Mark,

You probably know that I am not a fan of self-appointed social media “experts” and “gurus”. There is A LOT of BS being sold as thought leadership an in the Social Media and Marketing worlds these days. Lots of so-called related “experience” as well. And yeah, like you, it annoys the crap out of me.

Coming from “the client side” (having spent most of my career actually managing business units, driving innovation, selling stuff, justifying budgets and campaigns and programs) I have a very different perspective than most of the Social Media folks I keep running into. It seems that the vast majority of these folks come from agency backgrounds. PR, Advertising, marketing, digital, etc. And for the most part, their background puts them at a distinct disadvantage.

But let me come to the defense of the A-listers here for a sec. The ones I have met so far actually do know what they’re talking about. They may not have all the answers (neither do I), but they’re pretty good at what they do, and they’re wicked smart. If anything, they help advance the discussion.

I can’t really speak for Mark of Beth (photo, above) because I haven’t met them yet. But I’ll say this about them: They’re smart and they bring very specific, unique skillsets to the table. So far, I’ve found myself on their side of the fence on just about every issue. I’ve read Mack’s blog for years, and I have a lot of respect for him. Beth also seems to have her sh*t together and I have a lot of professional respect for her.

Chris and Amber (photo, above), I have met. And you know, I was pretty impressed with both of them. They’re very smart, very professional and kind, and wonderfully approachable. Chris and Amber both work with some pretty big clients and have real experience with cultural, operational and technical integration of SM.

This is just my opinion, but I find that these social media A-listers are exactly who they say they are, and they’re the good guys. (A rare thing in a world of social media snake oil salesmen.) I would LOVE to work on a project with each and every one of these folks. (That’s my endorsement.)

The reason why you may not be impressed by the content of some of the books you’ve picked up may be that by following these folks, you’ve already been exposed to the content they repackaged for print. Know what I mean? Usually, by the time I get a Marketing book from someone whose blog I’ve been reading for years, the book feels like deja-vu. Just a thought.

Anyway, all of this to say that Chris, Amber, Mack and Beth are good people. Genuinely good people. And while they may or may not have as much corporate experience as some, they’re still among the most solid Social Media practitioners and thought leaders in the US. Don’t let the echo-chamber of retweets fool you. They’re not posers, and they are not overrated.

Cheers,

Olivier

Mark,

I haven’t read the book but it is on my list as thus far I have been learning quite a bit from Chris and the other social media experts (and you too).

What I find most interesting in your post is that you choose to call them a “country club”. When I think of country clubs I think of exclusive places that many times the members look down at those outside the club.

My experience with two of the four pictured has been nothing but good. I mean, Chris has replied to my tweets and he doesn’t know me from Adam.

It’s one thing to criticize the work, it’s another to criticize the person.

David,

You know I don’t screw around when I sniff out a social media hack.

I LIVE for debate in this space because it leads to better execution in it. I’ve made a few enemies by not kissing arse when it would have been politically expedient to do so, and I expect I will make a few more yet. It’s unfortunate, but it happens.

I am not sure if that willingness to question the questionable has hurt me or helped me in terms of popularity or credibility. (Probably thumbs-up on credibility, thumbs-down on popularity?)

I am hungry for real conversations though. Real note-sharing. I am not interested in the usual anecdotal case studies anymore. They’re a waste of time unless they address real issues: How silos were circumvented. How budgeting was justified. How measurement was adapted to the business’ needs. How the company incorporated SM into its mix of activities. How internal politics were dealt with. How staff was trained. Etc. REAL topics, not the usual 101 evangelistic crap people tout as marketing revelations for a new worldof conversations.

We’re getting there, I think. Slowly.

Thanks for rocking the boat, Mark.

It seems that much of the discussion in social media circles around the various aspects of social media itself instead of how it could be put to practical use from a marketing/sales standpoint.

As you said in your social media myth post earlier, marketing and sales are the ultimate reasons for many of us for being present in social media, and nothing wrong with that.

Your point about the actual real-life competencies of the “gurus” is very valid. Of course, you need to be friendly to attract people, you need to provide valuable content to establish your credentials (and “thought leadership”, if you will), and you need to build critical follower mass to be heard, but those are really no-brainers. That’s what you do if you’re in marketing. Where it becomes difficult is the next step – conversion. I haven’t seen much in this department except wishful thinking. Also, if – as it seems to be – it’s mostly marketers and consultants talking to other marketers and consultants, the equation totally misses the most important variable: prospective clients and customers. Of whom not so many actually hang out in social media.

As Ben Hanna points out in his article on Small Business Trends, Twitter for business is mass communication. In other words, much more “push” than “pull”. No matter how we want to think about it.

Bout time someone calls it like it is. Have been thinking the same thing for a while now, only you articulated the feeling far better.

I think there is a tendency for the Social Media elite among us to get caught up in stroking the egos regardless of whether it’s warranted or not.

I find that 80% (oops.. there’s Pareto’s Law again – HAH) of what I’m reading makes me shake my head at how obvious it is. I wonder why they felt the need to invest so much time to state the obvious, yet within minutes everyone is creating a frenzy around how great it is – when it’s really not.

I have read loads and loads of industry books. Two of them made me sit up and take notice… and one of those books was Chris Anderson’s Free. The rest? well.. perhaps like you say… if you’re a newcomer to Social… then yes, you’ll probably get some value from it.

I have been wondering why we’re all caught up in this social media 101 phase. Then it dawned on me… aside from the tech that may evolve, Social Media is a very basic concept that is anything but rocket science.

Great post. Refreshing to see someone just tell it like it is.

Hey Andreas Duess – Pareto’s law again I see. HAH! Love that 80/20 rule.

I love this place. Mark – you have a gift for raising the issues that really get people thinking.

And my thoughts are that we have a perfect market situation. The social media elite are the established brands, who got there by doing something well once. If they continue to do that thing well, they continue to resist the competition offered by newcomers (like you Mark). If they slip, they get overtaken.

Trouble is, it takes a while for this to happen because reputation takes a long while to break down. Coke, Marlboro, Microsoft et all can afford to make a LOT of mistakes before their pulling power is diminished.

And so it is with social media. The luminaries will gradually attract fewer and fewer sycophants if their output wanes in quality. Eventually they get overtaken, because market forces are in operation.

And that will leave room for the next visionaries. We’ve just got to be patient and accept that this is how it works in all markets.

Just keep the topics coming Mark and you’ll be up there soon. (And don’t forget us – your readers in the early days!)

John

Agreement is expeditious. Dissent takes careful thought and languaging.

I don’t have personal experience with any of primary cast mentioned in today’s post. I am familiar with the cast of extras. On that front, I will agree that the volume of tweets/mentions of agreement to social media thought leaders are huge.
It isn’t surprising in an age where speed is considered a value add attribute.
In the effort to hit daily or weekly metrics of participation, many people working to establish themselves in the space are placing emphasis on quantitative metrics rather than on careful consideration of the topics and adding to discussion.

I thought you handled this blog post fairly and with great tactfulness. It is a club. And when I and others get those quantity of followers, we will be perceived as a member of the club.

I must say, I have found Chris Brogan to be the kid in High School that all the kids like. I think that’s why he is so popular in social media.

Great post.

Mark – I was so relieved to read your post, because my skepticism regarding social media continues to rise the more I use it and read about it.

Another way of characterizing the Country Club in SocMed is to see it as a band of true believers, fundamentalists, wedded to their own interpretation of the world. There can be no real intellectual dissent, because it’s faith as far as they are concerned. It’s idealistic rather than RealPolitik.

This isn’t a personal attack — I know any of the glitterati in SocMed only through their blogs, tweets and other materials. But you are spot-on to call for stringent examination of the assertions of the oft self-described leaders in social media. I’m a measurement guy, determined that if I recommend a course of action to a client (or a colleague) that I have a means of determining the business outcome resulting from it. With the continuing controversy and discussion surrounding measuring Public Relations impact, and the widespread disagreements among PR pros of long standing and demonstrated ability about the impact of mainstream media, how can we expect accepted consensus on social media measurement?

The fact is, there is little objective research into the impact, reputational or otherwise, of social media. There are anecdotes that suggest a positive connection, but they vary by industry and audience.

Further, comments such as “it’s about community” reflect a desire to so simplify the dialogue as to render it “happy talk.” Can you really expect a professional of any stripe to get away with such generalized puffery in the boardroom?

Social media may well be an incipient revolution — the anecdotal evidence seems to support the idea that there is an impact on sales, particularly in B2C. But until we see more evidence of how these tools actually contribute to awareness, understanding, commitment or action of stakeholders, making a claim otherwise is specious.

Keep driving on this topic, Mark.

Sean
@commammo

I’ve thought about this some more. I think it’s possible that the blurring lines between “personal” and “professional” have a lot to do with this. Most people in this “club” are representing organizations, whether they’re speaking for themselves, or for their brand. It has to influence one’s content and interactions when they are fearful of hurting the image of their company’s brand. It’s different if they’re self-employed consultants, or something along those lines. For those that see the line between their online professional and personal life blurring, it could prove difficult to be critical.

@DavidSpinks

Mark,

Great conversation starter you’ve written. I see your point and, to a large degree, agree with you. There’s a lot of support, but rarely do we see dissent.

Here’s the thing, though — as a thought leader you get a lot of flack. Whether it be from people who dislike you because of your success or people who just disagree with you, it’s there, and it’s in full force. For every positive, agreeing comment, there are probably 5 people who haven’t read the blog posts or books of these people and still manage to throw inflammatory statements and rude quips around about them.

Maybe the lack of dissent is less about trying to belong than it is about trying to offer some support at the end of the day. There’s a good chance they get together and disagree, but in public…they might feel it’s more important to remain united.

To your point, though, the support is understandable but getting a little old, at least for people who have been in this space and are working hard to bring clients and colleagues on board. For you people, the ones towing the line with the rest of the thought leaders, this constant agreement and back-patting isn’t moving the line forward; you just feel like you’re going in circles making nice with everyone.

Each person has their niche, though. There are those out there who talk specifically to people like you, Olivier, and others at the forefront of this digital marketing movement, who don’t want to read case studies anymore but want to talk budgets and ROI and the bigger picture, i.e., AFTER a client has hopped on the wagon. But, many who are revered are revered because they talk to the masses, the companies and people who are still learning why this space is important at all. So, yes, we’re exposed to their talk, and we feel it’s repetitive and cushy, but is it to the larger whole? Probably not.

Danny Brown wrote an interesting blog post that correlates (http://dannybrown.me/2009/09/15/do-bloggers-make-good-authors/), and I left a comment there that bears repeating: Thought leaders (or anyone trying to make a splash) have to start with the audience they can touch and work their way out. For Brogan’s and Smith’s book, I’m not sure it was meant for people like you — but you can read it and say, “You know what? I’ll pass this along to someone who might need this extra push to bridge the gap of understanding.”

Just trying to provide another point of view. Fantastic post.

Okay, I’m back.

David makes another good point. I don’t know that I would have the freedom to be genuinely critical of certain companies’ and “consultants’” BS if I had to answer to a higher power.

That said, I am VERY concerned about the proliferation of complete nonsense in the Social Media world. I’ve already called out two specific incarnations of this:

1. Social Media directors/managers who a) don’t know what the hell they are doing and b) don’t seem to care. (How they got their jobs or expect to have them in a year, I don’t have the slightest clue.) http://thebrandbuilder.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/is-your-social-media-director-qualified/

and

2. The proliferation of “patented methods” of social media measurement or program development that are so horribly flawed that they make me question the mental capacity of anyone who can’t spot the red flags a mile away. Here’s an example: http://thebrandbuilder.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/how-to-not-calculate-social-media-r-o-i/ And here is another: http://www.sportsnetworker.com/2009/09/15/learn-how-to-measure-social-media/

I am really not sure what can be done about this. I wish that more A-listers and competent practitioners would speak out against this kind of garbage. If snake oil, poorly thought out methodologies and hacks selling nonsense to companies don’t kill social media, they will at the very least set it back and delegitimize it in the eyes of increasingly skeptical executives. I am surprised (and frankly, disappointed) that more A-listers and competent practitioners haven’t taken a stronger stand on this.

We’re all busy and I understand that not everyone wants to waste energy on addressing these two problems, but frankly, leadership comes with responsibility. And we do, as a community, have a responsibility to a) pursue, develop, share and promote best practices, and b) shame the hacks whose unethical behavior and BS hurts us all.

Maybe less back-slapping and more policing? Thoughts?

Mark and Olivier – while I’ve yet to read “Trust Agents” – I agree with Olivier that most books written to sell well are going to have the mass audience in mind. But I’m with you Mark – it can often feel like it’s “career suicide” to disagree with a Brogan or Armano.

Personally – I read “groundswell” last week and I loved it. It’s full of the information that Olivier calls for.

“How silos were circumvented. How budgeting was justified. How measurement was adapted to the business’ needs. How the company incorporated SM into its mix of activities. How internal politics were dealt with. How staff was trained.”

Thanks for bringing up the topic Mark.

Really sorry I arrived after the photos came down, but I’m also encouraged to see so many commenters presenting their own critical doubts about social media evangelism.

I took some heat a few weeks ago when I posted a critical review of another social media book by another of the thought leaders in this space. http://tr.im/zjA

But forget the books. The larger issue you expose here, Mark, is the unwillingness of the SM evangelists to embrace rigorous debate. The culture of “nice” just won’t allow it. Too often the “gurus” seem compelled to protect the castle while dismissing the rest of us who “don’t get it.”

Well, I get it. But in the future, I’m with Andrew: I’ll just read the Wikipedia highlights of pop SM books unless some authoritative reviewer (not a blogger) tells me it’s a “must read.”

Mark, perhaps I should differentiate marketing from public relations more clearly as to my comments. I’d also amplify a bit my call for more independent research into social media impact and effectiveness. A continuing issue for academics is access to data — it’s proprietary. This prevents or makes it very difficult for scholars to do meaningful research. There is only so much you can learn from publicly available information.

I see info all the time that purports to show that companies involved in social media are more profitable, have higher stock prices or merely higher revenue as a consequence of engaging with stakeholders on social media. But little of this is verifiable — much of it is conducted by social media service providers who (understandably) don’t want to expose their proprietary methods. I don’t doubt that companies can sell product in this space (that’s no more surprising than the idea one could sell through a web site.) What I do wonder about is whether the social media engagement itself is causal, or whether other factors in the marketing mix are responsible. If social media is correlated, to what degree? How does it compare to other activity? There’s no independent data on this yet.

We have to persevere a while longer…

Ultimately the question is: Do you want to join the club, or start a new one? We all want to be part of a club, that’s what we do–we’re pack animals and thrive in groups. Some folks like to follow, some to lead, and for others that’s situational.

But when you follow the pack, it’s hard to stand out. While the easiest way to stand out is to dissent, that often puts you outside of the pack–and into the “dissenter” pack where you *still* don’t stand out.

It’s possible to improve a club from the inside out–and even to stand out within it without leading it or forming a new one–but that kind of dissent looks different than the kind that will start a new club around you.

The key is to express your dissent in ways that it’s most likely to be heard–to use the very “insider language” that Chris and Julien suggest is a key attribute of Trust Agents. Use what they say, and show how it can be improved. Show how to apply it, how to connect it–or if you do simply disagree, disagree in a way that they’ll listen.

Nobody responds well to “You’re wrong; I’m right” dissent, to those who dwell on our weaknesses. It makes us defensive and unwilling to listen.

It’s those who help us strengthen our strengths as a way to overcome our weaknesses that we respond to best. And not coincidentally, those are the folks who stand out *within* any group.

Sorry my friend, you will have to get to my age before you start Curmudgeon Communications. Either that or have Andrew Keen take control of your spirit and begin writing {grow} for you.

I hope to be able to get back and participate more today. Good thoughts from all so far and of course your ability to stimulate and spark the conversation has got another good one going.

@Kat& @Mark,I’m back for second comment. As Kat mentioned, I’m so glad I discovered you today as I’ve not had privilege of learning from you until today.

Hours have past and I’m still shaking my head with a smile, “what a great & true post today.”

I’ve served as an Army Officer and a former leader in a church ministry and I’ve seen more accountability and open professional disagreement in these traditional organizations then I have in social media.

Few are prepared to say they disagree with the big dogs. Unfortunately, many of those in social media who disagree are lame and prevent others from having the courage to disagree or have another opinion.

The thing I sense about Chris Brogan is he is open to these types of social discussion, while others with his type of followers are protective and even arrogant.

Mark- Great discussion going on here. I haven’t read Chris’ book, so I cannot comment, but I do read a lot of blogs, follow folks on Twitter and am not always impressed with what’s shared. Which is all about MY expectations. As you mentioned, you were expecting so much more based on other comments and reviews; hard for anything to live up to the hype.

Edward Boches posted a blog a while back, http://bit.ly/2gwsvP, wondering why no one disagrees with each other in SM. Either we are all geniuses, have fallen into a bit of a Groupthink rut and/or we’re afraid to make the argument. As Carla mentioned upthread, it’s harder to write a compelling dissent. Nice to see someone give it thoughtful consideration, thanks for sharing.

I think the wonder in all this is an open sky to new thinking. Where do we want to go from here?

There’s plenty of room.

Hugh MacLeod (@gapingvoid) put it pretty good, “Don’t let someone else’s outside, become your inside.” Create your own networks, raise the bar of critical thinking. Challenge in good faith. Stay classy.

It’s an exciting time to find the real traction in all this.

Mark, if you did know me you’d know that I don’t drink Kool-Aid. I hate that crap. As well, I have never belonged to a country club in my life…it’s not my scene or style. If you did take the time to get know me — and I hope you do — you’d know that I don’t like being on a social media pedestal or being called a rock star, guru, superstar or influencer. If you did know me (OR any of us), you might have thought twice about using the original photo (I like the monkey photo though…have used it myself to describe this space).

As for the “clowning around at a social event” we were at the MarketingProfs Digital Marketing Mixer in October. I happen to work for MarketingProfs as their community manager (wasn’t then, I was a paying attendee, but am now). MarketingProfs is a very fun and dynamic company FULL of marketing pros. They like to have fun at their events and this fun photo was taken by David Alston during a very fun dinner. Get it? FUN. You shouldn’t let your preconceived notions judge what is reality.

Anyone who does know me will tell you that I am an opinionated marketer with over 15 years of high-tech B2B marketing, 7 years as an adjunct prof. and 5 years of social media experience (not that I need to justify myself to you, but just so you & your commenters have insights into who I am since my name was thrown around in vain). I am passionate about what I do for a living, and yes, I have my sh!t together. It’s that simple. I have earned respect in this space, I hope, because I have experience, I question everything, I engage in thoughtful conversation, I work diligently on delivering good content, and I always put the view of constituents first.

If you ever want to debate social media, I’ll be the first to go head-to-head with you. In fact, I welcome it! Just ask Danny Brown, David Spinks, Olivier Blanchard and Bill Sledzik – they’ve all had debates with me. Oh, wait, never mind…that could be misperceived as too “HS debate clubbish.”

Do I agree with your post? Sure, some of it. (I haven’t read Trust Agents yet, so no comment.) There are TONS of social media carpet baggers out there (who knows, you might be one too). But some of the folks you are lumping into this conversation are truly talented marketing/PR/communications AND social media professionals. As well, you have to give to get… some folks do have high follower/friend/reader counts because they produce great posts and/or conversation. I don’t think lumping all “social media experts” together in a country club is fair or appropriate.

As well, since everyone is agreeing with you, I’ll be the contrarian and ask this… Is this just all possible link baiting? “If I continue to harp on Chris Brogan (and/or social media people), I’ll get lots of traffic and followers.” Hmmm? How many posts have you written bashing the guy now? I am not defending Chris or anyone else in this space (they can do it themselves), but you have to realize it does look like link bait, right? As well, nothing you’ve said in your last few posts is anything new & a lot has already been discussed & debated in this space (maybe you missed those debates we’ve had and already moved on from?). I assume you blog for YOUR target audience (i.e. new or existing clients), so I’d say part of your strategy is to take away potential clients for other social media folks and steer them towards you as a social media expert. Would that be correct? I mean, let’s not propagate any more myths here – this blogging thing is about making money after all…isn’t it? (Or did I misread your myths post?)

I am sure I REALLY sound snarky…and I don’t mean to be (okay, maybe just a tad). It’s just that this conversation is very tired and it really does nothing to propel social media forward. I’d really like to hear your thoughts on: Where do you see the future of social media? How would you change the course of this space if you had the chance? What steps are you taking to ensure that your clients understand the sociological ramifications of their actions in social spaces? Hey, I am one to rant too, but don’t you think all of our readers would benefit better from posts that involve intellectual discourse or actionable steps?

Olivier, you are not a fan of self-appointed social media “experts” and “gurus”?!?! Didn’t you just crown yourself ‘King of Social Media ROI’ after Social Fresh?? (Heh. You know I am teasing. We still need to debate the topic, it’s not over.)

Phew! I’m done. Looking forward to your response Mark.

Beth,

… I didn’t crown myself anything. If you can point me to any statement I have EVER made in which I claimed to be the King of Social Media ROI, or referred to myself as an expert or guru or swami in anything, I would love to see it.

I can however, point you to a whole mob of people who do call themselves any number of variations on the theme, from “social media expert” to “queen of measurement.”

I think you have me confused with someone else.

BRAVO. Thank god someone else has the balls to call out these charlatans. And that being nice. Your review of Trust Agents is much nicer than mine will be. To say I found the content lacking punch considering it was coming from social media superstar Chris Brogan is being kind.

There is an old boy’s club mentality. I wrote about this in a response at BusinessWeek.com. The easiest way to join the club is to simply retweet and praise the people who are already in the club. It’s stupid and childish, but that’s the ugly truth.

Few people have the balls to call these people out. When you ask for credentials, they don’t provide them. When you ask for examples of real work, they hide behind NDAs. Right now we have a bunch of people passing themselves off as experts who couldn’t strategize their way out of a paper bag.

Adam

Beth

Social media is HARD work. so you of all people should be irritated when a no talent, very friendly person like @iJustine comes along is considered a social media expert and starts pimping products for huge paydays. Doesn’t that irk you? It irks me.

If you don’t think there’s a social media old boys club I suggest you do what I did for 30 days. I tracked the tweets, retweets, and blog posts of several so called experts. You know what’s amazing? When Chris Brogan writes something Justin Levy automatically tweets it. This isn’t isolated to just them, It happens quite often. Now you could argue that Justin just happens to ALWAYS find Chris’ work to be tweetable. But really, 100% of the time? Are you kidding me.

Track it over 30 days and tell me if I’m wrong.

Adam

Adam, and yes… I am annoyed with social media hacks. You should know that, I voice it all the time. I think you and I have different criteria for who is or isn’t a hack though.

But more than social media hacks, I am irriated by lazy marketers who pretend to get both it and social media.

Mark, sorry for hijacking the comments.

Beth

Enjoy looking at @iJustine and you explain to me how she is a social media expert. It’s sad.

Adam

Adam, apparently she’s *IS* the Internet , what more is there to know?!

Neicole, courage? It has nothing to do with courage. Mark’s post is simply link bait. And you could say I jumped right onto the hook. Why? Because he’s wrong. NOT all people who are so-called ‘popular’ on Twitter or have a lot of blog readers are in a ‘country club.’ A lot of folks have worked VERY hard — especially Chris, Amber and Mack. I read your post…you have an interesting perspective, thanks for sharing it with me. Unfortunately, I hate the term social media marketing for various reasons (I won’t bore you with the details here). And sales falls under marketing…so the notion that only sales is for ‘conversations, relationships, one-on-one’ doesn’t work for me either. I could never give up having 1:1 conversations with customers!! Like I said, I am an opinionated marketer! Sorry… To your point, social media isn’t always all conversation. There is a place for 1-way message pushing too. And it’s a long-term strategy, a lot of marketers lose sight of that for short-term gain (i.e. TGI Friday’s Woody campaign). Looking forward to more of your insights!

Danny

I applaud you for being a voice of sanity. It’s one of the reasons I enjoy following you. You are as willing to provide praise as you are to critique. Rarely happens.

Adam

“The ‘thought leaders’ of social media marketing are a country club fearful of saying anything negative or controversial about another club member.”

Yet another reason why critical thinkers should have little to do with these folks and their followers. This isn’t to say that popularity in and of itself negates validity, but your point is well taken: Too many of these folks have a sacred cow status worth ignoring. Good post.

Whoa it’s really kicking off here, I like the impassioned debate by people who really have strong points of view but all seems a little self-serving. I’m a social media infant but I think I ‘get it’ and as such concentrate my time in working out how it can help my b2b clients acheive a better relationship with their markets. That’s it. We’re all learning and experimenting everyday and that’s all we can do. Social media has energised me to new possibilities to engage, it’s a fantastically exciting time and this passion is being directed at some pretty ‘industrial’ clients. If they trust me we’ll succeed.

As someone who often blogs about social media from the underground I enjoyed the post and comments alot
I also wrote a book called
Facebook for GOOFS you can click the link to check it out.
I RESPECT you for speaking out.For me as a blogger who hasn’t broke a large scale audience it does get a little old seeing everyone suck up to certain people that is life. Hey we’re next LOL
Another AGENT

Sigh.

I wondered how long it would take for Mark’s post and comments to be characterized as a “personal attack.” It was not. Beth has made some great points, and I applaud her for standing in and slugging. But, Beth, this isn’t personal.

For what it’s worth, Mark, Beth and I also got off to a similar rocky start here: http://tr.im/wQX8 But she’s pretty tough, and we found a way to bury the hatchet. We’ve had some very civil discussions, despite our disagreements.

Conversely, I had an exchange similar to this on 2/29/08, and found myself banished from a blogger’s site as a result. Now that’s being overly sensitive!

In the end, this is all “inside baseball.” Outside of the cozy echo chamber of PR/Marketing 2.0, very few people have heard of Chris, Amber, et. al. And the rest of us are COMPLETELY invisible. Let’s keep it all in perspective.

Mark,

Like you and many of the folks in this thread, I grow weary of the fishbowl.

And I know you don’t mean this as a personal criticism, and I’m honestly not taking it that way. But a couple of things about me you should be aware of: I worked in corporate and non-profit jobs for nearly 12 years – in sales, marketing, and client service roles – and have accountable for budgets in the millions and revenue tens of times that. I’d be happy to offer similar credentials for many other A-listers, too. Not all of us just crawled out of our Mom’s basement, and I think it’s important not to generalize that fact. And ultimately, the folks that make a real dent in this world will show in results, not talk. Many of the lenses through which people view social media folks is based on other people’s generalizations, not necessarily truth or first-hand knowledge of their qualifications or work.

My proof is in my business results, and my customers. That’s the yardstick that matters to me. Not the blogs of my peers in this tiny pond of ours. But neither will I discount the support of long-time peers who were friends long before I ever uttered a tweet, but might now be seen as sycophants of some stripe. That’s just…well, shortsighted and out of context.

Now that that’s out of the way…

Debate and dissent is the only thing that moves discussion forward. I personally write stuff that’s often not of popular opinion, and it honestly frustrates me when the comments are all “Great post!” when I know that if folks disagree with me, they’re less likely to say so. (By disagree, BTW, I also mean capable of actual discussion on the topic, which is another matter altogether). That said, groupthink is a very real danger in ANY collection of people in an industry where there’s little precedent. No one wants to be the first to be woefully wrong – or to blame if they take the road less traveled, and fail. We’ve got a really short tolerance for failure in this space, whether you’re an advocate or a critic.

I’m also, however, a little weary of the social media backlash. It’s good. It’s healthy. The discussion is totally worth having because there is so much fluff out there it could choke a llama. But the ideas of shills and “get rich quick” (or “get community quick”) jokers exists in every industry. We have it in sales, PR, marketing, and all of the age old industries.

The challenge is to move beyond the annoyance of the empty stuff, and offer and drive the things that SOLVE these problems. I’m tired of the “all the gurus can suck it” discussion, mostly because few of the critics can offer alternatives for what they’d be doing differently, aside from either being part of the group themselves (let’s face it, some of these people are just pissed that their work isn’t getting recognized and wouldn’t be so quick to bash the well known folks if they were one themselves) or rebelling completely and saying that social media is worthless.

I’m finding very little middle ground of folks willing to intelligently discuss the strengths and weaknesses of social media in its current state – and move the discussion to *tangible* alternatives for businesses rather than snark about the people involved (from both sides of the fence, mind you). We’re focusing an awful lot on knocking people off their pillars instead of trying to understand what’s working and what’s not, irrespective of whether the practitioner is well known, or not so (I see few people picking on the everyman social media hack that’s screwing things up, presumably because he’s doing so on a smaller scale and one could assume he’s not in it for glory?)

Quick note about Chris’ book to take into consideration: this book wasn’t written for you. Or for any of us, really. It was written for the people who, unfortunately, are going to be least likely to buy it – the ones who vehemently don’t understand what this social stuff is good for (and no matter how much you hate the fishbowl, there are real, valuable things about the social web itself). I think he frames it well, in the context of trust rather than “Facebook is cool.”, and I support that concept very much. The biggest difference between what Chris knows and what we know and say? He had the business sense to get a book deal in which to say it.

Interesting discussion you’ve sparked here. Lots of emotion tied into this topic. I love healthy discussion, but do think we need to be careful about casting generalizations about the “gurus” vs. the “critics”. There’s lots of empty debate on both sides, and I really wish we’d spend a bit more time having constructive discussions about what’s next instead of why the other guy is doing it wrong.

Thanks for your viewpoints. I’d be more than happy to talk with you, in detail, anytime about the topic, and will hand your comments back to you.

As far as I can see, Mark 1) reviewed a book, 2) pointed out that the social media “elite” might promote each other, 3) alerted his readers to the problems this may cause among the rest of the social media participants, and 4) raised the question “What would better serve MY social media strategy … or yours?”

I have a feeling that the volcano erupted with his choice of the photograph and some comments that flung the whole discussion on a differnt, personal track.

If we sift out as much of the emotion in this thread as possible, there are many extremely good points being made, especially with regard to the quality of marketing advice, measuring social media impact and ROI. What I don’t personally like is that we are having comments on how the social media environment SHOULD be developing, or that we shouldn’t be having this discussion at all because it’s already taken place. I beg to differ: if something is worth discussing, it will and should pop up regularly to be looked at from all angles.

Let’s face it, social media is nothing but a platform. It is up to the individual to use it exactly as he or she pleases, be it for advancing some kind of “common good” or merely advancing a career or sales (the product may be a good one or absolute rubbish, but that’s true in any environment). The responsibility for what to take home from all of it lies squarely on the shoulders of the recipient. As it does in real life, too.

Some people advocate “constructive discussion”. It would be nice to live without all the garbage that abounds in social media, but in fact it will be impossible. Let’s try not to become control freaks. We can all build our own clans/tribes/following/whatever and advance the issues we feel are important there.

As a side note, isn’t everything we write publicly “link bait”? At least I know I wouldn’t bother if it weren’t for the chance of being noticed and finding ways to monetize that. Before you start lobbing hate mail at me, let me just say I’m also trying to educate my market and learn from people who have more insight than I do.

To circle back to the original question: what would better serve MY social media strategy – I really don’t know at this stage. I think, however, that I’m beginning to distill something useful out of the mass of talk. I’m not interested in becoming a renowned teacher of the various aspects of social media but I am in how it can benefit my clients to achieve conversions.

@kimmolinkama

Isn’t the fact that the same people are commenting on this post a little hypocritical considering the subject matter? A little? Country club indeed.

Jim, kudos! It’s just a different country club…but all the same backslapping is taking place.

I read an ARC copy of Trust Agents and posted my generally positive review some time ago. I also pointed out the same “faux objectivism” comment as you did. It’s actually more insulting in its entirety. But I liked Trust Agents.

I will be posting shortly a review of an academic book which discusses the research on trust in virtual business environments done since the mid 1990′s. The academicians call them “Trust Brokers.” I wish there was a way to verify who came up with what term when. In any case, building trust across distance and boundaries has been researched in academia for some time, Trust Agents brought it to the masses, and generally it encourages civility. Something I think we can’t get enough of in these gun-toting, Town Hall yelping, tell-the-President “You Lie” days.

Personally, I welcome the civility brought about not necessarily by Social Media itself, but by the permanence and transparency of personally-identified postings such as on most social media channels. Our nation has swung too far to the extreme that outshouting each other seems to be the only way we think we can debate. Anonymous discussion board threads are so rapidly taken over by haters on both sides of the liberal/conservative bent that many aren’t worth reading anymore.

So, does transparency and permanence currently make us less willing to engage in debate? Certainly. Will that change over time? I think so. But I think in a way where we can actually debate, and not just yell at each other.

@cheryl

I asked on multiple occasions for Chris’ credentials in this thread, but was continually rebuffed by him and Beth.

http://www.thekmiecs.com/marketing-advertising/do-thought-leaders-need-to-be-practitioners/

Specifically, Beth states, “As well, Chris or anyone else is NOT beholden to share their work with anyone else. The only people that matter are our clients and our management.”

Well, I gotta tell ya, If you’re gonna write a book, speak at a conference, or pose as a social media demi-god shouldn’t you be able to share what you’ve done to EARN it?

Time and people like you will eventually bring about change. excellent post!

I’ve never been drawn to country clubs of any kind. Same goes for clans, and clannish behavior. Civility goes a long way, and kindness is highly under-rated, IMO. I did enjoy your post, however, and agree with it somewhat.

Personally, I would love to raise the bar on the utility of social media. I think we’re ready to take it a bit further than the typical SM 101 content, which, as you’ve pointed out has greatest value for beginners, and is often simply common sense.

I’m keeping an eye out for new uses and applications of social media, and whether sparked by A-lister or newbie, I hope we manage to stretch out of our SM comfort zone a bit.

Thanks for “going there” Mark. Looking forward to more provocative posts.

I don’t have a lot that I want to add to the post. It’s pretty interesting to read. I’m probably the most approachable guy I know, so to think that people should somehow cower when they disagree with me is silly. If you’ve met me (which most of the people on this post have not), you’ll know a lot more about the person behind the keyboard. I fly every 2 days right now, so eventually, I’ll meet you, maybe.

Adam, I don’t have your impressive background. The folks who hire me (Sony, AMD, Cisco, Microsoft, Pepsico, Comcast Interactive, etc, etc) just hire me because they believe I know something. I don’t have decades of experience in sales and marketing. Oddly, they don’t care. They hire me because I know something about how the new thing is working, the thing that hasn’t come before.

Revolutions don’t come with roadmaps.

Back on track of Mark’s post: is backpatting rampant? Absolutely.

Here’s what’s more troubling to me, personally: USEFUL criticism is at an all time low. I can read a post per day (there’s a decent average) of someone crapping on me for something. What I rarely read are those same bloggers offering up useful information on what they’d do better.

Addressing the book: the book was written to point out some very basic truths, that this stuff we’re doing isn’t like traditional marketing and business communication. Is it repetitive? Shit, probably. It’s our first book. We’re learning. We hacked it the way we hack everything, and then we learn and improve for next time. But it’s selling like crazy, so people are buying it in its current crappy form. And all my backpatting friends aren’t the buyers, so someone seems to be getting the word out there.

When your books come out, you’ll get the strange feeling in my belly that I get every time I read something negative. I like to learn, but I feel bad when someone calls my kid ugly. I know this because I now feel worse about every negative review I ever gave. I worry that I wasn’t constructive enough.

Am I someone who loves to learn via constructive criticism? No. Constructive feedback? Yes. But those are two different things.

That’s all I have to add. Not really going to proliferate the thread, but I’m grateful for your opinions. To those who slam me just for being where I am, that’s okay too. We all get there different ways.

I want to be the monkey on the right.

Hello from Russia!
Can I quote a post in your blog with the link to you?