Ideological amplification or why you should not shout to hard

Thought this was my day off, but let’s respond to Chris’ doc on Ideological Amplification.

Chris’ concern

As I understand it, Chris’ concern is that the internet will lead to a world of divisions. Instead of living in a physical place where we know everyone within 50 miles and no one else, we will live in a world that is just as small and defined by our views and taste. Not only will it be dull. We also are more likely to clash violently with other groups when we compete for something we want.

Chris’ premise

The foundation of Chris’ argument is a paper showing the long term effect of small changes. If we chose, for example to live a little closer to people “like us”, and we all do that just slightly, in almost no time at all we have sorted ourselves into like-minded packs.

More stuff that might show alternatives to Chris’ projections

Networking theory (and empirical research) shows that we are affected not just by our friends but by our friends’ friends. So you are more likely to be obese if quite a few of the friends of your friends are obese! It is weird. Your friend maybe skinny and you may not know the fatter friends, but their presence in your friends’ lives increase your chances of adopting similar lifestyle habits! And it works for smoking and everything else too! We are very sensitive to our surroundings and we tend to “fall in” with what is going on around us.

But, networks require maintenance, lots of maintenance

Networking theory also shows that networks fall apart easily. Links have to be recreated to keep them fresh. Otherwise they fade away.

Networks require replenishment

People also leave networks. And they have to be replaced. So we have to have ways of recruiting new people and assimilating them. If we aren’t good at finding new people and bringing them into the group successfully, then the network just fades away.

People leave networks that don’t deliver

What is more, if we don’t keep the network fresh and exciting, and if we don’t involve new people successfully, the network is not as valuable to its members, and people will leave at quicker rate. The end is near!

Networks need to trade with the outside world

What is more, if we live in a closed, stagnant community, we don’t keep up with the world changing around us. If we haven’t changed with the world, then we can’t get the resources from the external world that we need. And again the network becomes less valuable to its members, and they leave.

Closed networks don’t last.

Where does this take us?

I know Chris would agree that

I agree that there are groups that talk themselves into oblivion. Seen enough of those in my time on this planet.

Will the whole world break into pockets that will each talk itself into oblivion? It is a possibility but not a probability.

Active, energetic people in active, exciting networks will simply engage with other active, energetic people and rewrite the network map. It is happening all the time.

At a personal level, two things might happen, though, that are not so comfortable:

To sum up the phenomena Chris is talking about in words we have been using around, MediaCamp, I would say this. Social Media amplifies. It also amplifies the ability of the unreasoned and unreasonable to talk themselves into irrelevance!

If you are working in a network that is getting stuffy, then my advice would be to get more external influences. Send people on overseas holidays. Vary the daily routines. Get some fresh air into the system.

If the obvious doesn’t work, and you need to look at a deeper renewal, you will be pleased to know that this is increasingly the focus of ‘positive organizational scholarship’, the contemporary positive version of management theory. If you want to dig deeper, here is a link to a techy/academic slide show I put on my own blog a few days ago. It will give you an outline of how top organizational scholars are thinking, or just confirm for you that they are thinking!

July 6, 2008 | Filed Under Jo Jordan | 1 Comment 

3 steps to choosing your social media metric vendor

I found a really good blog about measuring the value or ROI of public relations and a post on selecting your metric vendor. I think it will answer many of the questions people have about metrics.

I have turned the blog around into 3 steps with some sub-steps to condense the issues.

1 How much do you want to pay?

Crass question, I know, but you can think in terms of three price points: 0, 500-1000 pounds a month, or 5000-10000 pounds a month. That’s pretty clear, isn’t it? Where do you fall?

Cost is determined by three things:

a) The span of your metrics - how many products, services, issues, communities are you watching?

If you are a giant firm like Coca-Cola, you may need to research several languages and several markets because you implicitly compete with coffee, fruit juice and water, too. Most firms have a much narrower field of interest and will be tracking fewer issues.

b) What needs to be done?

Sometimes it is enough to get some machine-counted numbers and a standardized report. You may need to spend more if you need

c) Who will do the work?

The fee for work is calculated using the following factors:

If you are a very large company, you may need to pay for all this to coordinate the work, but you may be buying what consultants call a “transactional” service - the same service that everyone is getting.

The difficulty with hiring independent consultants is that you feel unclear about how good they are. Perhaps you should put that question to them squarely. I want to see if I can hire you, but I don’t know this business well. Can you walk me through the issues? What will you do? What should I be looking for? Where must I speak up and give you information? Where do you have difficulties with clients and what can I do to make the relationship work?

So that is cost:

2 What’s the business that we are we talking about?

People who deliver social media metrics are typically trawling the web in one way or another. Some claim to cover 30 million sites; some 10 million. The real question is: do they cover sites of interest to you?

And that begs the million-dollar question, which sites interest you.

This lovely blog I found suggests you should list the top 100 sites that concern your customers, and make sure your vendor already has them in their list! You also need to check you have covered all the relevant categories: sites, blogs, newspapers, platforms, microblogs, etc.

If you cannot list the top 100 sites that interest you, then that is where you need to begin.

3 What does you vendor do?

Most vendors of social media metrics are marketers. I don’t know these firms at all because I am on the supply side - HR and people particularly. It’s useful though to scan the list and think of how vendors differ from each other.

So those are the three questions:

People who are really expert at this, I am counting on you to question, correct, clarify and elaborate. For my part, I am interested in the supply side.

Does anyone out there work on the metrics of people offering companies goods and services?

July 3, 2008 | Filed Under Jo Jordan, Uncategorized | 2 Comments 

← Previous Page