Social Media :: So many buffalo bets. Who to believe?
May 29, 2006 by Robert
Essentially everything being done these days with social media is still an experiment. With regard to public relations, no tried and true applications have been established. There may be no tried and true applications. Anecdotal examples of tools and strategies are out there, but nothing that yet works in a multitude of implementations.
Search is the only aspect of new online tools and tactics that truly has universal use in public relations. Wise practitioners will explore search and learn how to use it to discover what people are saying about their clients. In-house communication and collaboration via CMS and wikis may be second in line.
When new tactics present themselves, everyone wants to try and find a way to make it work for them and their clients. Yes, there is the crass aspect of trying to find a new way to bill for something. There is also the sincere desire to discover new ways to effectively communicate and involve others in conversations. Some organizations desire to build communities while others wish to draw in customers.
AdAge has decided to roll the dice with a new column written by Steve Rubel.
The “buffalo” bet refers to the game of “craps” where one bets the “Hard Way as well as Any Seven.” It is important to remember that the Any Seven “bet pays 4:1 and has a house edge of 16.7%.”
Have you ever really known the house to truly give away the knowledge required to win? Keep that in mind. Also, keep in mind that the house realizes that it is, after all, a gamble - but, the house doesn’t want you to think of it that way.
As for Rubel’s “opening salvo,” as he calls it, go check it out (subscription required). I’ll save others the trouble by alerting you that there is nothing new there. First, there is the usual regurgitation of “this many people are doing it” or “here’s a big audience” and other such oft repeated stats. Let us remember here that the numbers are not actual. No one really knows how many people are using and/or have social media involvement. Then, if you like starry-eyed promises of a “new universe” and how this online marvel was “born in a big bang” let us not forget somethings that flare up, die in a whimper.
By the way, Rubel’s post is located on a page with only two aspects of social media present - RSS and email to a friend. That second one is kinda old school, isn’t it? So, that means we have a one-way conversation going on over at AdAge in a new column that tells us all to join the dialogue. Think about it.
As I’ve said to countless audiences, as recently as last week, there are no true experts in all of this blogging and social media talk going round. There are learners, experimenters and pretenders. Stick with the learners, and join in the experiment and discussions. Avoid the pretenders.
[...] InfOpinions: Social Media - So many buffalo bets. Who to believe? And, speaking of bloggers, should we actually listen to any of them? We are all just experimenting in the blogosphere right now, but who can go out there and say “yes, this is what you should do and I have absolutely no doubts at all, and it’s ingenious. I’m a genius!” Actually, no one should be saying that, and if they are, it is an odd one. [...]
You were subtle. Allan J. took the gloves off. Interesting difference between the two approaches. Hmm, which do you think is more effective?
Hey Andrea,
I guess both have their place. I just don’t do the other well. Even when justified, I don’t sleep well after doing it that way.
And, I am not so much aiming it totally at Steve Rubel. I appreciate that he does point out all sorts of new ideas, tools and tactics through his amazing link blogging. But, the traditional media sources seem to view him as ‘the’ leading thought provider. I just don’t see that.
More important is how he (and others) promise the Chalice and give us a Dixie Cup. I know of many great thinkers out in this social media blogging community. I doubt any of the legitimate thought leaders would seriously describe themselves as an expert.
It is a thought I’ve had for a long time and have posted about it several times. Truth be told, I only comment about Steve’s posts when they are so filled with self-contradictions. The example here is a non-social media delivery format with a message that dialogue is everything. That, I believe, is worth pointing out.
Robert,
As you are aware, I am not a big fan. But this is good stuff. I look forward to more like it.
Kind regards,
- Amanda Chapel
Robert,
I couldn’t agree more. It’s a big experiment, with anecdotal results and evidence. I’ve got some great anecdotes though!
There is risk involved in embracing social media, but all (business and other) decisions involve risk. Sometimes you need to join the experiment with open eyes and no illusions.
Ted
Thanks, Ted. I’m all for taking risks, but reasonable risk with a plan to follow along the way.
We’ve been involved in the experiment here for two years, or so. Eyes open, all the while, the reminder that social media is new and (as of yet) unpredictable has remained front and center.
Robert
I keep going back to Robin Dunbar who examined the relationships between cortical size and primary community (close friends) size and came up with a human primary social group size of about 150. Depending on whose work you look at the number is in the range 135 – 200.
This means there is little opportunity for social media to engage more than a few among the primary social group and so the opportunity to have really powerful influence is quite muted.
But Stephen Quarts and Terry Sejnowski argue that humans are biologically primes to acquire behaviours through cultural learning.
Somewhere in the middle is something that helps us understand this and while the richness of the media (blogs, wiki’s podcasts etc) is limited compared to ‘human interface’, I suspect that multiple channels are important to add depth (….was mentioned in a couple of blogs, has loads of Google Juice, is references by a friend – so must be good).
This might then give us some foundadtion…
But, as you say, a lot of it is guess work
Very interesting, David.
I’m thinking that Dunbar’s study of the “dynamics of human social networks, and the roles played by trust, obligation and frequency of interaction in maintaining relationships” may be usefully applied to online networks / relationships.
Wonder if we could get 100 to 150 of the PR bloggers to participate? Worth exploring. I’m going to explore the available survey instruments / research and see what might be done.