Using Social Networking and Media Offline

Very interesting point, Chris, and actually something that I have struggled with myself. I am actually one of the few musicians in my field who have branched out into the online/social media arena, and I am still waiting to see what the overall reaction from others in my field will be. I do it because I enjoy it and "believe" in it, but I'm not sure how the other, more traditional media folks, will react.

One example of how online/offline media affected me was with my holiday cards this past year. Every year, I used to order hundreds of personalized cards to send out, and I would address each one by hand, writing a personalized note, and send it to over 600 people/friends who I work with and who are involved in my career. This would literally take me over a month of detailed planning in order to make work. But I did it because I knew a lot of them were not so tech-oriented, didn't really use or like e-mail, and I felt that it also gave a really personal touch for me to do that.

But it just got out of hand this year, and so for the first time I decided to just send a mass e-card to everyone, knowing that some of them wouldn't even probably receive it.

Most of my life is gradually being taken up more and more by the demands of those who communicate and connect with me via online methods. It doesn't mean that I wouldn't want to communicate via offline methods (often times, actually, I enjoy it because I have a chance to really personalize things) - but as you mentioned, the online world starts taking up so much of my time, the offline just starts to become too time-consuming and inconvenient.

Ideally, I think a nice balance between the two would be a great way to address all the different types of situations/people, but I wonder if there really is a way to truly balance the two, without one consuming the other in terms of time and effort.

You're right about the correlation between social activities online mostly having a real-world substitute. Really, it's probably the other way around.

There may be a further divide that's worth exploring. I've been thrashing around the twittersphere for the last couple of weeks saying things that make me look dumb as I figure out the subtle nuances of how it works. It is not that I'm not connected and online, I definitely am. The real issue is that I haven't had any compelling reason to be on twitter. Nobody I work with or talk to in the real world regularly uses it.

It's not like I'm working in a ball-bearing factory, I'm talking about people in startup software companies. I mention friendfeed, or twitter, or service x, and there's a pretty high bar. There is a lot of resistance to adding another thing to have to create an account on and then *really* pay for by spending their time and energy working to build and maintain a presence. The common denominator seems to be linkedin, they all have an account there. And email - that's a pretty solid social network. I seriously doubt that you'll find any of them on facebook.

So, I guess my point is that it's not just having an internet connection that does it. You can spend the majority of your day online and never deal with the current crop of social networking shiny objects.

(trying to get my commenting in before "going dark" for an hour for EarthHour '08)

I agree most networking/social things offline have online counterparts, but the thing that draws me, is that the distance factor is removed when online. My family lives 2 hours away by car, so we phone or keep in touch through email and IM. The rest of my extended family lives in IL and relies on Flickr, Twitter, Facebook, etc to see what I'm up to via pictures (and vice versa, obviously).
It's interesting to note that most of my online networking doesn't match up with my offline social activities (or very rarely). I guess I figure, if I see them everyday at work, why do they need to know what I'm doing by reading my Twitter feed?

It came to me pretty quickly that computers really aren’t a hard and fast requirement for attempting to get the same results I often preach about. In fact, it kind of opened my own eyes, too.

Indeed - I tend to think that SMM is simply an extension of what was already happening in the offline world, and as a consequence, has helped propel it to ever greater levels of uptake. Blogs, Twitter, etc all, in a sense, enable asynchronous communication and discussion with those you might mee at an industry conference.

But it just got out of hand this year, and so for the first time I decided to just send a mass e-card to everyone, knowing that some of them wouldn’t even probably receive it.

On of the best examples I have seen of mass communication was actually through a non-technical friend of mine. He went to South America for a Doctors Without Borders assignment and basically setup a blog to keep everyone posted about his experiences. I told him to have his family and friends subscribe to the blog via Feedburner. Mass e-cards, or a blog post as a substitute are an incredible medium. And best of all, you know that those who do subscribe to the blog are the few that do really care.

I agree with Arpan- Online allows you to replicate the message out to more people in a low-cost fashion- no postage with email, no need to send a CD if you have a podcast, etc.

Offline communication seems to command a little more effort and energy, and demand more direct attention, where online communication can be episodic, less "demanding" of attention- but it also has a longevity and archiving feature offline does not. For example, blog posts can live forever, but I end up tossing christmas cards, short notes people send, etc. Then there's the search feature to online communication,less time sensitivity - it goes on and on.

I've been listening to the audio version of The Ten Faces of Innovation- and it's fascinating to me how much cultural anthropology goes into innovation. You have to study the people and the problem in order to pose solutions that might work for them.

For example, In order to show people why online works, you have to show them that the offline tasks they do can be done differently, and perhaps more efficiently online. Online vs. offline depends on the circumstances and content of messages- Sometimes, offline works better or is much simplier than online; sometimes online just aggregates information better. Ultimately, it's about the understanding of the person and the problem,and finding the best solution, on or offline to meet the need.

I think its mostly true, except for the Twitter/Facebook Status comparison. That has the ability to include people in a conversation before they are ready or comfortable to join it, but on a much larger scale than simply overhearing. I'm not sure I 100% see a natural real-world alternative to it.

When I think of social media I think of quick and interesting. The phone is actually one of my favorite ways to connect with people. You can engage them with a quick idea, get their feedback and be done in five minutes. But the thing with social media is that they should all be utilized to get the most out of connecting with others.

Email is so much faster than a letter. Flickr is so much easier than mailing pictures. I don't think your friend should stop trying to connect with people, but he should try learning these new skills because it will save him time, money and reach a larger audience.

In my opinion computers are necessary in the social realm because if you are going to make impressions on people it needs to be done at many angles.

Everyone paints a rosy picture of how everything can be done online, but I would add "be selective" to get the best results. What works for someone else may not work for you, and that's because you both have different requirements.

BUT what Internet options do that real world options do not, is allow you to try a ton of different things for free usually, so you can see what works/pays off or what doesn't work/doesn't have results you want. Usually much faster than the real world for no cost but your time.

Additional bonus of online stuff: you always learn something from the application you try (i.e., how they do it) and can add that knowledge to improve your own offerings. So even the downside of online stuff has an upside.

nice post, it's always good to stretch your imagination and peek outside that box.

Hi Chris,
What immediately occurs to me about this topic is that the offline options all have tremendously more power as communication - because they engage more senses. Touch and feel, smell, etc along with the visual.

Communicating between us humans is about telling stories. The richness of a multi sense experience in telling a story is without a doubt more powerful than the on line version.

And the off line creates something else, as well. It's harder, so it is done only when you really want to. It's easy enough to share a photo album with me on line, but you would never send me a photograph in the mail, unless you knew me.

Thanks,
Steve

Sorry, just can't help saying one more thing!

The set of assumptions in this comment thread is very interesting.

Most comments assume the value of communication is to reach more people faster and more easily. And so, on line wins.

What about reaching people more slowly and with more nuance and subtlety? I live in a small town in the north of Vermont. I've been here for 11 years, and I'm just starting to get the community concept here. It's very subtle - and when you know everyone and everyone knows you, you begin to see the value of this kind of conservative social subtlety.

Steve

@Steve - really good point. Especially in a place like Vermont (I'm from Maine), being "from away" takes a very long time to shake.

Chris - I like to think about this as developing relationships and building communities using the best tool to do so. We network at business events, we network via Twitter and LinkedIn etc. Many business people I know don't use these tools yet and that's ok, I connect via email, phone or in person. But the beauty of online is the ability to connect with people you've never met and probably may never meet, in places you've never been without the time or geographical constraints of an in-person meeting. However, once the connection is made, hopefully someday you get the chance to meet offline so that the relationship can take on a different dimension.

Rather than seeing these online/offline events as one versus another, or one substituting another, you really have to see them as compliments – a symbiotic relationship. Sure, they can exist separately, but they are stronger together.

Social Networking Online AND Off:

I see a status message on twitter or facebook that someone I know is going to an event, so I call them for more a more in depth conversation and make plans to meet up.

I meet someone at a networking event, and then go on to friend them, and then I get to know them on a deeper level online (I met you, Chris, at PodCamp Europe, and I feel like I know a lot more about you now because of your blogging and other online activities)

Ultimately, a relationship can only go so far online – it definitely has limitations. But the two together – now that’s powerful.

I definitely agree. Though it is ironic that half of the reasons why we socially network online is to be able to do the same offline. However, to be honest I've been doing the majority of my networking online. I feel this is because the online community is very much interested in doing the same and it's much easier to ignore someone online than in person lol.