Do a Google search for “Social Media” today and you get 66,200,000 hits.

“Social Media Marketing” nets you 24,000,000

“Social Media Expert” gets you even more: 86,600,000.

That should tell you something.

If you’re reading this, and looking at what social media can do for your outreach or your business, then you need to be careful.  Ask some tough questions.  Ask for case studies.  Ask for evidence.  Ask for proof of experience.  Because there are a lot of people talking about getting results in social media, and the ones who show up the highest in the Google searches might just be better at marketing themselves than they are any clients.

It’s hard to outshine someone who has 40 hours a week to promote themselves.

(Ike Pigott regularly writes at Occam’s RazR) 

When it comes to what we call Social Media, “community” is the coin of the realm. It’s also a very fickle thing to define, because the ideas, memes, and dreams that knit a community together can be made of very different material. And we’re heading for an even larger generation gap, because the notion of “friend” is becoming more slippery too.

It used to be that a group of friends was easy to spot because of affinity for clothing. Matching bowling shirts and funny-horned lodge hats made things too easy. There are still communities like that online and they won’t go away any time soon — but they might not be the communities you need to reach. A former co-worker on mine stayed with AOL for years simply because she was tied to a genealogy forum there. Too much of her internet identity was tied to being a part of that group, even though her membership there was costing an additional $20/month.

Future communities are going to be even harder to engage, because the incoming generation of the web-enabled isn’t platform dependent. They use browsers, IM, cell-phones, Xboxes, and whatever else comes down the pike to stay connected. And they don’t always use the same network; like birds and bees, they are prone to random migrations. When a few influentials leave and critical mass is reached, the others quickly follow them to the next point.

Down the rabbit hole

From the individual perspective, it gets even more tangled. The community is no longer a single entity. A person connected to one group through a set of common contacts might not belong to several joint communities. The clusters are not neat, and rather look more like synapses randomly anchored to neurons across the way. It’s a spaghetti map, and it’s messy. It’s fickle. In some instances, the prevailing factor might be the time of day a subset of users might be free to congregate or chat online.

It’s an awful lot to log and chart. Some are trying, by aggregating and quantifying “influence” across networks and platforms. They may yet succeed, but you don’t have to chase them down that rabbit hole. The best way to engage the community you need online is to create it. Don’t follow the crowd, be the hub that attracts a crowd. It’s done by sharing and adding value without strings. It might be money-saving tips or advice — or even better, a vehicle that allows your biggest fans to do it for you. It might be special offers or information that isn’t shared anywhere else. Give your potential advocates a reason to come to you, and they will. And they’ll drag their friends.

If this sounds scary, it should. Not everyone is equipped to get in and get their hands dirty and make Social Media work as it can. You’re better off not jumping in until you know what you want to accomplish, because embarrassing early stumbles can cripple your corporate reputation and become a new obstacle.

(Ike Pigott writes regularly at Occam’s RazR)

True, it’s a little early to proclaim the new year, which according to the Chinese calendar rings in on Thursday the 7th. But since you are here exploring the notion of whether Social Media is right for your business and goals, I thought it would be a good time to challenge your perspective. (In some ways, it’s hard to beat the Chinese on perspective. What’s a few millenia among friends?)

China has been increasingly highlighted for its role in an interconnected global economy, but until recently the most profound impact on Western business thinking has been the various interpretations of the Sun-Tzu treatise “The Art of War.” Sun-Tzu was a general, and most versions of the book have his philosophy of conflict interspersed with commentary from students and devotees who span several centuries. It’s not so much a “how to wage war” manual as a “how to think about waging war” guide.

For that reason, many of the precepts can be converted into the business case. And they have. Ad nauseum. Lookup ‘business’ with ‘The Art of War’ on Google Checkout, and you get 180 hits at the time of this writing. Since the early 1980s, it has been an influence.

Online Fortune

If you want to understand Social Media, I won’t ask you to trash your copy of “The Art of War,” but rather supplement it with some wisdom from “The Analects” of Kung Fu-Tze (or Confucius as you might know him.) The word Analects means “fragments.” Imagine learning about a great professor not from his own writings, but from the margin notes of his students. Now you’re digging into the Analects.

While a study of the book makes for a fascinating case study in distributed intelligence (and for being the first literary wiki), I instead want to point you to one of Confucius’ central themes: Words and Deeds must be in harmony. A man is judged by backing up what he promises. But most importantly, there is no hidden motive – it is all on the surface.

If you decide that it is time for your organization to start venturing into the Social Web, then proceed with the idea of being transparent. Hidden agendas and identities don’t exactly engender trust — and while some members of communities will never trust your declared motive (or even any for-profit company), any breach of words and deeds will get you booted out. Your duty to your company comes first, yes… but you can’t help your company if you’ve insulted the community. It’s certainly a change from the win-or-lose mindset presented in most of the Art of War knockoffs, and one worth exploring.

(Ike Pigott regularly writes at Occam’s RazR)

(In an effort to provide a place for the Social Media Curious to dip their first toe, Ike continues a series of articles aimed at those who are looking for very basic context.)

Social Media is like a power suit: either get it tailored just for you, or look like everyone else who bought off the rack.

If you’re considering some type of Social Media initiative for your organization, and you decide to proceed, do so with this warning. There will be some degree of real work involved. Whether it is you, or someone you hire, you want the work to fit your goals and needs.

Here’s a very topical case in point. There’s a guy named Chris Brogan who you will no doubt become more familiar with down the road. He brings people together, and does it in new ways with new tools. Once you’re up to speed and feel comfortable with the terms and concepts of community-building, add him to your reads.

Yesterday, Chris was exploring a new way to get people integrated into Twitter — a microblog platform that is as hard to pin down as it is easy to use. (We’ve covered Twitter before here on Now Is Gone.) As a way of helping others find value more quickly, Chris offered the notion of “Twitter Packs,” a convenient bundling of people that one could quickly add to get a flavor of what Twitter can be about. Others, like Shannon Whitley, immediately started working on ways to make mass-additions (and mass-deletions) more automated. It’s a giving community, to be sure.

A Little Too Giving.

That may be a problem. Chris offered up a means for finding people with similar interests, professions, locations, and traits… but are those individuals going to add the same value for you as they do for someone else? Chris wasn’t egotistical enough to think he would know the answer, so he created a Twitter Packs wiki that anyone could edit. Within hours, there were hundreds of names sorted across many divisions. And within hours, there were cries that it had gotten too clubby, too cliquey, too clunky, and too crowded. Others were disturbed that specialty lists were being added that had the potential for mischief and pranks.

Beyond any of the other complaints, let me add this warning. When it comes to Social Media, you want your own work, not someone else’s. It’s nice to be democratic and let others self-select into such groups, but that can create some real friction later on. Take a gander at those gaggles, and you’ll find geese that are guaranteed to ruffle each others’ feathers. Catch a little too much ruffling before you start finding your own level of value, and the experiment will backfire.

Additionally, I’ve noted before that Twitter takes on a different look depending upon how many people you choose to follow. Are you really intent on sticking close with a small group, or are you okay with just periodically dipping your hand into a flowing river of opinions and observations? Are you using it as a de facto RSS reader, or do you want to engage in open conversations? And how will you go about configuring your Instant Message and SMS options?

A Custom Suit

I’m not totally down on Brogan’s Twitter Packs idea – maybe just the execution. And maybe it has more to do with my view that Twitter can be a very instructive tool for those trying to get a feel for online communities. Start with a couple of people that you know and follow them. Interact. Then periodically, see who they are also interacting with. If you see someone interesting, add them. The network grows the best when you catch the value for yourself, one at a time.

Don’t worry about reciprocal following for now. If someone does start following you, it is good form to at least check out their stream and find out why. Add or don’t add, it is up to you. The point is to get an understanding of community dynamics at different sizes and levels. You need to feel your way to that point.

Finally, from a practical level, your Social Media needs are unique. Trees may look the same from the top, but have unique footprints and their own root networks. If you plan to have a Social Media consultant do the building for you — ask some questions about how they are building that network. What kind of research are they using to get there? How long have they interacted with or monitored the people you want to reach? Or are they just pulling a template pack off the shelf and plugging it in to your goals?

If you don’t understand how vibrant and useful communities are built, you won’t be certain if your company’s new suit is off the charts, or off the rack.

(Ike Pigott regularly blogs at Occam’s RazR.)

I’m a former news guy, so I do know a little something about credibility. I had sources that would tip me off to things that were happening. I had some that would pitch me on items that were important to them. Over time, they would earn or lose credibility based on what they told me and how well it panned out. The key there is “over time,” implying a relationship of trust — and it has a powerful business application.

Yesterday, I heard from an acquaintance of mine in New York City. He happened upon the partial collapse of a building in SoHo, and was close enough to share an eyewitness account on Twitter.

BREAKING: PARTIAL COLLAPSE OF TRUMP SOHO BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION. MAJOR CHUNKS RAINING DOWN ON STREETS

(Think of Twitter as a micro-blog and instant messenger that is friendly and compact enough to work on a cellphone.) He also found a way to upload a picture to his blog.

I’ve never met Peter Shankman in person. I met him through his blog, I’ve talked to him a few times and we’ve traded e-mails. Heck, I even helped him late one night when he was looking for information about the trains in San Francisco. But I’ve had enough interaction with him to know that he was onto something with the building collapse. In fact, I was able to alert my supervisors about the incident a full 15 minutes before the first cable news networks even sniffed the story.

Then late last night, while contemplating what I’d write for Now Is Gone, I got another Twitter message, this one from Jeremy Pepper:

Earthquake at 9.13 PM

That got my attention… and moments later I was able to confirm that everything was alright. It was only a 3.0 on the Richter scale.  (This isn’t the first quake I’ve caught on Twitter before the news, either.)  My social network is proving to be a source for newsworthy items long before they are mentioned in anyone’s news.

Faces and Curtains

Let’s contrast that to yesterday’s discussion about Wikipedia here at Now Is Gone. Not to rehash, but there are still issues about Wikipedia’s trust level. Most of the editors enjoy the protection of Oz’s Wizard, hiding their names, faces, and agenda behind a curtain of anonymity. Yes, it is nice to have hordes of free labor to work on your site. It’s not so friendly to business, and not as trustworthy, when those faceless minions can break you and you don’t have an opportunity to offer “truth” from a neutral standpoint.

The trick to social media is the “social” part. Just like every other aspect of business, it is who you know. Wikipedia might do really well in the search engines, and might just be good enough to write every term paper for the next ten years. But I don’t trust it blindly. I do trust the words of Peter and Jeremy, because we’ve established a baseline of credibility. The technology lets you “roll your own” sources and inputs — your judgment remains your filter about who to believe and who to reject.

Today, it’s even more than who you know. It’s what “the people you know” know.

(Ike Pigott regularly blogs at Occam’s RazR)