Imagining Social Networks: The Futures Company

According to Alex Steer, writing for The Futures Company, social networks might be losing their way. He has an excellent point.

"...it's a shame that so much of the conversation around the future of social networking focuses on technology. In the last few years we've heard that real-time access, mobile apps, geolocation, near-field communication and other innovations would transform social networking. To some extent they have: many of the changes over the last decade have been technology driven. But what's often missing is the simple, human question: how do we want to interact online, and how is this changing?" — Steer

He's right. The emphasis on technology sometimes forgets the real driver of the social networks, the very people who participate in them. In fact, one could argue that the failings of social networks often leads to the content generated about them.

Consider Mitch Joel's Myth of Reciprocity post. Or Anastasiya Goers' Tips for Social Media Time Famine post. Or Ian Chang's Google+ Circles: Inverted Personal Privacy Dilemma post. All three of them have an unlikely common ground.

While they all read like they are about the failings of people (shortcomings and solutions), the real failure is found within the network. And more than that, they indicate how people are so used to bending to networks (and telling other people how to bend) that we've forgotten technology is meant to serve and not make us subservient.

Six Critical Decisions That Consumers Are Making, From The Futures Company. 

1. Scale. The benefits of a large network or the intimacy of a small network.

2. Privacy. The convenience of use and access or safeguards of private data.

3. Specificity. The investment of time on some networks or divided time on many.

4. Pervasiveness. The choice between being always on or to access when we need them.

5. Utility. The perception of seeing networks as places to play or as a professional tools.

6. World view. The choice between reinforcing our habits or challenging our preconceptions.

The Futures Company is largely right in placing the focus on these apparently contradictory pivot points. Their brief, called Status Update: The Six Decisions Shaping The Future Of Online Social Networking, is worth checking out. It may even help some people see social media differently.

In fact, it isn't even until page 34 that it loses me a little. Almost immediately considering all the pivot points, it slips a bit backward for marketing purposes, suggesting marketers learn to bend better. There is nothing wrong with that per se, except that maybe nobody has to bend anything except the tools.

Isn't that the real usefulness of six critical decisions that consumers make? People do not want to accept that choosing this means losing that. They want both at the same time and not necessarily one or the other, subject to change. And that leads to the real question on my mind.

How do we build a social network flexible enough to change with the whim of consumers? 

Nobody has done it yet, not really. If they had, social media evangelists wouldn't have the need to rush and build a huge network only to eventually declare they miss the intimacy of having a small one. No one would worry about social media time famine because activity wouldn't feel like a necessity, scored and rated. And privacy wouldn't be as much of a concern, even if the latest effort really aims at convincing us to give up more of it.

Because these aren't the failings of participants. They are the failings of the technological design created with an addictive allure meant to keep us captive as long as possible. And in many ways, it's the traditional media model all over again. There must be a better way.

It seems to me that an on-demand network could consist of intimate, interconnected spheres existing in a larger environment, allowing us to slide back and forth between smaller personal connections and large public gatherings. It would certainly give us an opportunity to go out and challenge our preconceptions while still having a place to feel secure among like-minded people.

And in that regard The Futures Company is right. By paying more attention to people and less attention to technology, we start to see a more fulfilling future for social media, with less bending.

Entertaining People: Where Apple Might Be Right

Apple isn't known for its social network prowess. Ping is marginal as a social network at best. It functions like a network, but doesn't feel like one.

But there is something that Apple is doing right, when compared to the rush of Google+, Facebook, and Twitter to generalize the point of being all things to all people.

And that is, for the most part, simplifying things to a singular or primary purpose. We see it in how it treats apps; and the same concept works for niche social networks.

iTunes Festival 2011 London solidifies broadcast-digital convergence.

Downloading the iTunes Festival 2011 London for review was almost a no-brainer. And if you ask me or the reviewer, it's not perfect but nonetheless brilliant.

It also has a primary purpose. You can watch a festival concert streamed live or (since most are in the afternoon) after work.

Applied to television networks, it could potentially give people the ability to watch a television program on the first run or automatically have it waiting for them. And depending on how networks want to play it, they could provide a permanent collection or limited-time viewing opportunities with the option to purchase an episode or series for download.

There may even be some potential non-intrusive revenue models beyond selling the program. For iTunes, the buy button only appears before and after the concert or anytime you pause it. It's clean. A television broadcaster might include related merchandise and/or sponsors just as easily, and (although it ought to be reflected in the price point) embedded commercials.

The real bonus in terms of the iTunes Festival 2011 London, of course, is that it truly makes the concept of any device, anywhere, anytime a reality. You can play it on your phone, on your tablet, or on your television. And, depending on how cloud services come along, you won't have to worry about storage or (hopefully) safety.

Our reviewer also considered that a social networking function might be welcome too. It could be fun, he concluded, to chat with people who check-in with a live streaming performance. The function could be optional, of course. (Sometimes it's nice to skip the socialization of everything.) Or perhaps a network/app feature could open up afterwards, allowing viewers to chat about the show.

But what I especially like about the festival and apps in general is that they keep online experiences tied to how we perceive offline experiences. If you are in the iTunes Festival 2011 London app, you are at a concert. And any behavior, even if you are watching from home, is indicative of a concert hall.

Why apps and niche social networks will have a longer lasting life.

You won't find that on increasingly bloated social networks. You might want to share an article, but your friend wants you to join a video chat. You might want to post a picture, but then get caught up in a barrage of instant messages. You might want to share something funny, but then an associate will send you Farmville requests. And brands, well, they're even worse.

This is quickly becoming one of the problems with bloated social networks. As much as you can dictate your own experience, your friends (and any brands you follow) are being given more and more power to dictate what you will do. (Heck, they are even spilling into search relevance, no thanks to +1.)

But all this stands to reason. Big big open generalized networks are like giant rooms with everything going on at the same time and no walls to distinguish anything. The stereo is playing, the television is on, and ten people are trying to perform.

The result is chaos, something I'm always prepared for when I sign on to any of them. One person is talking politics. Another is telling jokes. Some are watching television. Others are playing games. And half of them are screaming "look at me" or "look at my wall."

An app or well-defined niche network, in contrast, is exactly the opposite. If you sign in, you have a reason to be there and everybody else who might be signed on is there for mostly the same purpose too. It feels more than right. It feels like life.

Developing Networks: Google+, Facebook, Twitter, Mordor, Etc.

With everyone else reviewing social networks — spurred on by the introduction of Google+ — I'll pass on any specifics. Suffice to say that Google+ is a crisper version of Facebook with some added features like video chat.

The added features aren't likely to remain exclusive for long. Facebook might already be working on a solution to add it. (Hat tip: Jamie Sanford by way of Ike Pigott). It won't be long before Twitter starts barking up the same tree. And that's what inspired this post, along with a conversation fragment with Geoff Livingston, Dane Morgan, and Tony Berkman.

How Many General Social Networks Can One Endure?

My guess, ultimately, is one to none. Google, Facebook, and Twitter are moving in a peculiar direction. Specifically, it looks like they are moving forward but they are really moving backward. People don't want one social network to do everything. Do they?

One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them...

Rings and circles. I can't really trust them, even if I like them. They might be easier than Facebook groups (and less annoying). They might attract much less spam than Twitter, even if that will change as the population explodes. But at the end of the day, Google, Facebook, Twitter and a half a dozen others are looking for the One Ring. And if anyone gets it again, it will end badly.

Again? Yes, again. The original welder was America Online. We just didn't think to call it that at the time, but it was a social network that for several years meant all things to all people (still does, for some, if you can imagine).

Ironically, it was Google, Yahoo, and other search engines that cut the One Ring from the finger of those service providers after Apple relinquished eWorld and the online experience descended into the darkness of Sauron Case. The world was a better place without it, much more colorful and diverse. So why on earth would anyone want a repeat?

As humans, we can't really help it. All of nature is predisposed toward order. We thrive on it, making bigger and bigger systems until the weight of it becomes unsustainable. History is littered with the rise and demise of such empires. And, we often forget, Internet is too.

MyBlogLog and Technorati come to mind. One collapsed and another was greatly diminished as each of them began the quest to operate beyond their spheres. In part, it's because as prone as humans are to order, they are equally prone to seek freedom and the wonderful chaos that accompanies it.

Niche Networks Tend To Better Define Environments.

Much like the historical and fantastical empires, it seems to me that generalized networks become unsustainable. People like to confine their activities to the definitions of their environments: they act one way at work and another way at a concert; this way at a church and that way at a bar; this way on one social network and that way on another.

Follow the same group of people from the bachelor party to the ceremony to the reception to the after-reception party to the gift opening, and the social norms will change. Same people; different behaviors.

Major networks, on the other hand, provide the same environment and then ask you to behave differently based on the people in the room. It's backwards, mostly because any social behavior is established by the first person who blinks but only because we're all grasping at straws.

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky, Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone ...

Maybe it's because human sociology and adaptability isn't attached to groups of people as much as the environment. We almost can't help it.

This might also explain the primary reasons Facebook (originally a college network) was fast and loose on the front end and slowly became more formal as family members and future employers asked to connect. It's the likely reason quick exchange conversations have taken a back seat to link sharing on Twitter. And it's probably the reason Google Buzz crashed when it failed to establish a culture of what to do there. It wasn't just a matter of who was there, but the purpose of the space.

One of several projects my team is working on right now is a social network of sorts (social network is the closest definition without giving up details). For the last three months, I've been working as one of the principal developers while the board seeks out about $3.5 million in initial funding. (Once we have funding, I'll be allowed to share some alpha invites for a few people.)

What we are doing differently is focusing considerable attention on the environment. And, given it will have a much narrower purpose (with no incentive to pine away your hours looking for conversations to establish presence, eyeballs, or gratuitous activity), it won't compete with any existing network. Instead, it will feel more personal, important, and purposeful — someplace you go for special occasions as opposed to the daily grind.

In some ways, it is what the big networks ought to have been thinking about. Google had some semblance of authority, Facebook had some semblance of social casual, and Twitter eventually became (and then abandoned) a modern version of an AOL chat room.

So does anybody else have it right? There are a few developers who seem like they are on the right track. Of the biggest, it seems to me Apple is one of them. If you want to know why, drop by on Friday when I intend to flesh out why the iTunes Festival 2011 London App represents the future of entertainment.

How To Win With Social Media: Do Something Else

There once was a girl blogger named Gertude McFuzz. And if the name sounds familiar, it should.

She is inspired by Theodor Seuss Geisel, the American writer and cartoonist better known by the name Dr. Seuss. And in his story, of course, Gertude McFuzz was but a sad little bird with the smallest tail feather ever.

But I know plenty of bloggers and social media enthusiasts who feel equally blue. They spend most of their days and nights gazing upward, ever upward at fancier bloggers and tweeters and face-bookers too. They're just like the bird McFuzz followed; her name is Lolla-Lee-Lou.

"If only I had more followers and friends and traffic and clicks," McFuzz would lament. "Then people would notice me."

So they scoured the net, looking for tips and gimmicks and tricks and top ten lists. There are plenty of remedies for them to find too, you see. Of course, most of them are tied to promoting other bloggers or investing cash money. In fact, all of those social media experts, with their heads in the clouds, are mysteriously supported by those searching on the ground.

But no matter. Most of the bloggers with a name like McFuzz are equally content to give each other some lift. They'll promise to give you a leg up, if you give me a click. And that might even work for awhile, those bubble building networks, exchanges and schemes. People promising something reciprocal, even if no one reads anything their fellow followers put up, as it seems.

Sooner or later, deflated and nearly beaten, some bloggers like McFuzz will eventually try cheating. And much like the bird who ate from the pill-berry bush, their numbers will soar.

"It's easy to buy followers when you go to the store," said McFuzz, feeling better much like a bird with a plume full of feathers.

Eventually, however, it all crashes down. McFuzz will run out of hours in the day or run out of bought buzz. That is what happens when you promise a reciprocal ratio of 1:1 (or 1:10 if they're famous) or spend all your savings on potions, elixirs.

So wait, what's the answer? In the story by Dr. Seuss, it was simple enough. Just be yourself and be happy about stuff. Other people have said it, so enough about that is enough. I'll go a step further than Dr. Seuss for anyone who sometimes feels like McFuzz.

Do something else.

It really is that simple. Do something. The truth about blogging specifically, and social media more broadly, is that only two kinds of people ever really soar more than a few feet off the ground. Either you become one of those who climb higher on the promise you'll teach those below what you learned or you do something.

It doesn't really matter what it is, as long as it's something. Take a long hard look at some of the "most successful" bloggers and social networkers (besides those who operate Ponzi schemes). What you are likely to find is a whole bunch of people who do something. They are speakers, authors, musicians, publishers, business owners, marketing professionals, programmers, photographers, artists, travelers, creators, etc.

So maybe it's time you remembered to flip the scale. If you invest all your time sharing, following, reading, commenting, and promoting everyone else to get ahead, you will eventually run out of time to do anything worthwhile enough to be noticed.

Right. There are only a few micro-famous people who ever got ahead on social media alone. Most of the people who succeed are too busy doing something else entirely. And then, after that (or in between non-social projects at least), they use social media to talk about it. Or, if you need a more direct example — visit an author blog or two.

And then ask yourself — did social networks make them an author or did becoming an author make them successful at social media? The split is probably somewhere around 99-1, with the great majority being people who took the time to do something.

Revolutionizing Social: Does Activity Equal Experience?

A few days ago, Arik Hanson called it right. Anyone who looks up David Mullen will find less social activity than they might have found a few years ago.

Does that mean David Mullen no longer understands digital marketing?

Not at all. As Hanson points out, he has different responsibilities. And tracking about 250 blogs, daily, for almost a year, we found Mullen is more often the rule than the exception.

For example, the Decker Blog is relatively light on content and two of the authors have a minimal following on Twitter (without custom backgrounds no less). Yet, Kelly and Ben Decker still managed to co-write a well-read post on the top ten best (and worst) communicators of 2010. Between October 2010 and January 2011, Bill Sledzik, associate professor in the School of Journalism & Mass Communication at Kent State University, took one of his frequent social media leaves of absence. Rob Reed doesn't post or engage with a byline very often, but that doesn't make him less than a founder of Max Gladwell.

It might make you wonder. Does taking time off, shifting priorities, or working behind the scenes as opposed to being a visible participant make a difference in social media? Perhaps in perception, but not in practice. If the Old Spice campaign taught us anything about social media, it was that an advertising agency might understand social media without an active presence.

In fact, it seems to be another rule and not an exception. Most major social media brand successes that social media experts talk about do not come from social media experts at all. They came from communicators and business owners who happened to include social media as part of their mix.

Old Spice is only one example. And while I had a much more tepid view of the campaign, most experts called it the best social media campaign despite the producers of it not measuring up to their own activity-based social media standards.

A revolutionary way to look at online activity, experience, and influence.

During the American Revolution, many people played many different roles. Thousands of people rightfully earned the moniker, including more than 100 as signers of the Declaration of Independence and/or United States Constitution. However, we don't remember all of them. We remember a few, which is based more on the degree of their influence as opposed to their activity.

We picked four names to demonstrate the distinction. And while the specifics might vary, their historical status is remarkably different. But then again, the founding fathers didn't meddle with definitions. They had more important things to do.

• Authoritative Influence. As commander in chief of the Continental Army, George Washington made decisions that largely influenced the course of the war. While he was also as statesman, his visibility as a statesman was secondary to the decisions he was given authority to make. Today, elected officials, judges, legislators, investors, and network owners can also set the course of a network or the entire online landscape regardless of authored participation.

• Innovative Influence. Although he was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, one of the most influential documents produced during the American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson wasn't necessarily an active author or publisher like many of his colleagues. By today's measure, he tended to write less but when he did write, his words were profoundly influential in that they often included innovative ideas that still have an impact today.

• Persuasive Influence. Much more consistent in his writings than Jefferson was Thomas Paine, author of the widely read pamphlet Common Sense, which consistently advocated for American independence. Later, he would also move to France and became deeply involved with the French Revolution. His writing often set the agenda for others to follow. Some have even gone so far as to suggest without Common Sense, Washington would have raised his sword in vain.

• Activity Influence. Samuel Adams is often praised as someone who had been steering his fellow colonists toward independence long before the war, and was frequently in the midst of the political affairs in Boston. Like the majority of the founding fathers of this country, he is remembered less for his contributions despite leading many of the activities that led up to the Revolution, including the Boston Tea Party.

In looking at activity, Samuel Adams, second cousin to John Adams, was an active participant throughout, perhaps even more so than the founding fathers most people know by name. However, Washington was still the more suitable person to lead the army and Jefferson better suited to write the Declaration.

What this might teach us is that activity does not substitute for formal experience or lasting influence, even if it sets the stage for events. It might make us reconsider activity as a social media measure all together.

The seven personas of the activity in social media.

The Fresh Content experiment captured varied online activity, beyond publishing content. It showed that the people who have the most experience are not always the people who are active, day in and day out.

On the contrary, sometimes it showed the participant lacked education, experience, and expertise. It also revealed a subtle set of motivations between those who are the most active. Without assigning labels in a confining sense, these are the seven types of personas we saw frequently.

• Professors. While not all of them carry the title "professor," educators tend to be passionate about the subjects they teach. They tend to be active in various networks, sharing their education and experience with students and colleagues, often balancing out the bad advice of others or providing attribution when someone doesn't know their idea is less than original.

• Publishers. Whether they serve as editor or reporter for a firm, dedicated online magazine, or a social network, content publishers and providers are paid to develop content for their company brand while establishing their own presence. In some cases, they may develop some keen insights. In others, they can be likened to a music critic who can't play an instrument.

• Peace keepers. Online community managers become exceptionally skilled in keeping multiple windows open at the same time. Some of them expand a personal network while managing the online assets of a company, network, or publication. In other cases, their job descriptions better match an online customer service manager than a communication professional.

• Promoters. While their experience and expertise varies, there are dozens of people in the communication field that either use social media as a primary promotional tool for their firms or for themselves because their primary products are book sales, affiliate commissions, or paid speaking opportunities.

• Preachers. There is a segment of communicators that are simply passionate about social media. They see the space as some sort of revolution to unhinge traditional marketing. Some would even outlaw advertising all together if they could, but only because they see any sale is exclusively based on relationships and every transaction the result of a personal connection.

• Provers. A majority of professionals who become increasingly active in social media are attempting to prove they know social media. Some of them are attempting to launch a new consulting practice while others are looking to land a job at a firm that that might be dazzled by large follower counts and clout scores. Some social media firms never break away from this category. Neither do those who have nothing to prove, except to themselves.

• Pretenders. Compared to any other category, these people tend to have one of the highest network activity levels, with some even leveraging social network monitoring tools to do the dirty work. They are generally one of two types. The occasional A-lister who produces more content than humanly possible by raiding lesser known bloggers in order to look like they came up with the idea first; and the busy bee, eager to please, but without any formal experience to generate their own ideas. They are easy to spot.

None of these descriptors are meant to disparage (except the last, perhaps). And many individuals fall within two or three categories at a time. The real intent here is to help professionals distinguish just who they are listening to: An inexperienced egomaniac, a parroter of other people, or a self-promotor paid handsomely to work once a month in between business card books.

Social network activity doesn't sort these people out. Likewise, social media measures don't distinguish from the general who ought to be running your campaign, the author who ought to write your white paper, the writer who might be best suited to add frequent content, or the wildly active independent who is important but never remembered enough for their contributions.

Sure, there is truth to the wisdom in thinking that someone who professes to be a social media expert might engage in social media. Then again, the overstatement of this fact is misleading, given you won't find many advertising agency commercials on television or a steady stream of press releases about about every public relations firm outshining their clients. It's all relative.

This is the second lesson from the Fresh Content experiment, which tracked 250 blogs for almost a year. The experiment focused on the quality of the content and not the perceived popularity of the authors.

Exploring Networks: Two Accounts, One Upside Down

When most people look at a social network account, the first thing they notice is numbers. The general assumption is that someone with 10,000 followers is more important than someone with 1,000 followers than someone with 100 followers.

The thought process is so ingrained, some public relations practitioners even subscribe to the idea that bloggers need to have a certain amount of followers before they will work with them. Some social media practitioners claim there is a follower threshold colleagues must reach before becoming experts (as if). And even otherwise bright individuals seem to be locked into their own notions of who ought to rank where and when; the same people who called for others to throw off authority years ago.

Last week, I had an opportunity to look behind the scenes at two social media programs, using Twitter and Facebook. For the purposes of this post, we will call the accounts Program X and Program Y. Both are relatively new, about three months old.

Program X, by the numbers.

Twitter, 201. Facebook, 184. (TwitterGrader, 83. Klout, 32. TweetLevel, 34.)

The account can best be described as moderately active and reasonably responsive, with more than half of its followers seeming to be a logically connected by common interests. It is obviously still in its infancy, doubling in size every few weeks.

Program Y, by the numbers.

Twitter, 2,567. Facebook, 1,539. (TwitterGrader, 98.7. Klout, 36. TweetLevel, 35.)

The account can best be described as more active than average but not always appropriately responsive, with more than half of its followers seeming to be unrelated to any common interest. At a glance, it seems successful, growing in a much more erratic fashion, with brief leaps and long plateaus.

Program X, behind the numbers.

If you shared common interests that the account Tweets about, you might meet other people who have common interests. While small, there seems to be several areas for common ground that all the followers share. And, when the account is mentioned, it responds appropriately and also engages other people about topics you might expect (beyond talking about itself).

When it links to created content, it has an average number of shares. The visitation percentage to the content, however, is much higher (something 'influence' systems do not measure), around 20 percent. Even more telling, as a location-based business, are social check-ins. People seem to check-in with increased frequency, doubling every month since Facebook added the feature. More frequency would probably propel the account forward.

Program Y, behind the numbers.

Even if you shared common interests that the account Tweets about, you might think twice. Assuming you don't look at just numbers, there is almost no common ground between the followers. While the account is also mentioned frequently, some of the mentions seem to ring hollow, almost as if automated accounts are talking to each other.

Likewise, the amount of RTs seems to have no connection to the frequency of tweets, debunking the notion that RTs are necessarily demonstrative of value. In fact, this is probably why there doesn't seem to be any correlation to site visits and network activity. The number of visits to its content site from networks (something 'influence' systems do not measure) is less than .5 percent.

Value Assessment.

While one account seems to be ten times the size, it has roughly the same value, with Program X undermining its own long-term ability unless action is taken now. One of the side effects from an abundance of low-quality followers (spammers, follower chasers, and auto follows) is that the account creates more noise, but that noise is best described as static.

It's also impacting in that the follow rate of new, unsolicited followers is almost 3:1 between the two. In terms of those algorithms, it's even more telling. Twitter Grader falls right in line with the perception and not reality. Klout and TweetLevel overestimate both accounts in terms of what they call "influence." I am not surprised. Both Klout and TweetLevel tend to perform at their weakest toward the lower and higher ends of their scales (lumping most active people in the middle).

There are dozens of accounts that I follow that have much more meaningful engagement but are 'rated' lower by comparison because they are new, less active, or simply have no aspirations to become "popular" on social networks. You know. They are people, with very different uses for Twitter and Facebook than becoming popular.

So where is the real problem between these accounts? My guess is that one is operating on an erred objective — to create a successful social media program (or the perception of one, banking on the idea it will be real one day). There are a few consultants who do this all the time.

Conversely, what the organization would be better off doing is tying its objective to the organization's output/offerings and then communicating that in a creative and meaningful way rather than wish for buzz and awareness. I sometimes wonder what percentage of professionals know the difference. Or their clients for that matter.

Considering Interventions: Help Friends Kick The Traffic Habit

It's always easy to tell when your communication team's traffic habit has turned into a chronic addiction. The most common symptom is unabashed boasting — companies that celebrate milestones by issuing releases that they've reached a magical benchmark that consists of people who can't afford to buy their product or are well outside their intent for communication.

Don't laugh. Addiction — defined by psychoactive substances which cross the blood-brain barrier once ingested, temporarily altering the chemical milieu of the brain — can happen to anybody, even some of the most respectable brands. And when it happens, the best thing people can do is host an intervention.

Porsche Needs An Intervention.

"Although we are witness to passionate customers and fans every day, it is neat to set another Porsche milestone by growing to over 1,000,000 strong on Facebook," said Josh Cherfoli, online relationship and marketing manager for Porsche Cars North America. "It's an excellent opportunity to help us connect with our fanbase, and we thank them all for sharing our passion."

That was the quote pulled from an actual news release boasting that more than one million people worldwide have shown their love and support for Porsche by, ahem, liking it on Facebook. They even have a reward program for fans willing to give up their friends list, along with all of its demographics.

"As part of the continued celebration, fans can sign-up via Facebook to have their name inscribed on a special Porsche model. This vehicle will then be displayed as part of a unique exhibit at the Porsche Museum in Stuttgart, Germany," says the release.

And, despite this being such a coup for Porsche, it still doesn't trust social media. Photos of new and historical Porsches are only available to accredited journalists on the Porsche Press Database. Whatever that means.

Obviously, Porsche is drunk on traffic, likes, follows, and friendz. On the news that Porsche reached one million, the fans celebrated by mentioning things like "That bloated SUV shouldn't be in the same photo as that beautiful machine," "hello you will join my group sex and sport," "2011 Cayenne S is 'ridiculous'... test drive one if you can," and "My mom told me about this webpage that lets you test a Macbook Air and keep it at no cost!" Ah, isn't one million fans love grand?

As food for thought, you might contrast all that excitement with another fan group for the manufacturer abandoned Infiniti G20 with 1.5 million posts or on its Facebook page. It's not supported by Infiniti or Nissan (as far as I know), but fans there talk about stuff like "how hard is it to take out a G20 trans auto...," "join us for a toys and tots G20 donation drive," and "looking for a GTIR ECU for a decent price trying to give life to my G20." See the difference?

Sure, G20 net hasn't broken one thousand on Facebook, but it's very clear where the real fan love is at, which is a shame because Porsche was one of my favorite childhood car fantasies in the 1980s. Tears even welled up in my eyes when that poor Porsche 928 landed in the lake. But not today. Porsche needs an intervention.

Banking On Friends: Why Bulk Is Going Bust

Experian Marketing Services' CheetahMail recently released an analysis that ought to wake up bulk promotion supporters, especially those relying on email as a means to deliver messages. The analysis pinpoints just how significantly emails from trusted sources outperform other marketing campaigns, even when the offer is the same or inferior.

• Friends-and-family emails had 43 percent higher open rates and 29 percent higher click rates compared to bulk promotions.
• Friends-and-family email transaction rates were 85 percent higher and 2.5 times higher against bulk promotions.
• Friends-and-family emails generate higher sales per email than bulk promotions and much higher referral rates.
• Friends-and-family emails with links to social networks had higher referral rates than direct-to-offer links.

Bulk Promotions Are Slowly Going Bust.

Before every social media expert nods in agreement, it might be important to point out that the trust measurements are changing in 2011. While the current trend is to trust people with significantly higher frequencies, the public is already beginning to slowly shift away from "brand ambassadors" who are attempting to supplant the blind bulk promotions.

Friends might trust friends who share links to social networks, but when "friendz" share simply to make pennies on the dollar or because they are enamored with a brand, then any established trust will begin to evaporate. In fact, many people have already filtered the top tier of abusive sharers — that one uncle who has nothing better to do than pass along chain emails and conspiracy memos. They were the first to go and certainly not the last.

Only Careful Sharing Will Increase Trust.

While most "influence" measures are built on a formula of little more than "volume times frequency times mass," those score-trumping trends, especially when linked to rewards for the sharer, will eventually crash. Ergo, while we all appreciate friends who share a new music discovery or review site, people are less inclined to "like" pages and "follow" brands because their second cousin likes to win contests and perks.

The trust evaporation factor may even happen faster as those once engaged are pelted by direct promos because they wanted to help a friend win a T-shirt or some other lowbrow novelty. Smart marketers already know this and have adjusted to accordingly. And those that don't? Many are already crumbling, including some who are nothing more than consultants.

Tweeting Not tweeting: New Rules For Anything Goes

When Andy Warhol painted Campbell's soup cans, Brillo boxes, and Coca-Cola bottles, it was a well-known fact he consulted the style guides of the various brands he turned into subjects. Seriously? No, not seriously. I just made that up.

What I am not making up is Twitter would like to ask as much of you. Twitter has a new look. And with the new look comes revised rules for what once a clearinghouse of free expression. But as you know, with freedom comes responsibility, namely your responsibility and Twitter's freedom to protect its brand that you helped make popular.

Audrey Watters wrote about how what might seem harmless to some might have significant meaning to developers. And Brian Solis spelled out some of it in painstakingly detailed rules that everyone is asked to abide by. You can read about it straight from the source too.

"This document is designed to help you use our marks without having to worry about negotiating an agreement with us or talking to our lawyers. If you’d like to make any use of our marks that is not covered by this document, you must contact us at trademarks at twitter.com.

They're not new rules as much as they are revised old rules.

Before I go further, I might add most people don't have to be overly concerned today. The original guidelines were posted almost one year ago, including the aforementioned paragraph. Mostly, people ignored them, except developers.

In limited cases, graphic standards can be great things. They can be especially helpful for designers, partners, developers, and other vested parties. Attempting to herd the greater bulk of users, on the other hand, always ends badly.

It's something to keep in check. Twitter is aging quickly as a company, has new people in charge, and is feeling a little less vulnerable. You might too with so many users. Just look at what happened when MySpace felt safe.

All right, MySpace may not be the best example. But it does offer a reality check. One day, Twitter might insist that everyone capitalize the T in tweet (unless speaking about a bird, which I am). One day, the ability to leave the new and less aesthetically functional dashboard might end. And one day, it might insist every screen shot you ever took of a Twitter conversation might be struck.

While that might seem impossible, do keep in mind the new logo isn't as friendly as the original. That makes sense to me. Twitter doesn't define itself as a message service anymore. Nowadays, it is an information network.

By the way, did you know Reddit.com traffic has almost caught Digg.com traffic without any overt platform changes? And did you know Mixx.com is in decline (assuming you heard of it)? Did you know the Internet changes players on a regular basis?

Making Snowmen: Two Social Media Views

While it is true I live in Las Vegas, I wasn't born here. I was born in the Midwest, where winters were always white and building snowmen is considered a skill set. It might not be a bad skill set for social media experts to learn too. Making even one snowman can teach you a little bit about social media.

How To Build A Social Media Program, Using Snow.

1. Test the snow. Some snow clumps better than other snow.
2. Shape a small handful, slowly adding to it over time.
3. Accumulate more snow, pressing each layer to keep it firm.
4. Repeat for each section, considering which might be a foundation and head.
5. Link your various sections together. Snowmen fall apart without proper links.
6. Be creative because content matters. A banana might make an unexpected nose.
7. Add a hat, scarf, or other apparel to give it an authentic and unique personality.
8. Snowmen aren't uncommon, but people still take time to see an amazing snowman.

Now, if you had some of the same experiences I had growing up, there always seemed to one or two kids who enjoyed taking credit for building snowmen, but didn't necessarily have any passion to do the work. It seemed silly to them to start out with a snowball, when snow covering a ball might do the trick just as nicely. All that air in the ball will add volume and save time.

How Not To Build A Social Media Program, Using Snow.

1. Find a ball or make a cutout to inflate your sections.
2. Pile snow around balls, hiding the artificial surface.
3. Don't skimp on linking. Links are the most important part.
4. Don't worry about being creative. People expect snowmen to look the same.
5. Steal someone else's hat, scarf, and apparel, turning it inside out to make it look real.
6. People will still stop by, and if they take a snapshot, nobody will be the wiser.

For the first couple of days, not everyone will be able to tell the snowman apart from the real thing (especially if the original had time to replace the stolen clothes). But eventually, they will.

Artificial snowmen don't hold up as well in bad weather (or if the days turn warmer). An errant snowball might fracture the poorly constructed surface. And someone might notice the name tag in the hat doesn't belong to the owner.

Social media is only as complicated as you make it, assuming you don't fake it. The general idea is to find the right flakes and help them stick together. That takes time.

You can cut the time significantly by skipping some steps. But if you aim to capture attention with spam links, faux followers, and other tricks, then it might be time to face facts. The crowd that is gathering isn't visiting to join a community. They are visiting to shake their heads at a mess. Sometimes, they might even shake their fists. It's no fun linking to a detour.

Being An Influencer: The Most Dangerous Label

One of the titles on Traackr is a tell-all. "Discover Who Matters." And, the easy inference might be that nobody else does.

I'm not knocking the service, today. There are hundreds out there. All of them claim to have the next quantifiable measure. Traacker is merely an example, another company striving to deliver on a service that is in high demand. It's rather amazing.

Are We Adopting A New Metric Of Human Valuation?

There is no denying that any novice social media or social network participant might be elated the first time one of their ideas or one of their projects catches attention. There is no question it is fun to come back from lunch, check analytics, and discover that a single post or tweet or Facebook addition ticked off a few thousand hits.

I know. I've been there, with 10,000 visits in a few hours. I cannot deny I smiled and told everyone in the office to check it out.

That was before social networks. Now, those numbers might roll in from anywhere: friends, followers, clicks, comments, connections, shares, blips, burps, and who knows what else. It is the ultimate in quantified "value" based on the metric of mass affirmation to determine personal and social regard.

Is this the future of social media? — I have friends. I have followers. I have subscribers. I am a contributer. I am valued. More than him, but less than her. And one day, I will be at the top of the mountain, climbing in rank and position. Is that all there is?

The Dangers Of Following Democratic Affirmation.

Last year, William B. Swann, Jr., writing on a different topic but one with relevant ties to social media, warned people away from too much self-help, especially those with an edict that goes "with enough repetitions, the argument goes, people who suffer from low self-esteem will transform themselves into highly self-confident individuals who will discover that the world is their oyster."

Social media couldn't be a better place to extract some evidence to support the fairy tale. It's one that I've seen cause otherwise savvy professionals to seek shortcuts to success in the effort to somehow actualize on the perception of influence, relevance, and acceptance. They feel they have to. Not enough metrics in one area or the other is developing into a new stereotype.

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” — Martin Luther King

I too have a dream, for social media. That my two children will one day log on to some network and not be judged by the quantity of their connections but the context and content of their ideas. It touches on the subject that my son was learning at school during the anti-bullying campaign. The lesson that stood out most for him was to always be the first to reach out to the new kid on the block.

He has a good point. So does this 106-page paper on Self-Affirmation. I'm still reading it and may feature some finer points next week. But in the meantime, I am thinking about something else.

The original Z-List is long past its prime. Before it was gamed, most of those people either crashed out of the field or climbed the metrics ladder (with a few of those forgetting their roots, I might add). I'd like to resurrect something like it in 2011, with a twist to look for people who are looking for criticism as much as affirmation.

I'd like to get started today, but I need some help. I have to finish my book on a semi-related subject (but not tied to social media). I'm still curating the Fresh Content Project for at least another quarter. I also have Liquid Hip, which shows promise on its own. Naturally, I have a day job as well.

How You Might Help An Anti-Influence Project.

So specifically, I would like to ask for it in three different ways. I'm open to ideas on how to create a qualitative structure (not quantitative) that would emphasize virtual unknowns and potentially track them based exclusively on content/ideas. I'd like some new people in the communication field who have promise but are currently buried under the volume of experts. And, even though I have no idea where this might go in 2011, I'd be especially grateful for anyone who might want to work on such a project.

It's sure to be unpopular. But I am starting to think some disruption might be worthwhile. Of course, you can disagree too.

If you have any ideas, people I should be taking a hard look at, or want to put yourself on a short list to help, add yourself to the comments. Naturally, if no one comments, then I know this idea has even more merit. (That is a joke. Well, sort of.)

Losing Contacts: The Open Network

A couple years ago, I considered moving out of the Las Vegas market after being approached by a Fortune 500 company. The offer was nearly perfect until they tossed one question that was a deal breaker in my book. It was about my "book" or what was once called a Rolodex.

"How many media contacts do you have in your Rolodex?

Seriously? A tech company even using the term seemed suspect enough, Fortune 500 or not. But the real rub was that it just doesn't matter how many business cards you've filed away. Social networking has created an open network, where the value of industry connections and media relationships are based on quality, not quantity. I tried to explain, but they just didn't get it.

"It just doesn't matter what the industry is, any seasoned public relations professional can create a fistful of media contacts overnight and the quality of the relationships will be established almost immediately based on the initial interaction."

That was the power and promise of the social network. Even if you didn't have certain contacts, doors could be opened easily enough. Almost everyone on the planet is one or two or three degrees removed from the contacts you have today (assuming they are real relationships).

And then I read Fear and Loathing on LinkedIn this morning and realized the opposite is true too. If everyone's doors are open to you, then your doors are likely to be open to everyone else too. As HR technology writer Steve Boese pointed out, everyone has access to your network.

It used to be, you'd only have to worry about competing recruiters luring your best talent away to what is usually seen as an uncertain path, now it looks like soon your friends at LinkedIn may help guide the way a little more clearly," wrote Boese. "But don't be afraid, if you lose that top marketing manager you can probably find another one soon enough."

The same can be said for small shops, consultants, and, well, any business really. Online networks are open books. And if you don't think that someone isn't interested in stealing away your employees, clients, customers, and maybe your spouse, then you might be as naive as new snow.

While the value of quantity connections used to carry value on the supply and demand side, it just doesn't scale. One thousand exclusive connections only mean something when they are exclusive. Today, those 1,000 connections are an open book. Of course, it's nothing to panic about, as Boese suggests. It's the best thing that happened for everybody.

"Fear melts when you take action towards a goal you really want." — Robert G. Allen

The remedy is never fear or attempting to lock down those precious connections. It's very much the opposite. Make them precious. Make them count. Because in the new economy, the quality of the relationship isn't secured by keeping your connections hidden or bombarding them with frequency. It's based on something else, which is closer to friendship.

I have many friends, but only a few close ones. Those I could consider close (and I don't necessarily mean "secret keeping" close) are the kind of friends that I could reach out to once every ten years and we would pick up where we left off, as if the last time we connected was a week ago. I have many acquaintances that are very much the same (former students included).

It's the only kind of relationship that has real value, and you can even make them with first-time connections if you are adept enough, value them enough, and keep them off the agenda. Anything less isn't a connection, it's only a contact. If you focus more on the former as opposed to the latter, you can almost guarantee that your employees will be unrecruitable, your client unstealable, and your future connections unwavering (even if you never met them beyond a post, email, or tweet).

And if you don't believe it? Well, then keep doing what you're doing. You'll figure it out in your own time, probably when you grow weary of the revolving door. And that's something you can count on.

Creating Social Networks: Colonies Before Communities

With increasing regularity, companies that have adopted social media find themselves asking the next most logical question. How do I develop a sense of community? There are plenty of answers, but there is only one right answer. You don't.

Online communities aren't developments. They are evolutions of other social structures, much like corporate cultures.

But unlike corporate cultures, you do not "control" the participants. There is no tangible contract. They don't owe you anything on the promise of a paycheck. They aren't likely to invest eight or more hours a day in your organization. And, as virtual nomads (or tribes if they are connected), they aren't likely to identify with fledgling ideas beyond recognizing common interest.

Colonies Before Communities.

Companies don't create communities. At best, they create colonies on new continents such as Facebook or those of their own design. And very much like the American colonies, they are founded for very different reasons and will have very different outcomes.

In 1585, Sir Walter Raleigh had received a charter to establish a settlement in North America within ten years. The intent, much like many companies that want communities, wasn't much more than to exploit the riches of the new world. How they would do this, beyond raiding Spanish treasure fleets, was unclear in some cases. This colony, Roanoke, disappeared without a trace.

Subsequent colonies were established for different reasons. Virginia was established for trade and profits. Plymouth for religious freedom. New York for trade and profits. New Hampshire for looser economic rules. South Carolina to produce rice. And so on and so forth.

The earliest colonists didn't identify with their location as much as their homeland, but they all recognized they generally shared one or two common interests. One colony, Plymouth, did establish a Mayflower Compact, loosely based on the idea that the colonists would agree to certain rules for mutual benefit beyond their understanding of English law. The point of interest here is that the colonists, not England, wrote and signed the compact.

The Risk Of Colonization.

Some colonies take shape much like the visionaries intend. Others do not. And the reasons are as varied as the American colonies. Sometimes colonies are abandoned for greener pastures. Sometimes neighboring tribes invade and take over. Sometimes charismatic leaders emerge and have more influence than the appointed governance of a community manager.

But more important than any of that is to always remember surviving colonies will eventually not be managed by the people who fund the charter, but rather by the people who populate it. In less than 200 years, even early American colonies would eventually develop a sense of identity so strong, they would rebuff the crown and claim sovereignty in the face of change.

Thus, companies and organizations hoping to build communities, especially those designed for trade and profit, may have a few surprises in store for them. Whatever design they have in mind may not work.

South Carolina, for example, was founded for rice production but the cash crop eventually became tobacco. New York, which was originally a Dutch settlement, was taken over by the English. When puritan leaders became too hard in New Hampshire, the colonists began to spread north and inland. In Connecticut, founder Thomas Hooker was asked to leave. And so on.

You can match any of these stories with various company community efforts or fledgling social networks. Some disappear. Some are taken over. Some have member revolutions. And so on. It's amazing, when you think about it, that some do develop into loyalist communities at all.

The Reward Of A Loyalist Community.

When you think about it, the goal of many companies eventually becomes to own a loyalist community. They want people to participate, buy, and encourage their friends to participate and buy as well. It's possible, but not probable, with rare exception.

• Are you confident that the colony will receive as much support at it needs during bleak seasons?
• Are you prepared to hire a community manager or managers with more experience than an intern?
• Are you certain this representative will reinforce the community vision and not a rock star image?
• Are you up for guiding behaviors that reinforce the vision of the community being created?
• Are you flexible enough to know when the vision won't mesh with the participants you attract?
• Are you resigned to the idea that you may own the technology, but not the culture that develops?
• Are you ready to defend against invaders that disrupt the safety and sense of security people expect?
• Are you restrained enough to avoid sweeping changes that shock the community in the morning?

Then you might be ready to fund a colony, with the hope it will return a loyal community. But if you think a social network (even if it is on Facebook) is a campaign or a technology, then your expectations will not likely be met for any sustainable amount of time. The net is littered with more Roanokes than Facebooks and more New Hampshires than Reddits.

Counting Impressions: Twitter Follower Nonsense

"What’s the value of a tweet sent by a person with a million followers? What’s the cost per tweet impression?" — Tom Webster

Marketers keep asking the question. And some, like Webster, appreciate that one million followers doesn't have so much meaning.

Counting impressions like traditional media, especially on platforms like Twitter, is junk math. There are too many variables outside traditional impressions because the reason people follow someone or something is not as finite as listening to a radio show or watching a television program.

We watch and listen to programs because we have a vested interest. Twitter is different. The reasons people follow are more akin to the reason for having a full cable package. We have many cable networks not because we watch them, but because they are there. And unlike cable networks, two-way communication means there is a potential for reciprocal broadcasting. Ergo, if you watch my network, I'll watch your network. But unlike Twitter, nobody counts viewers when their televisions are turned off.

10 Reasons Why Twitter Impressions Never Add Up.

• Not every follower is online at any given time. One million can quickly become a few thousand or a few hundred.
• Not every tweet is read. And, increasing the number of tweets can diminish the impact of each tweet.
• Not every follower is interested in what you have to say. Some follow you because you follow them.
• Not every follower likes your topic du jour. Conversations aren't as consistent as programing.
• Not every follower is a follower. Some follow you because they think you're interested in them.
• Not every follower likes you or your organization. Sometimes they follow you to complain or make fun of you.
• Not every follower has any interest in taking action. You can put up links all day and they'll never click them.
• Not every follower can take action. Sometimes proximity or discretionary income can be issue.
• Not every follower is part of your tribe. Sometimes they follow you (or retweet you) because a friend did.
• Not every follower is even a real person. Autobots, auto follows, and auto responders have thousands of followers.

This quick list of ten is only for starters. It hints at the truth. There is no such thing as a Twitter strategy. Individuals have intent and organizations have tactics, and the uses are as varied as the people who make up the greater Twitter space.

Does that mean I'm down on Twitter as a communication tool? Nope. Personally, I have a very narrow intent. I use Twitter to keep up with colleagues, students, and a few friends. That's about it. I listen more than I talk (when I have time to be there).

Other people use it as a broadcast platform (which is what the owners of Twitter say it is). And others use it as a messaging service among friends (which was its original purpose). And others use it to engage customers. And others use it to get book deals based on the delusion that one million followers means something. And some use it to inflate their ego. Good for them.

The reality is that very few people use it to listen (even those who claim to). And even fewer use it to have dialogue. Don't get me wrong. Some do. Not always, but often, those are the people I follow. More importantly, as much as I like them, they cannot sell me a watch. I own two watches. I like them.

In closing, I might add that a friend of mine recently messaged 380,000 people asking for donations for a good cause. His solicitation earned $75. Had his request had been on Twitter, that means his tweet would have had a value of $75. Two years ago, I messaged about 1,200 people about a different cause. I raised more then $5,000.

Outcomes count, even though the real reward in supporting that cause had nothing to do with the money raised or any numbers. It was about people, pure and simple. As soon as they become numbers, they don't count so much. Keep it real.

Pressing Introverts: What Modern Engagement Misses

With social networks becoming a dominant form of communication, at least in terms of the attention they receive, one might wonder where that leaves introverts. People who respond quickly, comment frequently, and network more efficiently seem to have an upper hand at a glance, especially in communication-related fields.

I was reminded of this while reviewing the very odd Facebook game called poweRBrands developed by Reckitt Benckiser. The game is designed to mirror the real-life experience of being a marketing executive in a cutting-edge company such as RB. No, it's not much fun for people who are marketing executives (the demographics are ages 18-30), but this isn't a review.

What struck me about the game is how much emphasis is placed on creating the illusion of networking. If you receive a call to attend a party (even if there is a research project due), you go. If you're invited to lunch, you go. If something needs to be brainstormed, you call the team together.

The Elevation Of Extroverts In Communication.

The point is that the game, much like the field, is surprisingly extrovert driven (even at the expense of results). So much so it almost seems counter intuitive, doubly so after reading a Psychology Today article by Laurie Helgoe, author and psychologist.

In the article, Helgoe discusses the personality-culture clash that introverts experience in a society that rewards extroversion, and corrects misunderstandings about the 50 percent of the population who prefer an active inner life to a busy social calendar. But this idea also made me wonder. While Helgoe considers the extroverts and introverts in the workplace, I wondered about them in social networks and whether some social media experts consider this as part of their communication equation.

For example, there seems to be a great emphasis placed on verbalized engagement — comment counts, open dialogue, and everything that can be seen (and counted). But what if particular content attracts fewer introverts? And why do social media experts discount their quiet influence?

The Role Of The Introvert In Social Networks.

Last year, Anthony Vultaggio made an interesting observation that connecting online is less social and more solitary than we might think. Publishing content on social networks, he said, gives introverts an advantage because they don't have a need to receive feedback from others.

Like journalists, he said, they reach inward and let others connect to their messages. However, I'm not so sure this is the way it stacks up in terms of capturing greater numbers of followers (if that is the intent for whatever reason). On Twitter, for example, extroverts tend to ask many more questions and have many more conversations because they have generally skip reflection.

Ergo, interaction attracts more interest. And, as I've mentioned before, there is ample evidence that social bloggers — people who speak and attend gatherings — leverage their offline connections to drive traffic to their online content. But more importantly, this still doesn't consider whether the quieter portion of the population is somehow being missed.

They share less, but tend to have more to say about what they share. They come up with great ideas, but don't measure outputs. They tend to be uncounted by social media measures, but are counted when it comes to actual outcomes. They bookmark more, anticipating to revisit ports and articles when they have more time to process the information.

Meanwhile, a social media project manager might be missing the introvert's presence all together, or worse, chase them away by trying to draw them out. (I actually witnessed this on a few occasions on Facebook; introverts fled after a page manager tried to engage them on something they quietly liked.)

The Crazy Thing About Measurements And Labels.

Personally, I don't believe there are such a things as introverts and extroverts as much as I believe there are behavior styles. Then again, I'm about as anti-label as they come with the exception of temporarily adopting labels to keep conversations fluid.

But this conversation starter might also lend itself to different insights for social media managers or whatever they might call themselves. Social media monitoring isn't nearly enough in terms of listening. And, as far as the workplace, I might add that drawing introverts "out of their shells" might be less effective than aligning them to areas where they can be a benefit.

Maybe the truth about what customers think about your product or service cannot be ferreted out by the data that is so readily available. And, depending on the type of people you attract, loud data might even be driving you in the wrong direction.

Test Driving Ping: An Apple Baby Step Into Social

After spending a few hours poking around the first attempt at a social network by Apple, I have to give props to all my friends who have said Apple doesn't understand social. Maybe it will in the future, but it doesn't really understand it today.

Ping has potential, but this launch is best described as a soft open. It seems less than fully functional. And while Steve Jobs described it as Twitter meets Facebook for music, it seems like something else. It feels like a walled fledgling of what we know about networks, crossed with a non-commissioned marketing platform because everything you like comes with a buy button.

And that's the real point, isn't it?

What Apple seemed to miss out of the starting gate is that people don't generally go to this social network to talk about "music" and that social network to talk about "restaurants." That's not a social network. It's a niche forum. And if Apple created anything, it is a password protected forum with a partial social network template laid over the top.

Is that how social networks work? Not really. The current success of Twitter and Facebook illustrates that. Those networks succeeded because there were no limits to what you could talk about. You only needed to show up and find people you knew or wanted to know. It's about people. This is about product.

Specifically, Ping works in exactly the opposite way. You find music and "like" it and then ... um, I would like to say find people to follow but that is a real challenge. Other than three people recommended, your only options are "search" and "email," which are my least two favorite ways to connect with people. (Search is fine, but it's a time waster for social upstarts.) The only other way to pay attention to who other people follow, too.

The Facebook connect feature seemed promising before it was removed late in the game. It was removed so late in the game that the Ping intro page still tells you that you can connect to Facebook. Except, you can't. So don't look. (You can find me if you like. Search for "Rich Becker" on Ping.)

By the way, did I say search for music? Not every album and artist has a like button. I know, because the first thing I thought to do is travel down the list of our recent reviews from Liquid [Hip] and quickly connect them up before someone does start to follow me. About 30 percent didn't have like buttons.

I suppose that makes sense. We focus on cool, not popular. Some recent covers aren't cool enough to like, apparently. And that makes the entire platform, as it exists today, loaded down with tighter rules than Fight Club. Case in point ...

The Rules Of Ping Club.

1. The first rule of Ping club is you do not link to Ping club and you do not link out of Ping club.

2. The second rule of Ping club is, you DO NOT link in or out of Ping club.

3. If someone lags because the interface is painfully slow, the conversation is over.

4. Two people connect at one time, if you find them.

5. One "like" at a time and you won't remember what those were 20 "likes" from now.

6. No frills, friendships, updates. This is about music.

7. You'll participate as long as you have to, three times longer than anywhere else (see 3).

8. If this is your first time on Ping, you have to do something.

Look, most people consider me a fan of Apple, given I still have a working monochrome Mac Classic on my shelf. The same one I used to start Copywrite, Ink. almost 20 years ago. And, since we started Liquid [Hip], I spend even more time on iTunes because it has a solid storefront to keep track of new music, movies, etc. So, I'll give Ping some time to flush itself out. It has potential.

However, I'm not so enamored by any brand to believe this launch was ready for prime time. It's a network of sorts, but it's not social. At least, not yet. To date, the only thing inspiring about it is some inspiration to write up what Ping could have been. And maybe I'll do that next week.

One redeeming feature? The concert listings is a cool idea. But it would have been brilliant if there was some feature to coordinate concert attendance with your circle of friends. Moving the online world offline is part of our connected futures.

Related Articles And Posts.

• 10 Questions About Ping, Apple's Social Network For Music.

• Apple's Ping Social Network Is Actually Good, And It Has Huge Potential.

• Facebook’s Apple Ping demands were ‘too onerous’, says Jobs

Finding Narcissists: This Post Is All About You

Is the narcissism of a Web page owner in a social networking community related to Web site activity, content, and perception by others? According to one recent study this appears to be the case. Or does it?

"We found that people who are narcissistic use Facebook in a self-promoting way that can be identified by others," Laura Buffardi, a doctoral student in psychology, was quoted by Physorg.com.

Buffardi co-authored the study with associate professor W. Keith Campbell at the University of Georgia. And at first blush, the abstract, published at the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, seems right on target. The deeper you read, however, the study outcomes deviate from prevailing views of narcissism.

How The Study Was Conducted.

1. Narcissistic personality self-reports were collected from Facebook Web page owners.
2. Their Web pages were coded for both objective and subjective content features.
3. Strangers viewed the Web pages and rated their impression of the owner on traits and narcissism.

There were several other steps, but these three present the core of the abstract. According to the abstract, it was partly motivated by the concern that "these Web sites offer a gateway for self-promotion via self-descriptions, vanity via photos, and large numbers of shallow relationships (friends are counted—sometimes reaching the thousands—and in some cases ranked), each of which is potentially linked to trait narcissism."

The general hypothesis was to find correlations between "real world" and online expression of narcissism as it relates to a higher number of social relationships (but shallower), self-promotion, self-presentation, and the perception of having a large number of Agentic (a perception that you make choices and impose those choices on the world) characteristics. Some discussion...

• Less self-absorbed people do not seem to be using the Internet for self-promotion to the degree narcissists do.
• The quantity of social interactions and number of relationships is indicative of the traits associated with narcissism.
• The choice of the main photo plays a significant role in the ability of strangers to identify narcissists.

However, the study also noted that real world narcissists are charming and generally make a good first impression whereas online communication seemed to bear out that narcissists' quotes and interactions were less entertaining. And secondly, real world narcissists are not any more attractive than non-narcissists, but strangers tended to rate attractive photos as more likely belonging to narcissists.

What's Missing From The Study?

There are several other factors that could be contributing to online behaviors associated with narcissism, many of which are promoted as social normalcy in such environments. These need to be considered alongside any psychological study.

• Popularity (number of social connections) has an overinflated value of importance.
• Photo selection, especially main photos, could correlate with social media experience.
• The quantity of interactions could also be more likely to correlate with experience.
• Social norms within subgroups often dictate some behavioral traits of individuals.
• Individuals are prone to update information and photos to benchmark personal challenges.
• There is a primary indication that social network behavior is greatly influenced by intent.

Specifically, on the last point, content creators have a tendency to share, interact, and attract more friends or followers, which could produce narcissistic quantifiers. Likewise, people working in communication that act as spokespeople may increase their visibility online regardless of personal "real world" leanings (e.g., I know several shy people who seem extroverted online). Conversely, some individuals may have no interest in personal self-promotion, but have been asked to supply such information by family and friends. The point being, it is extremely difficult to guess at intent.

Can narcissistic qualities be spotted online? Maybe, but the qualifiers to determine narcissism are likely to require observations beyond the owner's Facebook page. For example, someone who has an increasingly high rate of interaction may have a high level of interaction on other people's pages where they are more communal in nature.

Likewise, there seems to be too much emphasis placed on main photos. It makes me wonder whether the strangers rating these pages, after being instructed to look for narcissistic traits, skewed their reporting toward attractive and/or posed photos, assuming it was vanity. Photo selection could equally be any number of reasons, even self-consciousness.

Still, the overall construct of this research is fascinating. Social networking is very well suited for narcissists. Just keep in mind that narcissistic traits are more likely in line with those who believe they are "influencers," frequently promote the number of friends or followers, and force position themselves as an authority within groups.

These are just my initial impressions of this very interesting subject. I'm very interested in hearing different ideas.