Proof is in the Pudding

Now that you know your digital archive is the future of your perceived brand, it’s important to realize how your connections fit into that equation. After joining Facebook last week, I realized several things rather quickly. First, Facebook is far superior to LinkedIn in terms of showing how deep your connections really lie. The personal nature of Facebook makes this rather obvious. It certainly reinforces Dessert Theory in regards tologo_facebook.jpg connections. In short, it’s less powerful if I tell you who I’m connected to and more powerful if you can see my connections (LinkedIn). Even more convincing however, is for you to witness who I interact with on a daily basis. This gives you more insight into a person’s brand. LinkedIn by it’s very nature is limiting in terms of interaction. It doesn’t spark community.

Brett Hurt, the CEO of Bazaarvoice, told me he spoke at a high school recently where he asked Generation-Y teenagers if they used email or IM. The majority to his surprise said no. They all used Facebook and Myspace. While this may not come to a surprise to everybody, it did make me think. Where e-mail and IM went wrong is that they weren’t platforms so to speak. They don’t give you the ability to share knowledge with the masses. They don’t allow you to show off your connections. While LinkedIn does allow this to some extent, it’s still limited in the sense that you can’t spark dialog between your connections. A successful social network should be your community so to speak, especially if you don’t have other outlets such as blogging.

People may question whether it’s more important to have active community or a big community. While I think the holy grail would be to have both, an active community of connections is far superior. You are creating a following through the dialog you spark and the participation you elicit. In short, you have a following; a brand people associate with.

Advertisements

One thought on “Proof is in the Pudding

  1. I think we have to be careful in our assumptions of something I would call mono-community thinking. Although inevitably each one of us defines a community that can be measured by one’s status as the least common denominator, (with a hopefully large numerator) we are actually all participants in many communities. The edges may be soft between where one community ends and another begins, but we can definitely find points of distinction. Who in your social network would you invite to a party? Or a dinner party? Or a dinner party with your boss? Who would you debate with? Or recommend? Or lend money? We have lots of concentric circles and depending on professions, experiences, even age and courtesies, we may choose to hold some of those circles apart from the others. As technology allows and demands greater transparency I think we will also see efforts to create categorizations, segregations and inner-circles within and among our communities. Like a nightclub with a VIP room. – the velvet rope creates curiosity, interest, and desire as well as disdain and acrimony, and for those within the inner sanctum another source for communal attachment – or snobbery. This may sound a bit heretical to social media thinking, but it is also a very human impulse.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s