your idea of Wal-Mart and time travel. There’s a novel in there somewhere. Though truth be told, if I were to time travel and land in a Wal-Mart, I would probably end it all.

Some of us die-hard nerds host our own blogs - a few with our own blog software. Does that make us true brick-and-mortar small business owners? :)

FWIW, I still “rent” space on facebook, twitter, plurk, friendfeed, etc. etc. etc. Those are my branch locations. :)

Love this post and not just because I was mentioned. Heh heh. Seriously, great analogies by everyone!!!
Wow… talk about simile city! Nice stuff.

Need to read it all again. brb

Renting. It never appealed to me. But, now I am renting all over the Internet. The social network software providers (Facebook etc.) insist on owning the content I create.

I yield to this demand because I enjoy proximity to others with similar interests. It is a trade off that I accept because I know if I produced the same content on my blog 4 people would see it, counting me.

Chris Penn struck a chord with me. I would rather possess my content (maybe on my blog) and treat the social network software providers as billboards. However, I don’t want to turn my home into a strip mall. Hmm.

As Ann said above, the time travel, Walmart line is genius!

And I totally see where the analogy is coming from, and I definitely agree to some extent, and with the comment that the main problem it creates is building an infrastructure to support 20 branches of my main store on every major social network, without using an automated service to spam them all and hit some of my contacts 4 or 5 times (one for each service on which I’ve connected with them)

Right on, Chris.

I’m a proponent of going “deep” rather than “broad”. I think that if you want to have an impact (in business or in the world), you have to throw your might behind a few key things, else you’ll be spread too thin. Check out two books: “Mastery” by George Leonard, and “Now, Discover Your Strengths” by Marcus Buckingham.

Yeah, I know these books are a little self-helpy, but they’re really strong arguments for the idea that you shouldn’t worry so much about what you’re bad at, and focus everything on what you’re good at. Of course, that’s what Seth Godin’s “The Dip” is about too. I liked all 3 books.

What’s the point? What’s this all have to do with what you’re talking about? I AM signed up on all of the networks & profiles you mention (and then some), but not to participate in. I’m just name squatting, making sure I don’t lose my common username (joshklein – add me anywhere!).

I really participate in half-a-dozen social networks, and they each serve a specific purpose for me. Facebook is for my college and high school friends, since I was age-appropriate when the service first came out, and I rarely add business contacts. That’s what I use LinkedIn for. Then there is stumbleupon, which I actively use to rate sites, and del.icio.us to bookmark them. Twitter is, to me, IM’ing my whole group of contacts at once.

The point is, I don’t devote any time to social networks that I get no INHERENT value out of. I use Stumbleupon, and not Digg, because I personally find Digg useless (these days).

The inherent value of these services provides me the energy to also create a network around myself at these locations. It means I have something in common with the people I meet, and we’re able to have meaningful conversations about our common interest.

It’s the difference between renting a little spot in a hundred strip malls and building a flagship store in each of the major cities.

@Ann:

Keep your house list close - maintain a good database on your own computer of people you connect with, so that you can port that from service to service as need be.

I’ve been kicked off MySpace 16 times now. I don’t say this as a badge of honor, just a reality. MySpace has decided in the past that my hanging neon lights, christmas lights, spot lights, and fireworks on my billboard on the highway was not okay.

If I had made the billboard the shop, I’d have lost the shop and probably gone home. Instead, I just put up a new billboard, and don’t do what I did to get the last one taken down.

Different people hang out on different networks. Know the demographics of the network you want to participate in, and focus your efforts there. I explain this in presentations I do on the topic that you’re planting the flag in a bunch of territories, but you build your castle in the one where you can do the most good.

Nice analogy.
I’ve been kind of struggling with this one of late. I write a lot about commercial voice over, acting, and directing. It seems every other day, there’s a new blogging/network/forum popping up, but the audience is just migratory.
I’m constantly signing on to the new flavor of the week, just to follow around the same audience.

We all know that there’s no way to be signed up for all of these services, and to really be working EACH one. I long for some consolidation, or at least an easier way to network all of this stuff…

Personally I do think it is a good brand strategy to online on different social networks. But just like any other brand, being everywhere, such as WalMart, is viewed as a bad thing. I think we should limit ourselves and companies should limit themselves to the social media outlets that work for them.

Christopher S. Penn’s “follow my billboard to my store” analogy is wrong, to me. Every mention of “you” online is your store, because you don’t know if the viewer will ever go to the Christopher S. Penn version of your store (your website). So, that billboard you thought was a billboard actually needs to be a store. Every flickr photo you upload is a store, your facebook and myspace profile(s)? Stores.

[…] Chris is writing in response to a Steve Rubel post about how we are all just “renting” space ton different social networks and how this has an effect on how we are perceived. […]

@Mark Baratelli, Christopher Penn’s analogy still holds, as those photos and profile pages are simply billboards or inserts or full page ads or 30 second commercials. They are a sample of you/your product/your service. They help establish authority, authenticity and value.

Which lends to Ann’s point about tending them…well that’s where services like ping.fm and tubemogul come in. Tools that enable you to simultaneously update multiple profiles and points of presence instead of having to go clock by clock to adjust for daylight savings.

Finally, to Andy Dunbar’s point: well made, sir. Indeed, different destinations have different flavors and audiences. You don’t necessarily need to be everywhere and everywhere you are doesn’t necessarily need to look the same. Although they should all be consistent in message and brand.

Chris, nice post and a better experience than the twebinar, but it drove me to a thought. Which is that strip malls are monotonous and the stores that inhabit them tend to lack the soul, flavor and customization that people often seek. So, while billboards don’t look all that different from one another, it’s important that what you are offering and the way in which you offer it needs to be personal and unique…not just another 99 cent store.

What a great analogy!! I enjoyed this post very much Chris, thank you.

There’s a great book I am reading called Obsessive Branding Disorder. Seeing how the process works, and how many times it becomes a substitute for the much harder task of research and development, or actual innovation is concerning in many ways.

Likewise, with personal branding,the different sites are all about displaying your personal “book” well at the bookstore. Is it included in those front tables, where everyone stops to take a look and read the jacket covers? Is it in the right section of the store? Did you somehow get stuck with the kid books when you wanted to be in Popular Fiction, Business and Management, Parenting, or even Technology? If you are in the right section, are you n the “end cap” as a featured author, or are you somewhere in the mix? Is you book jacket relevant to the contents inside?

In the end, the substance of what’s between the covers, what you are all about and how much personal development of yourself you have done, will determine the quality of the book. You may not always have the best seller on your hands immediately, but you’ll have work that you’re proud of, that will stand the test of time, and prepare you to continue to write fantastic work that will be significant.

Now, I am not suggesting we’re all Jane Austen or even Carl Haaisen or Dave Barry, but I do still believe that quality is more important for real engagement than just quantity. And to use Mr. Penn’s analogy, you might get better success depending on where you decide to put your billboards and be a bit strategic about the placement and how you decorate them for maximum traffic draw.

Great post chris. It’s much like a grocery store- walking down separate aisles but yet in the same space and store. A little of this- a little of that- all mind food for folks to munch on- you choose what suits your taste-and there are no cash registers- only more aisles being built to choose from daily it seems. great comments reading on this post as well.

Well, I understand these “brand me” analogies and even employ the skill set to some degree, but to be honest if I take this approach as the focus in my own social networking it tends to exhaust rather than invigorate me.

Sure I want people to know who I am and come to me when they want personal service and beautiful design, and sure I want to share who I am and bring my own perspective to the table, but what I really want is a good conversation, an experience of truly connecting with others or exploring new ways of being together in this extraordinary medium. I want to learn something I didn’t know before, make friends with people who astound and delight me.

Ultimately I’m in this game to see how the world wide web can benefit our collective human evolution, not market myself. I want to share my vision and inspire people. I suspect some version of that is what actually motivates many of us. Yet the economic language of the marketplace is what we know best, or has somehow become the conventional medium of exchange. Of course we need to make a living, but I’m not sure that should be the guiding purpose, or even metaphor for our online interaction and social networking activity.

Just musing here… what do you think?

I agree with Chris Penn, all of these sites should act as billboards to point people back to your own site/blog. That is where the effort goes, that is where the payoff is.

I find it curious, Chris, that in your list of social media sites, aka strip mall stores, you belong to, you fail to mention your blog at chrisbrogan.com.

Unless if you are different than, say, Dan Schawbel and Penelope Trunk, you also engage with people on Twitter, Facebook, and their ilk for the sole purpose of ultimately drawing friends and strangers to your blog, no?

So why not list your blog in the list of social sites?

Two other questions…

Josh Klein: Focusing on just StumbleUpon and Del.icio.us, do you use the sites for your own benefit or for other people to see your ratings and bookmarks?

Amy Lenzo: If you don’t want to market yourself, why are you posting a comment on someone else’s blog and moreover with your real name and not something like SweetCheeks25? Of course, you’re marketing yourself.

Hi Ari,

Thanks for your comment - I’m sorry if I gave the impression I don’t want to market myself (of course I do - and I thought I was explicit about that).

Perhaps I wasn’t very skillful in doing so, but what I meant to ADD to this excellent and important conversation was an opening to explore what lies beyond marketing for us. I was trying to say that, for me at least, there is a lot more going on here.

I’m commenting on “someone else’s blog” because I read it and have a response to what Chris said in this post. There are thousands of blogs to read - I read Chris’s for a number of reasons, but largely because I’m stimulated by the conversations he opens up. I’m part of a conversation here, as are you.

I know that the “game” of using social media effectively is to engage in conversation and thus market ourselves, but I was saying there is also the love of conversation, in and for itself; the pleasure of meeting people you can learn from, the adventure of playing in a new as-yet-unbounded medium.

What I didn’t say effectively was how this relates to the question of how much energy to put out on different social media as opposed to one’s own blog. The question was being put forward in strictly commercial terms - marketing, real estate, branding, strip malls - and I was suggesting there are also other considerations at play.

I put energy into the conversations I’m attracted to, and in some cases they are consciously part of a marketing strategy, and in others they most certainly are not. I almost totally play & explore on Seesmic, for example. I exercise my personal creativity on Flickr, I network on LinkedIn, I use FaceBook to communicate with my 21 year old son and his friends AND as part of a communications strategy for the non-profit where I am a Community Tech Steward.

My point was there are different motivations for putting one’s energy and attention into different social media, and that many of us are motivated by not only commercial considerations, but by what feeds us on other levels, as I heard Albert Maruggi suggesting in his comment.

We are not just shop owners, to use Chris Penn’s analogy, and that fact will effect how much time and energy we spend on different social media sites. Some are simply “billboards”, and others are more personally, creatively or socially engaging.

Oh Lordy you’re more right than you thought… I’ll be on me.com from July 11th ;)

I don’t think blogs count as social sites, i.e. they are not there for the purpose of interaction per se, that is a side effect of the ones that allow comments.

What is your take on the inevitable thinning out of these sites that is overdue? I’m tired of reposting and checking so many sites, when email always worked okay in the past. I ditched that when I got a lot of spam, and I prefer Pownce of all the me-too messaging sites as it does something useful. But… these will perish or merge, for sure!

@Ari - I use del.icio.us to bookmark for myself. I lost too many bookmarks over the years, and I find the ability to bookmark them on the web incredibly valuable. On the other side of things, I use Stumbleupon to network and share content with my friends. So a little of each.

[…] conversation on Chris Brogan’s blog about personal branding, strip malls and billboards has developed in a way that I think is a bit off the mark. I don’t disagree with Brogan or […]

[…] Strip Malls for Personal Brands […]