The IBM experiment seems to confirm that self-promotion, empowerment and innovation can be powerful incentives for employees to drive social media engagements, internally and externally. It also demonstrates how employees enhance their personal brand and careers along with that of their employers.
The pharma giant, Pfizer was being charged in a controversial drug trial involving children with meningitis. So, of course, Pfizer hired investigators to find evidence of corruption against the Nigerian attorney general in order to persuade him to drop legal action against the company. These are just some of the revelations, involving big business like Pfizer and Shell, in the Wikileaks cables.
Did you need to know this? I’m glad I do. I hope it goes some distance in preventing companies like Pfizer in using my children as guinea pigs.
Mark Burnett has talked about how ‘In terms of physical change, someone’s going to figure out how to make shows interactive as you go along…I wish it would be me’. I guess everyone is waiting for a technical solution that provides better interactive tools.
Maybe there is a simple alternative while we wait for the missing link (that promises to elevate fortunes of both TV and Social media)
What about experimenting with writing social media integration INTO the plot?
What are all these metrics doing? Now algorithms measure social ‘influence’. We already know that people are finding new ways to game the system. What will inevitably follow are other algorithms, that replicate ‘influence-building’ behavior. Will these ‘automated social friends’ replace the email spammers of today?
What happens to authenticity, transparency etc. when metrics and algorithms drive behavior?
It is important that adulation does not lull our ‘thought leaders’ into dishing out information, that we cannot relate to. Advice that is borderline narcissistic and elitist. We have ourselves to blame if we accept without questioning. So lets challenge the ‘thought leaders’ to be better than they are. Remind them to connect, to walk in our shoes, even if in empathy.
Don’t let them confuse respect with unconditional support.
DON’T let them SUCK.
We all benefit.
If you’re following social media marketing closely, you probably have been witness to the passive aggressive Influencer battles fought by the valiant thought leadership on vast and eloquent battlefields of the blogosphere.
Here is my interpretation, so that the rest of us – mortals and no-listers, can perhaps try make sense of it all.
Terms like ‘influencers’ and ‘thought-leaders’ implies an elitist ability to ‘influence’ people into predictable patterns of thought and behavior. This makes fertile ground for ideological as well as corporate monopolies. Such methods may have been vital (even necessary) part of civilization building, in the past. But that was before technology provided us with means of real-time social communication – ubiquitous, intuitive and accessible (by large numbers).
With a name like ‘Project Titan’, the internet buzzed with the expected arrival of a ‘Gmail killer’. Tech folk had visions of a product announcement rivaling the cunning and stealth of Cronus, who took over as leader of the Titans from the original ruler, his dad Uranus.
Mark Zuckerberg’s current unrelenting march towards global domination does not look like it needs an additional general.
Yet, from my arm-chair vantage point, I cannot help but wonder how a low level interaction measurement report/tool, for each user could add to Facebook’s appeal.
Should you follow all who follow you? Should you have more followers than followees?
Yet another thought provoking post ‘Being a Twitter Snob is a Good Thing’ from Mitch Joel, was what initially inspired me to start writing about this. Then Mark Schaefer put out an equally thoughtful rejoinder, ‘Bringing Down the Twitter Snobs’.