Comments on: Scoble Blindness

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 01:35:08 +0000

Yes, that is a good point, what you see enthusiasts or techies using today, everyone will be using tomorrow.
The PC and the Internet are two prime examples.

By: Robert Scoble

Robert Scoble — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:51:12 +0000

I both agree with Alan and disagree with him, as I said in a post on my blog: http://scobleizer.com/2009/01/07/seagatetheater/
Be careful here, though. Early adopters ALWAYS lead the market in the tech industry.
Today I spoke to an audience at the Consumer Electronics Show. Most of the people said they used TweetDeck. Most “normal people” don’t have any idea what that is.
Who do I talk to? The people who use TweetDeck. Who do you want to reach? The people who don’t.
It leads to some interesting conflicts, but I have a lot of viewers around the world who are in weird places.
The librarian who runs the Library of Congress’s photo and images division says I’m her favorite blogger. Liam Casey, who runs a supply chain in Shenzhen China, says the same. Etc. Etc.
The fact that you wrote this post tells me I’m reaching exactly who I want to reach: tech enthusiasts.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:36:13 +0000

So if people are just messing about with social media is it really that good a marketing tool?
My sense is that it is mostly a toy.
I guess I have a lot to learn.

By: Alan Wolk

Alan Wolk — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:25:02 +0000

@Leigh– gotcha. We are indeed on the same page It was the word “tool” that threw me, but now I see how you meant it and we are in complete mind-meld

By: Leigh Duncan-Durst

Leigh Duncan-Durst — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:58:59 +0000

Alan,
I DO agree heartily that this “A-lister” thing is not scalable and has questionable meaning. Nuff said there… I doubt you’ll get many serious detractors on that!
However, I think perhaps you misunderstand me – I’m not falling into a trap.
Sorry if I was unclear in any way. The fact is, Twitter IS a tool! It’s a communications tool – just like the Phone was and is today. Follow that parallel to frame my comments in the post above….
With regard to the Twitter segmentation idea… that’s just the analyst in me getting curious about HOW people are currently using the tool to create “success.” This may a range from connecting to a college buddy to enciting a social media frenzy over a blog post.
In other words, we agree.
Like use of the phone did over time… Twitter, microblogging and life streaming usage will change over time… morphing as people join and features emerge and cross-convergence and innovation are applied.
In other words, I think we are on the same page! Kthxbai!

By: Alan Wolk

Alan Wolk — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:43:43 +0000

@Ben – excellent points re: McCauley- that is definitely what I’ve been driving at here. Fortunately, most seem to get that.
@Leigh – I think you are falling into the trap of looking at Twitter as a “tool” for users rather than for marketers. I just don’t see most people outside of the SV bubble using it as a “tool” for anything other than talking to their friends. The things that are important to the SV crowd (“someone just retweeted my blog post!!”) have zero relevance elsewhere.
Of course some people will have more influence than others within a certain ecosystem. But the bigger point of this post is that the SV model of the big name “A-List Influencer” is not likely scalable, to use the local parlance and that those of us who work in marketing need to take that into account rather than produce a steady stream of posts about “5 Ways To Improve Your Twitter Influence”

By: Leigh Duncan-Durst

Leigh Duncan-Durst — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:52:31 +0000

Alan,
I totally agree with David’s comment about the many bubbles in our ecosystem… kinda takes the wind out of what I wanted to say.
It would be interesting to see some analysis and segmentation emerge for Twitter users. One of the agencies I freelance for did something like this for Technorati and the insights were awesome.
You are correct in asserting the “one size fits all” approach doesn’t work on Twitter. Things like the definitions of “influence” and “value” are therefore malleable definition to various users.
MANY users do not care to influence the world – they just want to chat with friends. Some users may want a tight, meaningful network. Others want a HUGE, sprawling network. Some care about privacy. Others don’t really give a darn about follower envy or privacy.
I’m pretty sure if you did contextual or data analysis on usage patterns for Twitter, you might be able to identify some core segments, which would allow you to align Twitter users to some descriptive personae.
These core user types – defined by the typical demographics ALONG with volunteered profile information and observed data (e.g. like usage patterns, “tweet types” (e.g. information sharing, self-promotion, etc.), tweet topics, aggregate friending trends… e.g. number of followers (and segment breakdown of those followers) could be really interesting. We’d probably see a number of models of Twitter use that spell “success” and find a MULTITUDE of successful ways Twitter is being used to change the way we work and live…
Just thinking out loud here.
However, even if this analysis DID exist today… and I probably wouldn’t change the way I operate. I’d still use Twitter in a manner that seems to work best for myself….
And love ‘em or hate ‘em, this IS what Scoble and Kawasaki did.
I’d STILL be asking myself how much value I am adding to my network – embracing the fact I don’t have the time or resources to ALWAYS offer pithy, wise, thought provoking 140 character tweets. My hope is that I will always be authentic, warm, personal and display a willingness to learn and a sense of humor.
Again, just thinking out loud.
Thanks for the post, Alan.

By: Ben Kunz

Ben Kunz — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:41:59 +0000

Agreed. Our early adoption of social media has created a form of *groupthink*, where we all chase each other’s reflections in a gee-whiz-get-followers hall of mirrors.
Psychologist Clark McCauley once wrote that there are three conditions that lead to groupthink: (1) strong leadership, (2) homogeneity of members’ backgrounds, and (3) isolation from outside perspectives. The early adopters of social media fit the bill — we follow leaders (the Robert Scobles or David Armanos or A-listers that many emulate); we have similar backgrounds (higher education, affluent, interest in technology); and we focus on blogs or tweets like our own, insulated from outside perspectives.
Alan, your post is a great reminder to stick our heads up and see what the real world thinks of all this — if they think at all. History may judge our obsession with the *tools* of social media similar to the guys hovering around the first fax machines, crazily happily with the techniques of pushing images through wires.
Eventually, people will just use the fax.

By: Alan Wolk

Alan Wolk — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:52:00 +0000

@David A: First off, let me say that I am flattered that it is this post that brought you out of retirement, so to speak.
Second, I do not dispute that there will always be spheres of influence. My intention in writing this was just to point out that outside the Silicon Valley bubble, those spheres are likely to be much smaller and limited to a person’s friends and family with Twitter being used as a tool for socializing rather than for self-promotion. (I had read this theory somewhere about something called “micro-interactions” and it’s sort of applicable here–someone’s cousin may tweet about how much they love their new Ford Focus. The recipient won’t re-tweet it, but it will be duly noted next time they go car shopping.)
Point being, that as marketers, we need to stop focusing on mega-influencers, how to reach them and how to be them and realize that most ideas will spread by the un-self conscious actions of people with no vested interest in seeing them spread.
As for Robert Scoble, again, I personally find his writing very valuable. But like you–and most of the people involved in digital marketing who you refer to–I am squarely within the greater Silicon Valley bubble. I doubt most anyone in the creative department of a traditional ad agency has heard of him or thinks Kawasaki is anything other than a brand of motorcycle. It’s just not their world.

By: David Armano

David Armano — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:12:15 +0000

Wow,
I have not commented here in a Long time (shame on me). But it reminds me that there are many bubbles (you could argue that communities are one) and within those bubbles we all influence each other in some way.
For example I see a lot of familiar voices here, Lewis CK, etc. who add to the discourse here. Everyone has some level of it.
I don’t see it as illogical to conclude that some have more reach. It’s all part of the ecosystem. Everyone makes the whole thing work.
One of the interesting things about someone like Scoble is that he has transcended the tech bubble where he started and though many people have not “heard of him” others have. Most people who I work with in the marketing field have. Years ago it was mostly tech folks.
But does it really matter? It takes all types of people with all levels of influence in all kinds of bubbles to get ideas to spread. So the focus should be on making them spreadable.
Good thoughts here Alan as it’s making us all think.