“Enough about me, what do you think about me?”
“You? You? I called about me, myself and I!”
Sounds like a pretty bad conversation. Yet, that’s often what you see when corporate types start promoting their wares in social channels or when “personal brands” deliver their cultivated messages to us (Sheep Meadow Image by Joe Schlabotnnik).
In its own right these types of chats limit the conversation to a very contrived one-dimensional activity. Or worse, just the same old marketing BS delivered to you in a new form. Heck, these efforts can be just flat-out anti-social.
Let’s look at some of the etymology at play here. The much overused word social has many definitions, including, “pertaining to, devoted to, or characterized by friendly companionship or relations.” Inevitably the words companionship and relations are involved in defining social. Going way back, social is derived from the Latin word socius, which means sharing, associated, or allied.
This should tell you truly social media — something that at LComm we simply define as the wide variety of two-way conversational media forms — involves more than one person or entity. Great social media from organizations and marketers engages the larger whole on topics that are more diverse than simple product discussions or contrived messaging.
By addressing the larger whole, good social media serves the community. Intelligent marketers understand that their stakeholders’ interests represent the heart of the conversation, thus their needs supersede a desire to talk about self, product, services or solutions. Even Star Trek’s Spock knew this when after sacrificing his life to save the Enterprise, he said, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few… or the one.”
See video clip of this epic scene from Star Trek II.
Back to etymology. Community also has similar lessons to offer: “A social group of any size whose members reside in a specific locality, share government, and often have a common cultural and historical heritage.” Hmm, I wonder if personal brands, messages or sales pitches need apply to this shared activity.
“I have friends who actuall want to talk about them Can you believe that?” [grin]
The choice is whether to be a learner or a hunter. People respond so much more positively to being treated as teachers and guides rather than as prey. By doing as you say, “putting their interests at the heart of the conversation,” we get a real chance to sit on the same side of the table and truly align our goals with theirs. That’s a relationship on which business can happen. No wonder you’re doing so well.
Wow – for some strange reason I’ve been thinking about Star Trek III and Spock’s death scene these last couple weeks… don’t know why… wonder what that means??
Anyway – more on topic.. I think addressing the larger whole can be accomplished if the person/company engaging takes the time to listen to what is being said instead of immediately jumping in.
I always knew you were a social genius @LizStrauss, but this is brilliantly said:
“People respond so much more positively to being treated as teachers and guides rather than as prey.”
Turning people into prey is, I believe, the antithesis of being social. And yet, at the heart of business every potential customer/client is assigned a value (as in potential revenue in the pipeline) and sales/BD people are commissioned/bonused on bringing in that value to that table. Until this overt behavior changes, potenital clients/customers will always question your motives for being social.
Geoff, that’s why I think your last thought is an important one. Organic communities tend to develop over being similar and when there are strong similarities it’s much easier to partner (no need to “sell” or “convince”) for a common good.
Liz: Brilliant on the prey vs. guid/teach line. I totally agree. I think when we seek to get something, we leave people feeling awkward. When we give value through insights, etc. it’s a different story.
Dave: I had the same experience. It’s gotta be the new Star Trek trailer that’s triggering us.
Beth: Indeed, commonality is the key. Good for you on singling that out. I am sure there is more to explore there.
Reminds me of that Toby Keith song, “I Want to Talk About Me.”
“I wanna talk about me
Wanna talk about I
Wanna talk about number one
Oh my me my”
I know what you were thinking with the Spock analogy, but I’m not buying it.
Spock’s dilemma was that the survival of the Many were in direct conflict with the survival of the One.
In business settings, this is really more of a long-term/short-term equation. It really IS in the best interest of companies to listen and more importantly serve their customers. “Social media” and “Community” are buzzing because “the people” are now using tools that make precision eavesdropping easier, and two-way engagement possible.
Companies that are measuring each transaction in the short-term might not see immediate value. Long-term, they will, because they are Customer-Focused.
When you focus on your customers, they win. And when they develop brand loyalty, you win.
Spock’s dilemma had no win-win. Or at least it didn’t until the writers wussed out and let him recover from Radiation Hibernation.
Other than that – great post. ;)
@DaveMurr Actually, it was Star Trek II, not III. And I’m pretty sure it’s the trailer…
@LizStrauss Your reference to “prey” reminds me of a C.S. Lewis quote “She’s the sort of woman who lives for others—you can always tell the others by their hunted expression.”
Similarly, just like individuals, companies can convince themselves that what they’re doing is “all about the customer” and be completely blind to how transparently self-serving their “helping” can be.