Like many Americans I’ve been watching a lot of campaign coverage the last few weeks. I found that I was flipping between CNN, FoxNews, and MSNBC to see the various perspectives during the conventions. What I noticed about all three channels is that they’re trying to convey a level of journalistic neutrality by using phrases like “No Spin Zone” and “No Bias. No Bull.” Most dramatically, MSNBC just made a change to remove Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews from campaign coverage because of this very topic.

I don’t know anyone who actually thinks any of these channels are 100% without bias. Some commentators are certainly more opinionated than others and in other cases there are little doubts about the pundit’s political leanings, but these channels would have you believe that bias is a bad thing. I tend to go the other way. Why not tell us where everyone stands? Wouldn’t a criticism from an openly liberal commentator about Barak Obama carry more weight than someone who you’re suspicious about? Likewise, doesn’t a critique from an openly conservative commentator toward the current administration carry more weight than someone who would have believe they are completely without political bias?

The point here is that you shouldn’t apologize (and hide) your personal perspective. We’re living in an era of open communication, open dialogue, and anything that seems less than open feels a little tainted. We live in a culture of assumption and one big assumption is that nobody is without bias so the only way to rise above it is to flat out say where you stand…and then say what you have to say.

Now, before you think this is about politics rather than social media, let’s make the connection. If you blog, podcast, create video or do anything else in social media on a particular topic, don’t adopt the “no bias, no bull” philosophy. You can show your bias without the bull. In fact, you’re more likely to have your views considered because people know where you stand.

The bottom line is this: If you blog about fashion, show your bias. If you talk about sports, show your bias. If you write about business or art or music or religion or real estate or the best hamburgers in the world, show your bias. Nobody thinks you’re nuetral anyway. Once they know where you stand you may actually have an chance to convince them of your way of thinking…but as you can see, I’m kinda biased about this topic.

I’m a big proponent of social media but I know everyone isn’t. Some people I talk to or work with are equally bullish about what social media can do for their companies. Others are a little more neutral. They’re not against social media, but they’re not convinced it’s great either. Then there are also those who simply don’t like it. The word “blog” gives them a nervous feeling in the pit of their stomach or the idea of customer comments and feedback makes them really uneasy.

I understand these people to some degree. They may have had a bad experience or have seen blogs (or other social media) used in a way that it harms someone and have therefore equated all blogs and social media to that same instance. The end result of this thinking, however, is that these individuals are social media killers within their companies. They’re the naysayers who won’t stand to listen and try to understand all the benefits. In my observation, there are three traits I’ve seen from the social media killers. They are:

• Fear - Whether they’re afraid of what people will say, won’t say, might say, or could say, the root of their unwillingness is a fear of the unknown. They don’t know social media and they’re scared. It’s too new, too open, too conversational, too accessible, too uncontrollable, and simply too different from the way they’ve always done things.
• Mistrust - Social media killers don’t trust people. They don’t trust their employees to be good representatives for the company and they don’t trust their customers. They want control and control always draws things in. Control doesn’t release. Trust requires release and social media requires trust.
• Unwillingness to listen to customers - Social media killers don’t want to hear what their customers have to say. Like the ostrich who buries his head in the sand, it’s easier to keep doing things like they have always been done than it is to ask the customer about his/her experience. If you ever hear someone say something like, “They may something bad about us” you’re dealing with a potential social media killer. In this case you may gently suggest that people may very well already be saying bad things about you, but you just don’t know it. At least if they’re saying bad things about you where you can see it, you can respond and maybe (just maybe) learn and change if needed.

The opposite of the three killers above are trust, faith, and a willingness to listen. Every company that’s considering social media will have to decide on one way or the other. If you’re trying to implement social media within an organization with a lot of social media killers I would recommend you start small. Get some small wins and then begin to take on the big three killers.

A few weeks ago I had heated debate friendly discussion with Nathan about whether Twitter is a social network or a social media platform. You can hear the discussion here. He said it’s a social network. I said it’s social media. As I have thought more about it since then I think we were both wrong. Twitter is both.

It would be limiting to Twitter to say it is JUST one or the other because it has so many aspects that are distinct to social media and social networking alike. For instance, social media is about user generated content, conversation, and sharing information. Twitter does that. Social networking, however is about connecting people together through shared interests, interacting,  and facilitating relationships. Twitter does that too. What I have realized is that Twitter as a tool/platform is distinct in that it covers both the social media and social networking.

I think Nathan and I were debating the wrong question. The better question is this: Do you use Twitter as just a social network or social media or do you use (and utilize) it as both simultaneously? The basis for my original perspective of Twitter as a social medium was because I only used it as a social medium. I hadn’t really been looking at it for social networking opportunities. Likewise, I suspect Nathan was using Twitter more from a social networking side and not as much for the social media opportunities.

So now the challenge is this: if we find ourselves on one side or the other, how do we incorporate the other side into our Twitter use? For me, I know I can use it better to interact with people who I don’t know (or don’t know well.) That’s not something I’ve done much, but I think I’m going to start…after all, that’s part of the social network aspect of Twitter that I’ve been missing out on.

Bonus Twitter related info: USA Today wrote an article about Twitter. Plan on some extra downtime over the next few days as more people (who hadn’t heard of Twitter until now) join and give it a shot.

Last week I conducted a social networking experiment. I had been asked to recommend someone in LinkedIn and as I was doing it I got to thinking about how I’ve never been big on writing recommendations for LinkedIn. In fact, I’ve struggled with LinkedIn’s true usefulness for most professional unless they’re in the market for a new job (and therefore need the networking components LinkedIn provides.)  It’s great to make connections but I don’t get the sense of community and activity there like I do in Facebook or something more local for me like Digital Nashville. It’s not that I’m against LinkedIn, it’s just that it felt like something I should do but didn’t really see a direct benefit.

The Experiment

A funny thing happened while I was writing the requested recommendation. I started thinking about how bloggers strategically spread “link love” by linking to fellow bloggers to promote both blogs, so could two people benefit from some LinkedIn love in the form of recommendations? I think so…and my little experiment has proven so.

I spent about a half hour recommending people I know from various work experiences. Some are former coworkers. Some are current clients. Some are vendors I work with. I wrote short, genuine, personal recommendations for several people. And then I waited.

What happened in the 48 hours that followed was wonderful. I heard back from almost every single person. Some simply thanked me for the kind words. Others said they would return the favor and write a recommendation for me on LinkedIn. In one case, I found out the recommendation even made it to the “What Others Are Saying About Me” page on one guy’s business blog.

The bottom line was it bolstered my own LinkedIn recommendations a bit (with some others still coming I understand) and it earned me some relational equity from the rest of the people. It was a win for them (they received an unsolicited recommendation) and it was a win for me because I was able to do something nice for them and get a little LinkedIn recommendation love myself.

My Hesitation For This Post

One final thing…I should note that I was hesitant to post about this experiment because the last thing I want to do is misrepresent my motives in this experiment as self serving or that I only wrote recommendations for the favor that might be returned to me. That wasn’t the case because I actually didn’t know what kind of reaction I would receive. I suspected that some people would be happy with the recommendation, but I was equally braced for the fact that some people could be highly suspicious of an unwarranted recommendation so I only wrote recommendations for people I know personally and I didn’t ask anyone to recommend me back.

The way I see it is that the gift of unsolicited recommendations is the cake. If recommendations or relational favor are a result, that’s icing. The experiment was really just that: if I serve cake, does icing exist? I found that the answer is YES…as long my cake is authentic. Maybe you can serve some authentic cake today too.

Yesterday I saw a term I haven’t come across in a while: Mass Media. Remember that term? Yeah, we don’t hear it much these days. The context for the term came from a professor friend who teaches at a college here in Nashville. She mentioned a class for freshmen this fall called “mass media and society” but I got hung up at the mass media part of the class title.

I asked the professor why that term is still being used and it sounds like it has something to do with the book selection or something like that. Maybe it’s a historical perspective of media and our society. I’m not actually clear on what it’s going to be but the term got me thinking…isn’t mass media dead?

Mass media was all about the big TV networks, major newspaper outlets, and terrestrial radio, but how massive does something have to be to be considered mass media these days? With the numbers declining in all three of those areas can we even still call them mass media? Is the term even relevant today? Mass media died as it related to television years ago around the time cable TV really took off.

One might say mass media is about the number of people you reach, meaning you reach “the masses” (which I assume we translate into millions of people) through the mediums. Yet, that doesn’t really work because there are blogs, podcasts, and even YouTube videos that reach millions of people and we wouldn’t classify them as mass media. They’re the opposite of mass media: user generated, freely accessed, open to everyone, micro media.

Mass media is just a term that used to mean something that we don’t even think about anymore. It’s like the 8-track tape. It had a good run for a while but simply has no use to us today. Perhaps mass media didn’t actually die but simply disappeared in the shadow of so many other things that we use today.

The bottom line is that we kind of know that mass media doesn’t really stick like it used to. It doesn’t have the teeth it did even ten years ago. The real question as a marketer then, is do you still act/plan/execute like the mass media is still massive? There’s a new “MASS” you should be thinking about if you’re not already.

Incidentally, the mass media and society class at the college will have a blog. How’s that for irony?

I just found out this morning that a client I work with answered their social phone for the first time a few days ago. They have been monitoring keywords in Twitter via Tweetscan’s (UPDATE: he used Summize, not Tweetscan) RSS feeds and when a customer complained about a particular product, the listening employee responded (even though the product had nothing to do with what he does at the company.) That response got an answer to the frustrated customer and the customer had the delight of getting a question/frustration dealt with that he didn’t expect an answer on. The customer came back around in Twitter and said thanks to the client. He noted that he was impressed, and frankly, a little surprised that they were listening and responded.

This is just another case of a ringing social phone that would have gone unanswered were it not for someone listening to it. Companies put significant amounts of money into the technology, personnel, and training for inbound customer service calls, but most companies are not even thinking about the unbound social calls that are being made for the world to see but going unanswered. Your social phone is probably ringing. Are you going to answer it?

Ok, quick tip if this applies to you…if you use Twitter, be a person. Don’t be a nameless, faceless brand. I’m seeing more of these lately and I’ve determined I’m not following them back. I know there’s someone behind the scenes, but why not introduce yourself? I can’t have a relationship with a brand. I can have a relationship with a person.

The same thing goes for social networking sites. Don’t created a Facebook profile for your organization or product without making it clear to everyone that there’s a person behind it. We know he or she is there…so why hide behind the logo?

Social media and social networking tools rely on personal interaction. This may be hard for some companies or counterintuitive to others, but at some point you’re going to have to get out from behind the brand to actually say, “Hi, I’m Jim. I’m the guy who handles this for the company.” If you’re not willing to do that, you can’t play in the sandbox…and not because I say so…but because you’re the one who put the bucket over your head. How’s anyone supposed to talk to you with that bucket on your head? Take it off and start talking.

A few weeks ago I was blessed and honored to sit down for a few minutes with Dan Miller, the author of No More Mondays and 48 Days to the Work You Love for his podcast. We talked specifically about why you should care about blogging and other social media, how a person can use new media tools to promote what they do, some examples where I’ve seen this work, and how to get started.

Here’s a link to listen to the interview on Dan’s website or subscribe to Dan’s podcast and listen to it there.

If you want to know a bit about what Dan’s specialty is, check out this video of him on a recent Dave Ramsey Show and his blog. Dan’s principles have a lot to do with where I am today professionally and I’m grateful for the time and wisdom he’s provided. He’s also a great person to work for because he knows what he wants to know, he knows what he doesn’t know, and he finds the people to help him know what he needs to know.