Know-How Exchange : Social Media

Dear Brad,

Might it be better to forget about the social side of things and focus instead on the networking opportunities afforded by the media in question?

Might the name "social" is just that: a name.

If we think about this for a moment: surely, without a gathering place, where people meet face to face there can be little by way of "social" anything?

Perhaps the thing that matters MORE than the symbolic nature of the meeting place is the CONNECTION afforded as a result of the meeting?

Isn't the place of the meeting therefore, irrelevant?

As for experts and gurus, a person only becomes one or the
other of these things for one of two reasons:

1. Because they have been appointed as such by other people (which gives social proof).

OR

2. Because they have claimed expert or guru status (which proves they have the chops to talk the talk or walk the walk—or both).

It takes balls to call oneself an expert. But here's the thing: the more one tells people of one's expertise, the more of an expert one becomes in the eyes of other people, which gives more weight to the side of social proof.

The bigger thing to remember here is this: perception is everything, and in the land of the mute, the man or woman with the power of speech is king.

Lots of people who COULD be experts resist the temptation to pipe up for fear of looking silly if no one likes their opinion. So they remain mute (but silently bitch and whine) while someone else takes the spotlight.

In cases like this one MUST overcome the fear of ridicule (risk aversion) in order to make one's presence felt and get one's opinion heard (or aired). Only THEN does one acquire the trappings of being an expert because one has shown (frequently and consistently) that one knows one's stuff—EVEN IF, one is sometimes revealed as being plain old WRONG.

So, as with the location of the social activity, the notion of being
an "expert" or a "guru" is also meaningless.

What matters more is that the people that have been appointed
as experts or that have claimed the status of guru have been willing to risk loss and make more headway than others (in a short period of time as in the case of "social media") simply because they've been willing to speak up, or because they've made connections, or because they've seen the possibility of connections where others have either been blind, or short sighted, or, in extreme cases, simply had their head up their ass.

The only way to climb a mountain is to put one foot in front of the other. The people that climb to the peak (and who deserve to plant their flag there) arrive at the top after months or years of often invisible toil: their progress has usually been steady and slow and fueled by passion and commitment.

Their progress and arrival at the top has SELDOM been because they've been helicoptered to the top. They've earned it.

The other thing to bear in mind is that without theory and strategy, plans seldom get drawn up and acted on.

I think your idea for varying kinds of blogs is sound. One might well drive the other, which in turn will lead to a ripple effect of more communication.

I hope this helps, or that it sparks further debate.

Gary Bloomer
Wilmington, DE, USA

"Social enough" should be based on two factors: your personality and your niche. If everyone in your niche has a blog, Facebook page, Twitter account, then you may need these also. But make sure that when you want to say something, it's of interest to your network

As Juliet & Gary both mention, Social Media are simply tools. They do make communicating with large numbers of people (and having large numbers of people find you) easier. But ultimately, what happens when you "open your mouth" (or type on your keyboard) is what people remember. If you share valuable information daily, weekly, or monthly it doesn't matter. It's the sharing of value that does matter.