On the playground, the most common way you’ll find to divide the teams is Shirts versus Skins. Having been a Skin on a hot day, it makes ventilation a little easier (and the tan a little more even.) It also requires you to learn how to take a few lumps along the way, and develop a thicker skin.

If you’re curious about or new to this stuff called “social media” or “new media,” there is a progression to understanding it. You don’t trot out onto the court and remove your shoes, just because you saw people without shirts. You get in slowly, in a measured way. Learn the rules of the playground, and you won’t embarrass yourself in public.

Your first step is the toughest, because it is nothing more than the realization that you really didn’t control as much of the discussion as you thought. People are talking about you, just like they always have, for good and for bad. But now they have access to publishing tools that extend those conversations across time and space. A conversation that seemingly ended eight months ago might revive, and include people from around the world who found it on Google. These comments about your products, services, competence, and ethics have always happened, but the general public never had a way to reach beyond their ripples to the wider ocean. The internet can carry the circles of influence further than before, and the ripples intersect with greater frequency.

Two eyes, two ears, one mouth.

These same technologies that link so many people and their opinions also leave behind bread crumbs — opportunities for you listen to the people that can give you the best advice: your customers. But that means you’ll hear some things you’ll rather wish you didn’t. Some will be bad news, some misperceptions, some outright lies. You’ve got to resist the urge to run in and fix everything. Remember, know the rules of the playground before you charge in.

Every playground is a little different. In some, you call your own fouls. In others, there are no fouls unless there’s blood. Some people play “make-it take-it” basketball (the scoring team retains possession.) The only way you’ll know how to participate without scorn is to watch and listen. And for that, you need a thick skin.

Obvious libels aside, you need to measure your responses. That takes a little bit of experience and a whole lot of patience. I find myself wanting to drop into a comment stream on a forum, or in the reader comments of a newspaper website. It’s human nature — but you’ve got to count to ten and toughen up the skin.

1. Some people will never change their mind anyway.
   If there’s nothing you can do to appease, and nothing to be gained, then you likely have everything to lose.
2. Some people, by virtue of their life circumstances, aren’t worth debating.
   Even if you win, you still look like a jerk.
3. Many, many people who write on the internet do not influence very many others.
   If a blog has only a dozen readers, it probably isn’t your immediate priority.
4. You can do more harm than good.
   A poorly-designed response can trigger an even more venomous counter, which is sure to magnify the attention.

In future posts, we’ll look at some of the tools and knowledge you’ll need to know what to do, what to say, and how you can simultaneously contribute value to the community and to your corporate interests. But for now, open up the channels and start listening. Just listen with a thick skin, lest you lose your shirt.

(Photo credit: Siobhán Silke)

(Ike Pigott regularly blogs at Occam’s RazR)

Astroturf – a campaign that cloaks the efforts of an interested entity under the guise of genuine grass-roots public response.

It’s not easy being green. Fake green is easier, until it is exposed and you get “brown.”

There are many others who have written about poor astroturfing efforts – from Walmart Across America to Whole Foods’ “Harobed”. The perpetrators of these efforts to influence through guile have had their hands appropriately slapped, and business goes on. I’m not out to excuse what they’ve done, but rather to explain the origin of the impulse to pull the rug over the mud.

The News of Democracy

In my day job, I see the occasional article critical of my employer. I also monitor articles critical of others in the non-profit sector. And often, the interesting piece isn’t in the story itself, but rather in the comment stream tied to the story. Typically, you’ll find a few comments of shock, horror, dismay, or sympathy. Increasingly, we’re seeing comments that either refer to “facts” or allegations that were not present in the original news item. Sometimes they link to a blogpost, but more often they are unattributed and are posted by an unsigned party.

This isn’t the work of trained PR professionals who are using every tool (and buzzword) to leverage their clients story. This is a reaction from ordinary people who happen to have passionate feelings about an issue for one reason or another. And yet they don’t sign their names, as though there would be some repercussion for owning that end of a conversation.

In a few of these instances, I’ve known enough of the backstory to realize these “facts” could only come from someone very close to the incident. They are trying to introduce information that is not presented in the story, and that only an interested party with an agenda might know. No PR person involved – just homespun astroturfing at play.

Citizen Reporters?

I do know that newspapers have been slow, measured, and tortured in their response to the internet. Slow and measured seems to be working, as they adjust their business models and editorial schedules to meet the new expectations in the marketplace. The ‘tortured’ part refers to the begrudging nature of loosening the grip of editorial control, by allowing comments. Comment streams on news sites can be a great way to create a sense of community, to increase participation, and to generate additional page views. But it also creates a new backchannel that doesn’t fall within the traditional editorial function, because the community of blog commenters don’t expect the same level of scrutiny the reporters would get.

It’s an interesting decision. Do we allow anonymous comments? Keep an email address on file? Heavily moderated? Who has the time?

In the comment streams I see, alleged “facts” are being dropped into the comments without any attribution. They are being debated just as rigorously as the items specifically cited by the reporter. And rarely is there an admonition to the jury to “strike that last remark,” even though the question has been asked, and the damage done.

The Enemy Within

No one needed to teach these people how to twist and manipulate a comment stream. And I’m not talking about the majority of civic-minded people who want to express themselves – just those who have an additional vested interest, and are pretending to be bystanders. The impulse is within us all.

It’s not necessarily borne of a desire to manipulate. Nor is it shame, or trying to duck the consequences of sticking up for the point in contention. It’s a desire to belong, and have others agree.

If “Jeff” has a personal stake in a news item about a family member, he just wants to have his viewpoint represented. However, if he posts as “Jeff,” then he’s a lone voice. If he posts as “Bryan”, well at least there is someone else agreeing with him out there. And just maybe, “Bryan” can attract some followers too.

We see it in blogs, and in message boards, and we suspect it but often can’t prove it. People logging in multiple times under different names, and carrying forth a sad conversation with themselves. It’s comforting to see agreement, and to know that others who read will feel moved by the level of dialogue and support. It’s borne of a sense of belonging.

Newspaper sites can do us all a favor by recognizing this reality. Yes, it takes a little extra time to moderate the comments. Yes, it is an additional hurdle to ask for an email address for all commenters. Yes, it’s even more time to ensure that the email address is valid. Once past those steps, you could still allow for anonymity, but knowing there is a real person to reach out to if there are additional questions. Those steps alone would cut down on the imposition of neuroses on comment threads. They would also yield editorial gains for reporters who might use the comments to find ancillary sources for follow up stories.

It’s in the DNA

The impulse to Astroturf is in our DNA. It’s always been there, lodged in the part of our brain that makes us social creatures. If we don’t recognize that, we run the risk of enabling non-genuine activity on the sites and communities we build.

This lack of vetting is what places “lowly bloggers” so far down the food chain of news. It takes time and effort to build a reputation for accuracy, neutrality, and consistency. Yet the newspaper sites – by mimicing the conversation of blogs without vetting the content – threaten to sever one of the remaining advantages they own over the citizen journalist.

(Disclaimer: I had already picked the topic of this week’s column before Geoff wrote the Takeaways from Beacon post. It’s not that I’m out to beat up Facebook – it’s that they make it so damned easy.)

A couple of weeks ago, I outlined four very simple ways to win an internet argument. Cast your opponent as one of the following, and thereby carry the moral justification to ignore anything further he has to say:

• You are Evil
• You are Greedy
• You are Stupid
• You are Sheep

Obviously, I was mocking the way most poor debaters sink to inconsequential ad hominem attacks as a way to disprove a statement. However, once a pattern of behavior becomes apparent, you have to ask yourself if one of the above isn’t possible.

Identifying Mistakes

One of the scariest aspects of embarking on Social Media is the lack of defined rules. There are places where you can bone up on the theory, but the handbooks for various applications are often outdated by new sites and technologies. Also, some of the primers that have “great advice” advocate unethical behavior.

The Social Media landscape is still – despite what anyone tells you – a frontier. The laws of the land are not engraved on stone tablets, but are instead enforced “by the community.” Well, by Deity, it sure would be easier to follow the rules if we knew what they were, and weren’t prone to shifting all the time. Social Media is for now a field of Wild West Justice – a place where self-appointed sheriff’s can issue their own black hats and wanted posters. Hence, the proclivity to do what one wants.

Why do they do it?

There are many examples of Social Media bungles, from the aforementioned Facebook Beacon experiment, to fake blogs, to social sites that hijack your address book and spam others. All very different lapses, but are they symptoms of something larger? I put the question to several people I know:

CALL FOR INPUT: What is the source of Social Media bungling? Greed? Stupidity? Bad intentions? Lack of defined standards? Or other?

The results were mixed.

Greedy, Greedy, Greedy

Jason Falls: Brands/Companies/Advertisers thinking communication is a one-way street.

Mike Keliher: Bungling by businesses/businesspeople? It’s the inability (for now, at least) to think past one’s own office. Self-centered. That’s the root cause, at least in large part, for much of what’s generally referred to as “typical marketing BS.”

Susan Getgood: Thinking people are stupid and won’t connect a and b. trying to assert control when the better course is to start conversation.

Uninformed?

Peter Shankman: not thinking before posting is the source of social media bungling.

Evan Keller: Depends on the situation, but often good intentions not completely thought through. Ignorance.

Dave Fleet: I’d say a lack of understanding of social media & its implications… e.g. trying to retain tight control, no transparency, etc.

Rob La Gesse: Laziness, lack of concern for your customer, failing to realize who your customer is. Add in a dash or arrogance and greed 🙂

Other

Todd Defren: Social Media bungling stems from a desire to find short-cuts where none exist.

Rachel Luxemburg: There is no one source; everyone makes mistakes for different reasons. Lack of universal standards is a big one though.

The big problem

And this brings us back to what may become a real problem for Social Media. If the “Gold Rush” to cash in on these technologies comes too quickly, we may end up with a totally lawless frontier. Those who intentionally set forth to manipulate and misrepresent might just yield enough short-term gains to make the enterprise profitable for others to emulate. Sure, the “gains” disappear as the deception is exposed. But it’s not like you invested the time it takes to build a real community.

This is a piece I genuinely worry about – the ROI of Negative Social Media. I’m not yet sure what that formula looks like, but if we see the same rogues’ gallery committing the same offenses repeatedly, we can only conclude that someone has figured a way to game communities and prosper on the sly.

The only way we avoid that scenario is if enough community members reject the manipulation and vote with their feet. And quite frankly, I’m not so certain enough have the gumption. This is the Wild West, after all, and we’re making our own Cowboy Code every time we click to buy. Every unchallenged encroachment – no matter how insidious or ignorant it might be – is an invitation to continue. We will get the web we deserve.