Social media sewage … and hope
Aug 29th
I’ve started and trashed this article at least six times.
As you will see, I have my reasons to be conflicted about publishing it. Yet I can’t deny this gnawing feeling of disenchantment about the social web that seems to be also reflected in so many other blog posts I have read recently.
I am a positive person. I want to lift people up. But at this moment, I can’t be “positive” and also be “honest.” I need to write about social media sewage for a moment. If you make it to the end of the article, it gets better!
There are three underlying economic drivers of social media that are creating desperate and increasingly unethical practices that are turning the social media space into a cesspool.
The first is search engine page rank, a business practice largely built on deception. I know there is much more to it than that (spare me the flaming comments) but face it, billions of dollars are spent each year in an effort to deceive Google. Those who do the best job become rich and are awarded rockstar status. On an almost daily basis, people make offers to me to participate in their complex SEO ruses. I recently told the story of a person lying to me (and other bloggers) to get a single link to their website.
Related to SEO is the battle against spam comments on my blog. These comments, using increasingly sophisticated ploys, are meant to provide a back link to a website or trick us into clicking on a link. Can you imagine that you and I are in a business where human beings are creating bots and building Third World sweats shops with the goal of getting you to click on a link for black market Viagra or worse? What kind of a person can wake up each day and be happy with that kind of a career?
I have been spending so much time purging porn-purveyors and MLM link-builders from my Twitter stream that I have now assigned a virtual assistant to the task. That’s right. I work in an industry where I have to pay an employee to keep pornographers away from me.
A second economic driver on the web is content. In an industry where content is power, people routinely steal and publish my original work – word for word — because that is easier and cheaper to do than creating their own material. Last week a young and promising blogger asked, “What do I do when somebody steals my content?” Unless you want to dedicate your life to chasing ghosts, the answer is “nothing.” I have given up.
Not only are people routinely stealing my content to promote ideals and businesses I despise, even my fellow bloggers think nothing of taking content from others, without license or permission, to promote their own commercial efforts. In the “real world” this would be a cause for a law suit. On the blogosphere it is celebrated as a best practice.
Another major economic driver on the Internet is social proof. By this I mean the numbers and badges — like number of Twitter followers or Klout scores – that provide a shortcut assessment of authority. In real life, we can actually meet people, watch them in a meeting, or observe the college degrees on their walls that create an impression of authority. On the social web, we usually only have shortcuts – social proof – to serve this purpose. If you immerse yourself in the blogosphere you will quickly learn that social proof can be a more important source of influence than actual education, experience, or accomplishment. Mitch Joel recently remarked in his podcast that it seems “dangerous” to him that the least experienced people on the social web seem to carry the most authority, largely by racking up social proof.
On the Internet, it is far too easy to become a guru. The entry barriers to being a social media marketer are so low that I recently met with a young man who had never taken a marketing class, never had a marketing job, never worked in sales — in fact, had not had a job of any kind since graduating from high school — and is now representing himself as a social media expert based on fake badges he had plunked down on his website.
Of course this is ridiculous but also commonplace. Can you imagine somebody in this same situation advertising themselves as an “engineer,” or an “accountant,” or a “professional athlete?” Twitter followers, Facebook likes, positive reviews, Google “plusses” — the most valued commodities of social proof — can all be purchased on eBay. You can certainly fake your way into our profession like no other.
And then something happened …
I don’t want to sound like a “victim” in all of this, but the fact is that if you are immersed in the social web, corruption is foisted upon all of us at almost every turn. If you examine our working conditions objectively, a large part of the economic value delivered by the social web is being created through deception, stealing, gaming the system, and faking your way to glory. It’s enough to make you stop and think … and maybe just stop all together.
But just as I was ready to publish this article, something really weird happened.
I don’t spend a lot of time checking my Google Analytics but I decided to look at the keywords people were using to find my blog last month. Here is what I found:
This made my heart skip a beat.
I can’t explain this connection at all but in the last 30 days, 175 people typed a single word into Google — “hope” — and landed on this blog. It was probably the precise message I needed to see at this disheartening moment in my career.
Sure the social web can be a strange place. But it has also given a lot to me. Thousands of connections, hundred of friends, dozens of customers and partners and wonderful career opportunities. Exactly one year ago I wrote a post called The Spirituality of Social Media and today I’m being whiny and cranky. Maybe I’ve fallen down on the job a little since then but I guess that’s part of human nature too. There is something to be said for enduring and prevailing. Endurance creates character, and character creates hope.
When you get down to it, we can only impact our own little sliver of the world, and for me that’s {grow}. Sometimes I do get tired of the ugliness, but you know, it can be different, a least here. People doing a search for “hope” … and finding me. Wow. That’s a kick in the pants. I’ve tried to lift up many other people over the years and now I maybe I need to lift myself … endure … prevail … and get back to the job of dispensing hope.
What do you think? Will you join me?
Does Amanda Chapel matter?
Jan 3rd
The mysterious, mean-spirited, self-proclaimed “strumpette” Amanda Chapel is the most divisive personality in the social media movement. She relentlessly shoots poison darts at nearly every voice of authority on the social web. It’s typical for her to characterize many of her A-List blogger targets as:
- “Baby babble”
- “Full-on non-stop shameless surreptitious sleaze”
- “The cacophony of dopes”
- “Sacs de douche”
- “Self-important fatuous boobs”
… and worse. But her commentary can also be positively brilliant, insightful, and hilarious. There is no humor so sublime as pomposity pricked.
All this venom sometimes leaves me wondering if she’s a just a pesky mosquito annoying everyone at the social media picnic or if she is having a meaningful impact on the evolution of the social web. Does Amanda Chapel even really exist? Does she matter?
I decided to ask her these questions myself. Here is my interview with Amanda Chapel, which was conducted last week via email (I added the hyperlinks):
MWS: You are one of the most reviled personalities on the blogosphere. Why are you so mean?
AC: Actually, that’s two separate questions. With regard to “reviled,” I am/we are anti the general Web2 Cluetrain commie crap. We poke at the movement’s weakest links. We show their Golden Calves for what they actually are, i.e. self-serving buffoons. That said, we also take no prisoners. As such, we lay claim to, and inspire, the inverse of the movement’s immature passions … as does anyone who thinks critically … as does any skeptic who refutes a bogus pseudo religion.
As to “mean,” I am cutting. Satire and mockery are biting at their best. Poignant is poignant. It’s smart and often cuts through the clutter. I also believe that the “David Letterman Beat It To Death School of Comedy” is VERY effective and resonates.
MWS: So you refer to yourself as “we.” This begs the question, are you real? Are you even a woman?
AC: The identity issue is so old and tedious frankly. It’s been asked and answered SOOOO many times. Sadly, it keeps coming up because the nature of the SMedia crowd tends to be literal minded. Brian’s interviews with Bill were pretty explicit.*
“We” means a group represented by a single brand. Asked and answered.
All to say, you can call me Amanda Chapel. That’s what we are.
MWS: One of your biggest criticisms is that many of the A-List bloggers don’t have the business experience or credentials to have a voice of authority in this space. Why are you different? Why should we listen to you?
AC: I’m not selling anything. I’m questioning. Those two things are NOT on equal footing. “Doubt” is not about credentials, per se; it is about the strength of the argument. That said, we stand on what already exists. The core of our system/Union is NOT enthusiasm; it’s rationalism.
MWS: What is pissing you off the most these days?
AC: Most? That’d be Liz Strauss, Brian Solis, and Deepak Chopra. Ironically, as more light has been shed on the ethereal emptiness of the movement, its “evangelists” have gotten bolder and strident. They’ve become irrepressible caricature. It’s like watching amateur Benny Hinns whistle on the way to the bank, having only increased their flocks after being busted on 60 Minutes. Arrrgh.
MWS: You have been one of the most visible voices of dissent for several years. Have you made a difference?
AC: Many say I have made a significant difference. Frankly, I’m not so sure. I think I’m more of a catalyst than a direct agent for change. Our outrageousness with Strumpette,** etc. made it safe for critical thinkers like you, Bill Sledzik, Sean Williams, Joel Postman, Ike Pigott, et al. to occupy the middle.
MWS: Do you have plans to ever shed the Amanda Chapel character or are you in it for the long-haul?
AC: I think the character is only good as long as our argument is relevant. Let’s put it this way: most of the failure of Cluetrain, etc. is pretty basic. But it is a bubble that sadly continues to grow. However, the FTC, Congress and business are waking up. I’m certain when the bubble breaks a new canvas will present itself. I’m pretty excited about that actually. It’s long overdue.
MWS: So far I have not been the target of your fury. What would I have to do to have you take a crack at me?
AC: We’ve seen you slip on occasion. But that’s rare. To REALLY get our attention, I’d think you’d have to have had a serious head injury.
______________________________________________________
The title of this post is “Does Amanda Chapel Matter?” so I’ll offer an opinion.
One of the most disturbing aspects of power and the social web is the herd mentality. You’ve seen it. If Chris Brogan, Guy Kawasaki or Jeremiah Oywang burps, it is tweeted 900 times. That burp gets repeated and codified by other bloggers and soon, it becomes a marketing tenet, a “rule” for social media marketing. That’s called “group think” and it is DANGEROUS. Maybe we should call it “burp think.”
It is difficult to have an impactful, dissenting voice in this arena. It’s like yelling for the opposing team at a home Steeler game – You won’t be heard and you’ll probably be squashed.
But Amanda gets through. She often pisses me off. She’s shrill, offensive and sometimes even flat-out wrong … but her message GETS THROUGH. We need that dissent. Even her detractors should admit we need it. Some of the most important and effective dissenters in history have been anonymous “characters” and maybe that’s what we need to rise above social media’s sycophantic mind muck — a voice who doesn’t play nicey-nice all the time.
I think Amanda matters. What about you?
* This refers to a 2008 series of interviews of Brian Connolly by Bill Sledzik. In this interview, Connolly disclosed that the idea for the Amanda Chapel character started while his friends were watching a basketball game. The idea for the “blog of naked PR” was born, complete with an Amanda Chapel backstory. Between 4-7 people have sustained the Chapel character and signed a non-disclosure agreement. “Amanda” would not disclose the identity of the person or persons who answered these questions.
**Strumpette was the Amanda Chapel blog which was discontinued in 2008.
Warning: Social media may be hazardous to your health
Oct 29th
A lot has been written about the “danger” social media poses to companies and brands, but what about the real threat it poses to us as individuals?
Immediate, transparent, global, free communication is one of the most breathtaking information advances since the telephone. But when there is an opportunity for human corruption, there probably WILL be human corruption. Here are the biggest threats posed by the advent of social media:
Risk to personal security. For fun, I follow a few celebrities on Twitter, the digital Post-it note. The other day, one of them tweeted: “Down at Gino’s having a pizza with my boys.” Earlier in the day he had established the city he was in. With this kind of shoot-from-the-hip public broadcasting, it’s only a matter of time before we see the first Twitter-related crimes. Even for non-celebrities, how safe is it to post to the world, “My husband and I are off to Boston for the Web 3.0 conference.” Not very … unless you want your next post to be “Our house got wiped out by crooks while we were away!”
Risk to personal finances. Every time you register for a site, sign up for an app, or populate a social media profile, you are adding to a databank all about you. Strangers can find names, birth dates, family members, school and work history, e-mail addresses and much more. One blog writer recently quipped, “Honestly, it doesn’t take a genius to steal a person’s identity online.” Even more severe than identity theft and the obvious financial ramifications for an individual — we will begin to see online crimes being committed under the alias of another person.
Risk to personal reputation. Thankfully, nobody was holding a video camera in my face during my college years. But the lives of today’s youth are explicitly documented on You Tube, blogs, photo albums, and social media sites, creating a permanent online record. One corporate recruiter told me that a web search is more important to him than a resume. How will your Google-image affect your future job prospects, personal relationships, political aspirations? Did you read about the teen girls who took pictures of themselves in their bras at a sleepover, texted them to friends and then hours later ended up on porn sites? How do you erase something like that? Google never forgets.
Risk to data and information. A few weeks ago, a computer worm, using Twitter, infected tens of thousands of computers as it replicated itself across the Internet. The worm was created by a 17-year-old to “expose the vulnerabilities” in Twitter. The red-hot social networking/microblogging service has been scrambling to plug cross-site scripting and other Web site vulnerabilities to thwart worm attacks but, as one researcher points out, it’s much easier to misuse the Twitter API as a “weak link” to send worms squirming through Twitter.
Risk to personal health. Neurologists and doctors warn that obsessive immersion in screen technologies and social network sites will lead to short attention spans, sensationalism, inability to empathize, weight gain, and a tenuous sense of identity.
Risk to personal productivity. A friend recently told me that he needed to find a way to block himself from social media sites at work. “I’m hooked,” he said. “I can’t stop myself from getting online every minute that I can.” According to a U.K. study, British firms are losing $264 million A DAY on lost productivity due to undercover activities on Facebook. Businesses are starting to look for ways to deal with the social networking problem. Several companies in America already block social media sites.
So, where does this lead?
I’m a fan of social media. These new platforms have connected me to countless interesting people, opportunities and ideas. The purpose of this article is to serve as a counter-point to those who seem to be hypnotized by the hyperbole and beat the drum of social media while ignoring these certain consequences. There is virtually NO dialogue on the risks of the inevitable corruption that will result from having a free and pervasive window into YOUR life.
I’m hoping the dialogue will start now …
The REAL math behind your followers, Mr.Twitter Bigshot!
Oct 26th
REALLY?
I dissected his follower list (public information) and estimated HALF were “trash,” meaning they were spam-generated, get-rich quick spammers, or porn. Those followers are not going to be effective in receiving or re-transmitting any message of “influence.” So that brings us down to 40,000 potentially effective followers in TK’s community.
The Harvard study goes on to say that 90% of the tweets are generated by 10% of the users — a user concentration even higher than Wikipedia! So, let’s define these leading Tweeters as the “thought leaders” we are all trying to connect to. This would imply that, on average, TK has just 406 (0.5% of his followers) who represent people who actively contribute to the conversation.But wait a minute — we need to rule out kids, right? In a business setting, let’s assume we want to connect and influence people over 24. That represents just 33 percent of the population on Twitter. Adult, meaningful follower total: 135.
Let’s further assume 15% of all these folks are on vacation or away from their connection for a day (45 people left for TK) and they spend just two hours per day on Twitter where they could actually see and process a tweet from this guy. According to data on Sysmos, about 4% of your users will be active during any one hour of the day. That leaves one person actually seeing and processing your tweet, Mr. Bigshot.
And that would be me. So now who’s boss?
Photo credit: This is an ACTUAL photo of the species Twitterus Poppycockus appearing at a social media forum last week.
Harvard released a study this month showing that among the people who don’t quit, the median number of lifetime tweets is one. I think it’s reasonable to define an “active user” as somebody who tweets at least once a day (less than 15%). Applying that reasonable logic, the number of ACTIVE users this media mogul brags about is actually 4,060.









You’re in marketing for one reason: Grow.
Grow your company, reputation, customers, impact, profits. Grow yourself. This is a community that will help. It will stretch your mind, connect you to fascinating people, and provide some fun along the way. I am so glad you’re here.
-Mark Schaefer









Posts tagged ethics