Sometimes you just have to ask a question and see where it takes you. Twitter started off with the same premise. What are you doing? Eliciting a variety of responses and prompting a banal moment-by-moment commentary before the community kicked-in and reshaped Twitter’s reason for being.
But while I have a great affinity with Twitter,
it is feeling more and more like a broadcast medium every day. Sure
there are some small-scale discussions occurring but they are hardly
conversational. Plurk, on the other hand, have placed conversation right at the heart of their design.
Let’s take a look at how a simple question “who really gets social
media?” generated an entire (and wide ranging) conversation with a
range of participants and countless “eavesdroppers”. Ann Handley’s question resulted in some immediate recommendations … Sean O’Driscoll, Mack Collier, Valeria Maltoni and Connie Reece were all mentioned.
But then the conversation shifted. It became more personal,
capturing the nuance of a real world conversation — mixing personal
anecdote with professional discussion. There were clear moments of true
friendship and caring between people who were thousands of miles apart
and then, snap, the conversation moved again and that moment was lost.
Well, not exactly lost — as it now exists in a form of immediate
historical, hypertext archive.
But the most interesting aspect of all this was the way the
technology played second fiddle to the conversation, and that the
emphasis and energy built over a relatively short time frame. The
threaded discussion feature of Plurk ensured that participants could
jump in at any point to extend, redirect or refocus the discussion.
There was no clicking, chasing, or adding-in new conversationalists as
is required by Twitter — it was all in plain view.
Increasingly, the tools that loosely fall under the term “web 2.0″
appear to be facilitating the style, manner and emotional resonance of
personal relationships that would otherwise be subject to the tyrannies
of distance and geography. And while these interactions are evanescent,
each participant invests these “social media interactions” with an
emotional resonance that attaches not only to the conversation and its
memory, but also to the social media tool being used. Over time and
with use, tools like Plurk (or its variation) will become loved by its
users. Already Twitter, for example, is well loved. On a larger scale,
so is Google.
So who gets social media? Clearly those who understand that the future of your brand is in micro interactions. And more importantly, those who realise that the smart money relies on the human drive to connect.
By the way, if you want to see another great example of this in action, take a look at this discussion instigated by Mack Collier.
“But the most interesting aspect of all this was the way the technology played second fiddle to the conversation”
Gavin you’ve just cracked the code. It’s not about these social tools, but the conversations and connections that these tools help facilitate.
This point was really driven home for me earlier this year when I attended SXSW, then a month later, Blogger Social. I met dozens upon dozens of people at both events that our first offline interaction, was a hug. People that had never ‘met’ hugging each other. It was completely absurd, and at the same time made complete sense.
The connections were made online, but carried over to offline, without the tools. I was lucky enough to meet two of my heroes, Ben McConnell and Jackie Huba @ SXSW, and we started talking about customer evangelism. I told them that IMO, that was the future of marketing much moreso than social media. The future is in finding ways to better connect companies and their customers, to form those relationships and empower them.
I love social media, but I really love what happens as a result of these social sites and tools. The connections and relationships are what really excites me.
Gavin, thanks first of all for the mention. That’s some heady company to find myself in. Second, I agree about the tools being subservient to the conversation. Twitter worked that way for me for a long time, but the conversation has become more difficult as the number of users has dramatically increased.
Plurk, at first glance, seems even sillier than Twitter initially did. But as you’ve illustrated, the conversations are powerful. The connections made online, as Mack pointed out, stimulate a desire to connect offline as well. It’s exciting to see where this will all lead for the future of social media and marketing.
Gavin, thank you for the mention. When I think of Italians, I too tend to think about social creatures. It’s in the air and we practice conversation from a very young age.
Humor aside, I am fully aware of being a product of my environment as well as genetics. For the genetics part, it’s easy to guess extrovert, for the environment – social opportunities at the grocer, on the bus, pretty much everywhere in Piazzas and cafes.
Isn’t it the same with social media? By exposing our ideas in a global forum, we crate the conditions necessary for greater exposure of our shared humanity via interests. Funny that you would publish this today (we’ve been on the same wave length before), I just posted about how interests feed relationships.
I think Twitter and Plurk serve two very different needs. Twitter is the giant cocktail party you wander in and out of, the water cooler conversation you contribute to and go back to the office. Plurk is the group hanging out on the patio in the back, the coffeclasch at Starbucks.
I prefer Twitter because conversations on Plurk feel more private – on Twitter anyone can join in, on Plurk, you are at some level interrupting (or being interrupted.)
I’m still toying with the notion that Twitter is a more male/Mars way of communicating and Plurk is more female/Venus. Not sure it 100% works though.
I do agree that many people do not use Twitter in the right spirit: too much broadcasting, zero interacting. Part of it is ego, the other part is ignorance of the “rules” of Twitter and the third is just plain social awkwardness: I find that Twitter tends to amplify many people’s personality traits, especially with people whose main fault is that they try too hard to fit in.
Interesting suggestion, Toad, about the “Twitter is from Mars, Plurk is from Venus.” I actually am not sure I buy into the male/female bit. (Or am I reading that wrong… it sounds like you are saying Plurk appeals to women more…?)
That said, I do think that they serve very different functions and appeal to different kinds of conversations, as you describe (water cooler v. coffee klatch). I’d call it more of a coffee house (versus “klatch,” though), with Plurks’s clusters of conversations that folks can jump in or out of. It’s far too convivial a spirit there to be described as “interupting,” however.
Mack, so right — it is all about the conversation and the people!
Connie … one of the points I was trying to tease out was that “conversation” has largely left Twitter.
Valeria … a case of BSP?
Alan … Twitter was successful in coalescing a community. But it is funny that you feel like anyone can join in any conversation there … I don’t necessarily agree. Sometimes I do feel like I am interrupting as I join a conversation … on Plurk this awkwardness, dissipates precisely because it occurs in a thread. Interesting variations!
Ann … I am interested to see how the nature of conversation evolves with Plurk — especially when the number of members increases.
Gavin:
We were having a good conversation on Twitter about an AP story just today. Twitter requires more of the facilitator or initiator – the follow through is largely left to them as you cannot see everyone’s comments back (they go back to his/her @).
With a bit of patience and good sense of humor it does come out right and we all learn.
I might change my mind, I just cannot stomach signing up on yet another tool/network at the moment.
Took me a double take on BSP.
I’m not sure I’ve ever seen Twitter as a conversational tool, it is a broadcast tool, a presence application, a flow of information and updates and it’s not really suited to “conversation” per se.
Completely agree that it amplifies or exacerbates a person’s personality, but by default this demonstrates their true personality most of the time. if you don’t like it stop following them. I’ve done so to quite a few people who just aren’t interesting or relevant for me, but equally I’ve been in contact with lots of new people, who I’m pretty sure I’ll get on if and when we ever meet.
This last aspect isn’t unique to twitter, plurk or any other tool, however, it’s a characteristic of online discussion – be it forums, blogs, twitter or whatever.
Valeria …as Mack says, Plurk takes a bit of getting used to, but the conversations really are top class. I actually had my funniest SM moment last night … right on Plurk.
Alex … agree, online discussion really can give you some insight into someone’s personality before you meet them. It’s always nice to meet the face behind the handle
I’m on Valeria’s side about Italians being so social. And that’s why I prefer Plurk to Twitter. I feel Twitter is far more a place to shout something to the world and sit down and listen for comments, if any. Plurk is direct engagement.
@Ann- Yes, I was suggesting that Twitter is from Mars, Plurk is from Venus. Like I said, not sure if I buy into it myself, but thought I would throw it out there as it does seem to have some initial logic.
@Gavin- Curious that you feel like you are interrupting on Twitter, since the only people who can see your @’s should be your friends. Maybe it’s a difference in style- if I was following many people I didn’t know, then it might be awkward. Though if someone I don’t know @’s me, I always try and answer back, even if it’s a one word “Thanks” or “Interesting” sort of thing- just to let them know they’re not being ignored.
The biggest difference between the two services is that on a Twitter conversation, I only “hear” the people
I’m following – they’re the only ones whose Tweets I see. That really hasn’t been a problem for me though and I much prefer it to Plurk where I get to see back and forth between 2 or 3 complete strangers.
@Alex: Agree 100%- the ability to unfollow is a beautiful thing.
thanks much for the mention. I’m not religious about any of the tools, only what they enable – a set of channels for brand to user, user to brand and user to user dialog. A challenge comes though in not taking this a bit deeper. Just deciding that the conversation matters and that you’ll participate in it isn’t enough. You need to step back and listen for awhile. It’s funny, poeple sometimes go tell brands to “participate” in the convo…they have to get out there! Ok, ok. I’m good with that ultimately, but if you are a BIG brand, what is the rush. You’ve been out of it this a long time – a few more months won’t kill you. take another 3-6 months to go truly listen to all these channels and start to organize what conversations are taking place. Use that time and research to define the entry point, the business objective the role you need to play, the tools that matter most, and the accountability model inside your company for engaging and taking action. To many listening systems today are actually just “hearing systems” because the internal processes for accountability either aren’t working, haven’t been established or, often times, aren’t bi-directional – you don’t tell anyone what you did.
sean
Alan … I primarily use Twitter to listen in — and I do follow quite a lot of people that I don’t know. And while I can filter that down, I know, I can’t really be bothered. And anyway, I get to learn some interesting information along the way
Sean … totally agree. It is one thing to start listening, but quite another to systematize that knowledge in order to gain the type of insight that can be used within your business. With big brands, this can take some time. And as you point out, accountability is the key.
That is a provocative question. What is clear, is that social media is game changing.
Amazing that I could discover pubcamp through twemes.com and drop by “the cocktail party” from Toronto, all within a few minutes.
The conversation that is perhaps most important, IMHO, when is comes to social media is the one that needs to take place around the boardroom tables of major corporations.
When we use terms like risk, impact on future earnings and share price, we will touch off a completely different wave of commitment, investment and attention to the special managements required.
Cheers,
mc