There are times when it becomes necessary to set expectations. Unfortunately, one by-product of social worlds seems to be a certain set of the population believes that because an individual or an entity participates in open conversation that their entire business should be openly accessible. The two — open and accessible — are not synonymous (open access image by Ron Layters).
Think about these things, all of which I have personally experienced or counseled clients on:
- Competitors asking you to write their business plan or shape their value proposition
- Potential clients or just general people who follow you asking you to read their marketing or business plan
- Competitors asking you to review their new social media theory
- An assumption by PR people that you must write about them — and anger when you don’t
- Requests for open sourcing trade secrets
- Friending of spouses through Facebook from contacts you’ve never met or heard of (check out see one teenager’s experiences)…
- Claims of a business conversation from folks you’ve never even talked to on the phone. Nevermind that you have never done business together (See Shel on this).
- Friending and then immediately spamming/DMing with links for review (If you do this, I always delete).
- A new online follower who suddenly demands inordinate amounts of personal attention (see the parasocial phenomena)
Open does not equal access. Expectations like this are just crazy, both on the personal front as well as the business side.
Sometimes it is best to simply import common sense into the equation. What doesn’t work in the brick and mortar world in social situations will not likely work online. Just because it’s behind a keyboard doesn’t suddenly make it OK.
These occurrences are certainly the by-products of success. So here is the world’s smallest violin playing a sad, sad song. At the same time, followers and friends should have expectations that such claims and requests will not be met with open arms ("Artistic Violin" by midimen).
Well said, friend. The blogosphere equivalent of asking for free legal advice from a lawyer you meet at a social gathering.
Thanks Geoff. I’m pointing people to your post and Jeneane’s http://tinyurl.com/6g5e4j
Hi Geoff. I feel like I must be misinterpreting something or not reading carefully, but I’m not understanding the connection between the post I wrote and the phrase “their entire business should be openly accessible.” Could you clarify? Thanks.
Thanks, Connie and Toby.
Greg: You wrote things like:
“On both Twitter and Facebook, I have an informal rule that I be conversational with anyone who wants to be part of my social network.”
and
“The responses I get to the questions are varied, but the vast majority of people at least answer. Some people are really appreciative of the message and my efforts to engage. One person told me that they actually respected me more for asking.”
And other similar things. My point is that expectations like this may not always be met. Open does not equal access. It seems yours is. I realize we are in different situations, but all points have a counterpoint.
Thanks for the link-back Geoff. The irony is that Greg and I , the librarians that we are, would probably be willing to share what we know as long as we had a polite request — (the retainer fee has already been paid through taxes).
I once had someone who was working on a Wordpress-based project for an org. and I told them, “you know you could learn that. My colleagues and I could whip up that template pretty quickly.”
The reply? “Great! Could you have that done by Friday.”
wha-wha-Hunh?
Woah woah woah. I think you have us all wrong there sir! For one, librarians operate on a completely different business model than PR. The retainer has been paid and we share, for the most part.
Second, we are talking about how we are going to choose our network. One of my expectations is that there is dialogue. If there isn’t, then I won’t add you. That’s fair exchange, not expectation.
I defy you to find a case where I would have asked people for help on a business plan or whatnot. In fact, I have answered more questions for PR folks than have got answers from!
I understand your business is different than mine, Ryan. But to someone who is a general reader of blogs that may not be clear. They may interpret your comments as something the whole Internet should enforce.
And while it may be fair for you to demand dialogue, I think in some case that demand is not fair. For example, I am an author. A lot of people want to friend me. I try to handle of all their requests, but there is not enough time to do that, have a life, run a business, etc. Is their expectation fair?
Thanks for your response, Geoff. Understand that I’m still trying to work through some of my ideas and that I’m open to changing my perspective on this stuff. Let me respond to a few things and see where it leads.
“My point is that expectations like this may not always be met.”
Agreed. As someone who is on the receiving end of a modest number of friend requests from strangers, I don’t think that means it’s wrong to have expectations. And it’s why I’m going out of my way to lay out my expectations explicitly. If you are requesting to be my friend, then expect me to engage you. If you’re not comfortable with that, then we’re not likely to be friends. These are people requesting access to me, after all.
“And while it may be fair for you to demand dialogue, I think in some case that demand is not fair.”
I know that wasn’t addressed to me, but again, the point is that you’re not requesting to be my friend. If you were, I’d ask you who you were and why you wanted to be my friend. Why is that unrealistic? You get to handle your wealth of friend requests in your own way. Nothing wrong with that.
I’m still a little fuzzy on the line you’re drawing between open vs. access. From my (sure-to-be-distorted) perspective, if I am opening my social network to you by accepting your friend request, then I am indeed providing you some degree of access. I expect some degree of reciprocation in return. Otherwise, there’s no meaning for me in the relationship. I’m not just friending people to add to my numbers.
I understand that, at some level, I am breaking with some Internet norms, where lurking and “adding for padding” is commonplace and where active engagement is not expected and not always welcome. I get that. But I’m not satisfied with those norms when it comes to the level of openness and, yes, access I’m providing people when I accept their friend requests.
Thanks again for engaging the discussion.
“I understand your business is different than mine, Ryan. But to someone who is a general reader of blogs that may not be clear. They may interpret your comments as something the whole Internet should enforce.”
I am still trying to understand the connection you are making between my post and the content you relay. First of all, the post you linked to (”Navigating Online Cultures”) is a tongue-and-cheek examination of online cultures. The only potential observation that could be translated as you said was the single line:
“I don’t blame him [Greg] for expecting dialogues from his online friends.”
I then go on to say how my approach differs from Greg’s. While I’m open to suggestions, I thought my message was more “handle your network as you will — so will I.” I was marvelling at the diversity of ways people can approach their networks, not making a suggestion for how others should approach theirs.
That said, there is little I can disagree with on your post, except to say asking for help is different from expecting it. I think that the existence of for-pay tends to mediate the discourse between “open” and “accessible”. If I ask you for advice and you don’t give it to me, I can’t exactly complain unless I’ve paid you. Personally, I’ll offer some levels of advice based on the relationships I hold with the asker. Owe the person a favor? Then I’ll offer more. Getting unreasonable requests all the time? Then, I’ll ignore.
As far as the whole Internet enforcing my suggested approach to Twittering. Well, I wish that’s the way things worked. :)
Geoff, even though you haven’t had the opportunity to respond yet (and my inability to be succinct is getting the better of me), I want to echo some of what Ryan is saying. I don’t disagree with the premise of your post either. I think it is totally unreasonable of people to simply expect things of you because you are open to adding them as a friend or follower or whatever. But I’m coming from the perspective that by requesting to be my friend, the requestor is already asking something of me.
I guess I just don’t feel like I’m the poster child for “a certain set of the population believes that because an individual or an entity participates in open conversation that their entire business should be openly accessible.”
Well, regardless of whether or not it was a pure fit, it was a good idea. Look at all of the great insights you both brought to this conversation! Thanks for coming by.
Geoff,
A bit of a tangent… Your thoughts touch upon a question I had with another colleague a few weeks ago.
We were discussing “open collaboration vs competition.” The social collaboration model has thrown a monkey wrench in basic economic thought and practice.
At what point do we collaborate and at what point do we compete?
A better question maybe, How do you compete and collaborate at the same time?