Not long ago, my son (7) played in a hockey tournament in our small city of Flagstaff, Arizona. In the final game, our opponents from Phoenix were exceptionally upset by how the contest was being officiated. So much so that their coach stopped the game, got into a screaming match with the tournament organizer, and threatened to forfeit.
This emboldened their parents, who then got into a variety of shoving matches with our parents. Police were called. Fans were ejected. And so on.
The core allegation was that our hockey association had paid the referees to ensure that our local boys would win the tournament. Their team ultimately won the game, and we went back to the kinder, gentler existence that is a requirement of life in a small ski town.
It became staggeringly clear to me that day that people care about 7 year-old hockey disproportionately. They were literally willing to fight over it as if it was an Olympic medal game. For us, it’s just fun for the kids.
And the same is true of social media, were a schism is developing between the true believers who view it with a purity of spirit, and the interlopers who see it as a business opportunity.
Social Media Fight Club
Debates are popping up like long lost relatives of lottery winners. Whether it’s okay to put links in a blog comment. Whether it’s permissible to tweet about your own blog posts. Whether you should send bulk messages via LinkedIn. Whether you should “friend” people on Facebook that you don’t really know that well.
This conversation about what’s right and what’s out-of-bounds is a natural and healthy byproduct of any growing phenomenon that touches hundreds of millions of people. There is no social media Czar (except maybe Brogan), and there are no “rules” (hat tip to Mack Collier for his post on that subject). Like sandlot football, the guidelines for acceptable behavior will be set by the participants themselves (for now). And that’s why dust-ups like Brogan’s K-Mart sponsored posts and every other element that isn’t obviously okay are so good for social media. They force us to confront the possibilities and begin to develop norms based on mutual accord. (Great post by Paul Chaney here on Daily Fix about the history of these controversies)
We Determine Right and Wrong Together
This cycle repeats. Spam email wasn’t always evil. We mutually determined it was so, and then the government reinforced it. Domain names were once free, and squatting was okay. Then we all decided that was bad policy. Ridiculous, animated envelope graphics were once de rigeur on Web sites, until their utter pointlessness was deemed too much to bear.
Even before these conventions were established, the very nature of the Web as a viable commercial enterprise was debated vociferously. Sprung from military and educational facilities, the early Web was not for business, as I was reminded by with a series of angry emails when I bought the first banner ad on www.inc.com in 1994.
Ultimately, the business viability of the Web overran the anti-advertising purists, and I believe the same thing will happen with social media.
There are two social media camps. The first group (The Indirects) believe social media and its underlying principles of authenticity and helpfulness are a transit corridor for brand loyalty and success. The second group (The Directs) believe social media is the new SEO, a way to convey messages and generate business directly.
Would I prefer that all elements of social media be above-board and free of link spammers, Twitter egoists and others trying to game the system? Absolutely. But ultimately I believe The Directs will win because they treat social media like a business. If you believe dollars are at stake, you’ll continue to push the boundaries. They will play harder, and they’ll keep at it until the whistle blows.
Do you agree?
It’s called free enterprise. The marketplace will decide this issue as it has all the others you mentioned. I prefer directness myself because I believe in being honest about your intentions. And the purists who object can always exercise their pinkies on the delete button.
I agree, Jason, that corporate enterprise will externally drive structure into social media.
It’s inevitable because this is the way people are connecting and forming new types of affiliations. Ignoring the social media landscape will be as ludicrous as denying that cable television neutered network broadcasting (or plug in any disruptive innovation you like).
Wouldn’t it be brilliant, though, if the collective “we” could ensure that social media stays truly social…truly personal. The point at which social networking becomes sterile and loses its relevancy, we might as well change its name.
The beauty of community-driven conversation is the ability to self-police the environment. On Twitter, I’ve watched how quickly and effectively people self-police unacceptable behavior, and I love it. I liken it to a playground where bullies aren’t tolerated — and people step in to keep it a fun place to hang.
Stupidity,unfortunately, is part of human nature, so no matter what platform we have for connecting people, we’ll attract people who lack social restraint. Like at your hockey game, there are people who lack the abiliity to assess and display acceptable behavior. The question is whether companies (and zealous networkers)can mind their social media manners.
Jason – I totally agree. The people who seem to play “at the edge” tend to win more often than not. And about those hockey parents – you won’t be surprised to know that they exist up here in Canada as well.
To Kelli’s point – I’m not sure it’s all that difficult to keep social media social, if that’s your thing. If you don’t want to listen to the “Directs”, you shut them off. To the point about keeping social space social: the word that comes after “social” (either media or networking), is a decidedly business term. So wouldn’t it make sense that either behaviour is acceptable?
Thanks for a very thought provoking post Jason. I agree with Kelli in the fact that social media is truly about building personal relationships.
In my mind, there has never before been a tool that can help instigate this better than social media. I think it is about being authentic, and one person’s authenticity is different than another’s. If you don’t like it, use Steve’s point and shute them off.
Being from Minnesota, this rings too true. The problem as I see it is not about hockey or social media. The problem is about the motivation. Clearly, the Phoenix crowd was motivated to win while your boys were motivated to play. Your SM analogy then rings all that much truer. SM is nothing more than a channel (like ice) that enables something larger (like hockey). Business opportunities are not forged on channels but motivation. Before defining rules, business needs to define motivation and goals. Only then can you define the channels that help you achieve that.
1st of all, I love Flag! Wife almost went to NAU, but decided ASU instead.
People are able to choose who they want to follow/read, and others are able to make decisions on how they share information or run their business.
The smart ones are able to share information and promote their business at the same time without the “end-user” noticing the difference.
There is a time and place for everything.
Mike P / nhscooch
I use social media socially. If a facebook friend turns out to be pushing something, I take him off my friend list (I did it last week to a personal injury attorney). I don’t mind a little promotion here and there, but delete works well for those who invade my social space too often.
Boy, Jason, those Phoenix parents… they need to learn a thing or two.
Elaine (in Phoenix)
I think social media is so new people just don’t know what to do with it just yet. Everyone kind of dove in and is now clawing to get around and be visible.
I think both camps are right and both are wrong. Co-existence is possible with balance, which is how network television used to get us to watch. Spamming didn’t start out as evil, you say. Maybe not, but even in its infancy it was annoying – a constantly crying baby. Put a few hundred thousand crying babies in a room and you are certainly courting a definition of evil. In social media, only the extremists mind if you have your own agenda and want to talk about it from time to time. But if you bleat about it repeatedly like an 18th century costermonger, don’t be surprised if the people you want to reach start avoiding you. Just as with the sports parents – be respectful of the other person; that’s the way you make friends AND customers.
@Liz – I agree the marketplace will decide. Which is what scares me. Spam email wouldn’t exist if nobody could make money from it.
@Kelli – Thanks for the very thoughtful comment. I agree about self-policing. I believe that’s the one thing that may save us. You can’t hide in social media the way you do in email, et al.
@steve – You raise a good point in that social media is almost entirely opt-in. There’s a follow up post in there for sure.
@Kirsta – I’m so glad you found it thought provoking. That’s what I’m shooting for every time out.
@Cory – Bingo. Those motivated by money will ultimately play harder than those motivated by social connections.
@Mike – Thanks for the comment. Get up to Flagstaff for beers and snow. Tweet me!
@Jan – Good for you. I’m glad you’re voting with you unfollow button.
@Elaine – Ha! Certainly not all Phoenix parents (since I was one for 6 years). But, zealous youth sports freak seem to exist disproportionately in cities, where competition is stiffer.
@Nick – Exactly. We’re all just feeling our way around in the dark. Hopefully we can be each others’ nighlight.
@Robyn – Great comment. Thanks very much. The ONLY time since I’ve started blogging that somebody has included “costermonger” in a comment. Nice!
I think Cory’s point was right on.
Ultimately, as more people use and understand the social web, the SM equivalent of spammers, squatters and envelop graphic advertisers will go the way of their predecessors and be forced to conform to the desires of the user.
social media fight club? great visual.
my thoughts? whenever there is an emergence of a new mode of communication the early adopters tend to want to own it and make the rules. oddly, i find in the case of early adopters, the grandest of puba’s seem to be the most flexible and forgiving.
why must there be a set of rules. i personally like jason falls’ number one rule: don’t be a douchebag.
other than that, why not let social media take its organic path. some will sink and some will swim.
I don’t mind a little promotion here and there, but delete works well for those who invade my social space too often.
@Dan – I’m not sure I agree that they’ll go away. They’ll just change tactics. Phishing, viruses, Twitter squatters, etc. are all still issues today.
@amy – Jason Falls is precisely right about his rule #1. The problem is, when $$$ gets involved, that rule gets thrown out the window a lot.
@Outsource – I agree. The opt-in only (mostly?) nature of social media is incredibly attractive.
Great point. All of these sites require a payment going to somebody, unless the sites have benefactors. Who’s going to pay? And what will they pay? $.50 a month from every user, would you do that to keep commercial interests off? Compromises your banking information at that point, too. Every site has to pay, and get paid in order to do so. We determine who will pay, usually passively.
The blessing of social media in its current form is that it is relatively easy to startup new sites and groups. Even with rapid growth, many become proliferate and become obsolete within a few months/years and fade away or reinvent themselves. Undesireables not wanted in certain venues can easily find other venues where their messages and style are accepted. Adam Smith wins again.
Hey JB,
Thanks for the great post. Having known you and followed your various endeavors in the Phx ad market for more than a decade – way back to our Ad2 days – I can appreciate and attest to the fact that you’ve always been way ahead of the game. Your level of authenticity, ingenuity and business saavy has been an inspiration to witness. Ideally my hope for social media would be that it holds some kind of middle ground where we get the best of both worlds. But realistically I get that where money is involved the situation almost always devolves into a caveat emptor mentality. I guess the true message is to use the medium to educate yourself — know who and what’s out there so you’ll have some trusted resources as a touch point.
Speaking as someone who DOES use social media as a business tool, I think there is a balance. The other day I blocked a Twitterer that was sending a particularly obnoxious pitch over and over again.
And as others have already said, that is the difference between SM and email spam. The spammers just keep coming whereas the bad Twitterers lose their followers (fast).
At the same time, I use Twitter and FB to send people to what I consider quality content. Both on my own blog and to other links.
As in all business exchanges, I have made friends on social media, but my emphasis is still business.