Comments on: Social Networking is aimless

By: Vladislav Chernyshov

Vladislav Chernyshov — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:57:23 +0000

Sorry, I don’t understand your position a little. You say that “aimlessness” in the consumer space is intentional. Thus these social networks are making meaning for the users. How can they be aimless in that case? They solve some user’s problems if they’re so popular, right?

By: Kim Feraday

Kim Feraday — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:29:59 +0000

Interesting post. Recently I read an study on social networking and discourse communities in 18th century London. One of the conclusions it reached is that behaviour was influenced more by the genre (the subject matter, medium and content generated) than on the strength of network ties. If your overall point here is that primary consideration should be given to establishing a community of interest (a discourse community) with shared values and objectives and less on existing network ties then I couldn’t agree more. Placing the focus there will realize better results.

By: Jon Mell

Jon Mell — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:02:29 +0000

I posted something along this topic the other day (http://jonmell.co.uk/2008/06/roi-of-social-software.html) - “Social” software is about enhancing your network. So the real question around results is whether or not your network (independent of IT or social software tools) actually adds value to you and your employer. Does your network help you get things done? If the answer is yes then it’s a question of understanding how much value and what tools are available to increase the value. As we all know, the discussion usually starts at the other end - eg “What’s the ROI of wikis?”

By: Ami Chitwood

Ami Chitwood — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:49:00 +0000

Sam - Looking forward to your panel at E2.0 - My favorite part of your post - “That’s means networking is an organizing layer around people’s work and that the work itself wants to be part of that system and socialized. In isolation of that, social networking is nothing more than a glorified people directory.”

Social networking, to succeed, must be part of the kit/kaboodle and not the only cat around.

By: Jim Storer

Jim Storer — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:40:31 +0000

Hi Sam - I love this message. Too many times I talk with companies about social media/networking and they’re wondering about all the latest tools and applications. I feel like I need to talk them off the cliff… Think about WHO you’re trying to serve and then consider HOW to serve them.

Just yesterday I was interviewed by a team that’s pulling together a book on how enterprises can embrace SM/SN and they asked me “what makes a vibrant community.” IMHO, the question can be answered by thinking about community in an offline sense. What makes a town/community successful? Good teachers (moderators). Interested students (members). Strong infrastructure (SM/SN applications). Programs to stimulate interaction (concerts on the green). Rules of enagement (cultural mores)… I could keep going, but it’s going to get really tired.

Thanks for keeping everyone thinking. I’ll try to connect with you tomorrow at Enterprise 2.0.

Jim | @jstorerj

By: Mike Walsh

Mike Walsh — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:17:01 +0000

Hey Sam - great post.

My guess is that most social networking execs would agree that the social networking technology decision is only one ingredient for success - at least the companies whom have been around for more than a couple of years, that is. I do believe that it is our job as vendors to convey that message, clearly, to a prospect whom is looking for “MySpace for our customers” or “facebook in a box” without having any specific goals in mind. If we do not convey this, we are doing a disservice to them, ourselves and our industry.

That said, I also believe that once the environment is ready for success (goals, strategy, buy-in, a team, etc) then the technology does matter. Users need to find other users and information in a way that is fast and simple so that they will:

1) use it
2) use it efficiently
3) benefit from the use of it

and also that everything is easily measured and monitored. There has to be a clear Return on Attention or there cannot be a Return on Investment.

I won’t see you all today - staying cool in San Francisco.

Cheers - Mike

By: Chuck Hollis

Chuck Hollis — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:13:31 +0000

Hi Sam

I’ve had pretty much the same experience talking to other large companies. For some reason, they fixate solely on the social networking aspects of the broader category of “social productivity”.

“We want Facebook for the enterprise” they say. Or MySpace.

Since this line of thinking is so foreign to me, I have a tough time figuring out how they got to their point of view.

Anyone have any thoughts as to that?

Sorry I won’t see you at the E2.0 panel …

By: Jevon

Jevon — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:07:50 +0000

re: “It’s important to focus on the end results, not the technologies. ”

Of course he said that, he runs a social networking company!

The truth is way less clear for most people though., making a technology buying decision is often more scary than focusing on results, and it tends to eat up budget.

What you say is true, I’m just not sure it’s always that simple.

By: Jevon

Jevon — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:06:09 +0000

One of the most common misconceptions about Social Networking. The idea that it is simply a technology and is only defined as a technology is the reason that a lot of people brush Social Networking off.

Like you said, Social Networking is a behavior and it isn’t new. What is new is the ability to use Social Computing to take that behavior and roll in to a larger strategy.

So, you may not identify as a Social Networking vendor, but that is how users are going to use your software, and to the extent that you ignore that fact, then you do so at your own peril.

By: Don Cooke

Don Cooke — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:56:06 +0000

I could not agree with Jeremiah more in that any tech is as good at the use it is put to.

A major challenge for social media businesses is in aiming marketing at the delivered value of collaborative technologies and not just stringing together buzz-words like web 2.0 etc, ‘works like facebook and msn’,Unified Communications etc. etc. and creating a disruptive and counter-productive reception in the intended B2B audience.

The majority of knowledge based businesses are under-delivering currently through a lack of team-productivity toolsets but can be confused, disaffected or worse still lost is the message is confused with jargon