Comments on: How Hard Are You Playing at Social Media?

By: Charles Brown

Charles Brown — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:37:11 +0000

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.

By: Lisa B.

Lisa B. — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 14:23:40 +0000

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.

By: John

John — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:10:54 +0000

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.

By: GLRules

GLRules — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:28:26 +0000

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.

By: Jason Baer

Jason Baer — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 15:19:12 +0000

@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.

By: Outsource Account

Outsource Account — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:02:07 +0000

I don’t mind a little promotion here and there, but delete works well for those who invade my social space too often.

By: amyz5

amyz5 — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:00:10 +0000

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.

By: Dan Brady

Dan Brady — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:51:02 +0000

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.

By: Jason Baer

Jason Baer — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:01:56 +0000

@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!

By: Robyn McIntyre

Robyn McIntyre — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:14:47 +0000

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.