Social Networking is aimless
In the consumer space social networks are intentionally aimless other than to allow folks to find each other, connect and socialize. Aimlessness is the last thing a company wants for its employees.
Social Networking is ambiguous at work
A couple of weeks ago I was invited as a guest speaker by a massive tech company. They had flown in about 50 global execs for one of their annual meetings and wanted me to come in “to shake things up,” particularly on the subject of enterprise social networking and how it could fit into their world.
Beforehand, I met the group who were planning the event. They told me that all the geographies were interested in social networking software, “you know,” they said, “like blogs, wikis, forums or whatever.” It was clear to me that the leaders of this tech company perceived all of those different tools as social networking because that sort of software allows folks to openly interact, make connections and group-gather. And so, in some ways they really weren’t wrong.
Ambiguity around social networking also shows up from our own Sales folks who will tell us about how prospects or customers are keen on social networking features. When pressed on what this means, the answers are friending or groups (the same features these companies see on Facebook).
Not a means to an end
The conversation gets more interesting when you ask what these companies are trying to *do* with social networking. The reality is, these companies want the result of being efficiently networked. Employees are working on something specific and want to be able to do that work within a larger context where they can quickly locate people, figure out what those people do and how best to engage (or not) with them on the project or activity. The “networking” is nothing more than intelligence around the “who” portion of their teamwork at hand. Once that’s clear, the employees want to get their work done with those people within that same social network, not retreat back to various solitary applications or blind email. 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.
The chicken and egg of Social Networking
Let’s be honest, way more than software, social networking is behavior. People are the only ones who can judge the strength of their social ties, the situational appropriateness of hierarchy, the nuances of how relationships evolve, etc. It’s complicated stuff that happens well beyond the binary notion of adding or removing friends. Once we’re connected, the real social networking begins and that networking is nothing more than how we behave with those we’re connected to.
There’s another truth here. We learn what’s appropriate from the tools we use. The black hole of individual, solitary, file-centric “productivity software” we’ve lived in for decades has taught us a particular style of how to work with others and what work is supposed to be like. It’s easy to see that if we had been using vastly different tools, that the way we’d work with others would be pretty different. So, as much as lots of people in our space like to disconnect behavior from the tools we use, they’re actually connected like a chicken and egg.
This week, I’m invited to participate on a panel at Enterprise 2.0 with some “social networking vendors.” I’m curious to understand how these folks identify their companies and products with social networking. It’s certainly not how we identify at Jive, where social networking is merely an important ingredient in the stew.
Things people have said about this post
It’s important to focus on the end results, not the technologies. I just had lunch with a CEO of a successful social networking company discussing this yesterday.
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
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.
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.
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 …
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
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
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.
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?”
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.
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?