All posts from Everyone's Blog Posts - PitchEngine

Re-purpose means to use or convert for use in another format or product. It would seem obvious that the definition and purpose of Public Relations (PR) needs to be re-purposed.

The common definition of Public Relations (according to wikipedia) is the practice of managing the flow of information between an organization and its publics.[1] Public relations gains an organization or individual exposure to their audiences using topics of public interest and news items to....blah, blah, blah.

Given the impact and growth of all things social the means, methods and knowledge about Public Relations are being transformed and yet most PR professionals have yet to recognize the need for transformation.

Back to Intent

Lets breakdown the two words used to imply public relations. First the word public which means:

Of, concerning, or affecting the community or the people
Maintained for or used by the people or community
Participated in or attended by the people or community
Connected with or acting on behalf of the people, community, or government
Open to the knowledge or judgment of all
The community or the people as a whole
A group of people sharing a common interest

Now lets look at the word relations which means: A logical or natural association between two or more things; relevance of one to another; connection. Looking at the essence of the two words, public relations, and comparing it to current PR practices one must wonder where and when PR lost its way. I didn't see the words trick, capture, spin or mislead anywhere in the essence of the two words used behind the term "Public Relations"

What "Creates" Public Relations?

Public relations, marketing and advertising are all tied together. The related practices have emerged to create mass market appeal using old methods to reach an audience.

When you examine the fundamental meaning of "public and relations" you can see three things that influence human behavior and market sentiment. The three things are people connecting with knowledge of something or someone.

Corporations historically have adopted PR tactics to manage PR for the benefit of the corporation. However the intentions have flipped from institutional aims to the aims of individuals.

People, internal and external, are now enabled to influence "public relations" because they have been given a "voice" that is loud because the signal is not from one but many. People connected with other people "learn" new knowledge about things corporations do, sell and say. If a corporation does things that aren't "socially acceptable" then traditional PR practices cannot drown the noise of "people connected and equipped with the knowledge" of what the corporation has done or intends to do.

Good, bad and indifferent whatever "the corporation" does or intends on doing the "people" are listening and have the power to galvanize many to express an opinion on how the corporations actions impact the "public's relations". More and more people are voicing their opinion, sharing their knowledge and connecting their voice to many other people inside and outside corporate walls.

The conflict comes when corporations try and use "social media" to extend past "marketing, advertising and PR" practices to manage their "public relations". These are dangerous practices because the public now influences relations more than traditional PR practices. Subsequently corporations need to not only change their "marketing, advertising and PR" practices but rather the entire ecosystem of the corporation. Why? Because the foundation of any "corporation" rest with what people know.

Individual knowledge about anything is now everyone's knowledge about everything. Soon everyone's "knowledge" will become easier to find and use. What impact will that have on "public relations"? Intentions can no longer be hidden behind a mask. Just ask Nestle who is in charge of Public Relations.

Brian Solis coined the term PR 2.0 (Putting The Public Back in Public Relations) in recognition of what is needed to make the transformation. Brian is the foremost thought leader behind these emerging dynamics.

While all things social are being touted as innovative ways to "produce things" the reality is that all things social are currently non-productive.

You might say that social is much more productive than traditional advertising and marketing methods. However that is like saying that your car goes faster using higher octane gasoline, it doesn't but it cost more.

Does the increase in hiring people with knowledge about all things social represent more productive? NOT! Does having to create on-line content, maintain all those profiles, keep up with the daily technological advances and follow every word from the most popular represent a gain in productivity? Not!

So we must begin to ask how can we use all things social to improve productivity gains? Your next question is likely why?

Non Productive Activities Hurt Results

We wonder why much of the on-line dialog about social media is about ROI. Everyone is coming up with metrics to justify the investment of time and money to create and manage all things social. Subsequently we see quantitative and qualitative measures used to again justify investments in all things social. Does anyone ever consider the time, energy and money spent trying to define and measures justification of social may be non-productive?

Productivity in Economics is simply the ratio of how much you can produce (Output), based on the resources available (Inputs). This is usually linked to production theory.

Production refers to the economic process of converting of inputs into outputs and is a field of study in microeconomics. Production uses resources to create a good or service that is suitable for exchange.

Production is a process, and as such it occurs through time and space. Because it is a flow concept, production is measured as a “rate of output per period of time”.

Production is more efficient when the same output results from less input. Some economists (in particular Leibenstein) use the term X-efficiency to indicate that production processes tend to be inherently inefficient due to satisficing behaviour. The “rate of efficiency” is simply the amount of (or value of) outputs divided by the amount of (or value of) inputs. If a production process uses 50 units of input (or $5000 worth of inputs) to produce one unit of output it is more efficient than a process that uses 55 units of input (or $5500 worth of inputs) to produce the same level of output. It is said to be 10% more efficient ({55-50}/50=1/10=10%).

While the internet has advanced some productivity in many ways it is still very non-productive. There are 1,000’s of communities discussing KM, SC, Economics etc etc etc. None of which are able to inventory relevant and relative “knowledge assets” and parse them into “smart databases” for use for the many.

We are still stuck with key words and categories which are meaningless. The context of content loses meaning without being tied to a taxonomy or any “onomy” of sort. Subsequently content is for the moment because who has time to read and create a “logic tree” from dozens, hundreds or thousands of “post” wrapped in irrelevant containers.

Things will change soon but until then all of us have to decide what is and isn’t productive in terms of use of our time and individual knowledge assets.

The next phase of the internet will be driven by “knowledge inventories” create by individual knowledge assets” which can be accessed systemically rather then rest in silos of meaningless context which are very non productive.

When you call someone a dope usually it creates an offense. When you do dopey things people assume you are a dope. So lets examine the dopey side of social and consider what one might call "dopey" or stupid.

Stupidity, or dumbness, is the property a person, action or belief instantiates by virtue of having or being indicative of low intelligence or poor learning abilities. Stupidity is distinct from irrationality because stupidity denotes an incapability or unwillingness to properly consider the relevant information. It is frequently used as a pejorative and consequently has a negative connotation.

There are plenty of dopey or stupid things people and organizations are doing with social media. Here are my top ten:

Limiting their thinking to "social media" as only a channel for marketing
Not "thinking" how their actions, words and deeds reflected in using social can hurt them
Posting "social job" descriptions which reflects their lack of understanding all things social
Using social to "collect" people to use for selfish purposes
Promoting their brand as "social" while their web site is anything but social
Not looking at their entire enterprise as a "social ecosystem"
Thinking that "corporate social media policies" will solve cultural and relational problems
Using social for public relations without putting the public into those relations
Being publicly arrogant and ignorant which go hand in hand
Trying to measure the rate of change without considering what is changing

The Opposite of Dopey

The opposite of dopey is wisdom, knowledge and doing smart things. Wisdom comes from experience and applied knowledge. Smart things reflect the use of wisdom and knowledge to do things that make other things better. So in order to determine who is using social media to do things that make other things better you have to look for people and organizations who are improving things by using social media. Finding people and organizations who are improving things by using social media goes way beyond looking at short term marketing results from many who are creating those results.

Creating short term marketing results does not reflect the use of social media that makes other things better accept maybe short term marketing results. Short term results can only create long term value if the things you do are systemically aimed and integrated at making other things better. So ask yourself the following questions and your answers will determine whether your intents are dopey or smart.

Are you using social only as an additional marketing channel?
Have you or do you intend to hire someone to "manage" all things social?
Have you identified what problems social will solve or create? Ask Nestle
Is your web presence designed, configured and enabled to be "social" based on the users definition? Ask every brand.
Is your definition of "Public Relations" the same as the "Public's Relations"?
Have you mapped out your internal social ecosystem to the external social ecosystem? Do you know how?

There are plenty of others questions I could add but by now I hope you get the point. Unless you think and view "social" as a systemic dynamic and plan accordingly any and all results will be short term. However, some short term results can cost you dearly in the long term. Get it?

Sometimes when you read, hear or watch something you wonder if these people are smoking dope or what. Dope influences the brain and the influence can cause hallucinations.

Hallucinations involve distorted or misinterpreted real perception. Hallucinations do not mimic real perception. Hallucinations sometimes reflect "delusional perceptions", in which a correctly sensed and interpreted genuine perception is given some additional (and typically bizarre) significance.

Now put this definition into context of social media and how and what some people and entire organizations are using it for. Add to the increased demand for hiring people with "social media experience", whatever that is, and you have to wonder just what dope are people smoking.

Using Dope?

In the past and today people use dope to get high, to escape reality and to bury stress. Much of dope use comes from influence of friends and society. So lets put these uses into perspective of using social media and some common behaviors.

To Get High:

Hey our competitors are using it so we need to or we'll look stupid.
Hey this stuff is cool, look how many people are following us.
Hey look at all the traffic we are getting from our Tweets.
Hey our blog got recognition and our rank went up on (name the badge).
Hey, so and so mentioned us and retweeted our post, how cool.
We just hired Joe or Joan Social, now everyone will follow us.
Hey we just discovered a new tool that will accelerate our content....most don't even know about the tool.
Hey, I think we just figured out something about social that no one else knows. Now watch the traffic from this post.
Hey, lets copy Pepsi Refresh and give away money to our followers. After all it is a gift economy. What? You don't understand?
My guess is Facebook will own Google sooner than later. We need to add stuff to our Fan page and get more followers.

To Escape Reality

Money from social media? Watch how much we'll sell this month from Twitter and Facebook. No, we can't measure that but we know that is what is causing sales to increase.
You want more sales well just push out more ads on Facebook.
Hurry up and hire someone that understands this social stuff. Once they are hired we'll make them the face on our brand everywhere and oh yeah make sure they Tweet for me as well.
We need a group in Linkedin, Facebook, List on Twiiter, Community in Ning and we need to get the tech guys to create our own community. Then we can suck all our customers into these places and capture their attention and emails.
Make sure our TV ads tell people to follow us on Twitter. Why? Because we need to collect people. Why I don't know yet but when I do I'll be sure to educate you.

To Bury Stress

Using all this social stuff is well social. I'd rather talk to my friends than do my work.
Honey, not right now I am busy chatting with people I don't know on Facebook.
Oh great, corporate wants to create a social policy to tell us what we can't do on-line. Who really cares, I'll just set up a new profile with a bogus name or slip some friends some juicy information and let them Tweet it.
I like all this social stuff because now I have a voice and no one can shut me up regardless of what I say.
You want me to produce results with this stuff? You simply don't understand the nature of all things social so how can I explain to you that which you don't understand?

Sound familiar?

Maybe not in those specific words but based on the markets demand for all things social and the subsequent activities created one must wonder what social dope everyone is smoking.

Excuse me while I take a hit from my Tweet friends.

Everyone thinks they are somebody but not everyone notices. Anyone can be somebody but when they try and be somebody they are not everybody sooner or later notices.

Everyone wants to use their media to get others to notice them. Whether exercising their intellect, fame, position or brand name everybody wants to be noticed.

Media is funny medium in which everyone tries to apply some message, story or analysis to and all aimed at demonstrating what they know or who they know. Media has been and still is used to draw an audience. An audience satisfies the human ego to be known, famous and followed by others wanting to hear and see what somebody has to say or does.

Many enjoy the fame afforded by having an audience regardless of size. Some people create an audience under pretense which means deception or camouflage. Playing to the interest of an audience people and organizations use media to make themselves something they are not. We witnessed Tiger Woods fall from grace when the audience discovered he was not what he and the media pretended he was. We see it in politics when politicians pretend to believe is certain things just to get elected only to act against those beliefs after being elected.

Social Fidelity vs. Pretense

Fidelity is a notion that, at its most abstract level, implies a truthful connection to a source or sources. Fidelity also denotes how accurate a copy is to its source. The source of all media is an individual or an institution. If the media produced and propagated by the sources is not truthful or reflecting the true beliefs of the source well one could say that the source is trying to create pretense, which means deception or camouflage.

In human relations anything that is false, pretentious or deceptive will eventually create relational tensions. Depending on the offense caused by the deception the chain that binds relations together usually gets broken.

The Challenge of Fidelity for Marketers

The game of marketing is to get consumer attention to a brand, a product or service or an individual. Getting attention by using pretense may create awareness for the moment but if deception or camouflage is used to trick people into believing something that isn't relevant or true to their needs then there is no basis for a relationship.

In the world of marketing "copy" reflects content used to propagate a message, an ad or image. If the "copy" isn't accurate in terms of what the end buyer experiences then the impression left is one of pretense, deception or camouflage.

In a world connected, transparent and conversing anything that is false pretense will get discovered and shared one to one to a million at the click of a mouse. The same will happen if your "copy" is an accurate copy to its source. Get it?

With the increase use of social media everyone seems to categorize its use into one dimension or another. Some categorize the value equations as social capital, reputation capital and a host of other names which are attempts to define the emerging value proposition.

These attempts reflect emphasis on the parts rather than the whole. You've heard the expression "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts" which, in my humble opinion, should be how we view all the related knowledge gains being created by all this social stuff.

Brian Solis writes Social Capital: The Currency of the Social Economy: "Digital capitalization is laying a foundation for expanding the need to cultivate and participate, not only in the real world, but also in the online networks and communities that can benefit us personally and professionally."

"Social capital is a strong ally, an elite catalyst for lucrative relationships, and now a metric for qualification, consideration and ultimately success (however you define it). This is a state of human economics that is thoroughly discussed in Tara Hunt’s book, The Whuffie Factor. Our “Whuffie” or social capital and intellectual assets are defined by both online and real world conduct and its “balance sheet” is available for anyone with a web browser to review, assess, and analyze."

"Like any form of capital, Social capital rises and falls with the market and the individual to which it’s governed by the state of the industry and affected by the state of corresponding affairs. As it escalates, however, it unlocks opportunities that are commensurate with the community’s assessment of its value. In the same regard, the community will not support or reward lackluster, opportunistic, also-ran, or hollow engagement in the long term."

"Again, social capital is measured by individual value and collective perception."

What About the Other Parts?

I respect Brian Solis work and his never ending analysis of all things social. Brian's knowledge and expertise is the paragon within the new arena of PR. However PR, and the implied "social capital", represents a part of the whole. The whole can best be categorized as a system of knowledge, past present and future. The "parts of the system" represents each of our experiences, education, interactions and beliefs. Capital is produced when we exchange some or all of our parts when expressed in words, images, video's and threaded in conversational exchanges. Brian's post has sparked awareness that the emerging "social" system is in fact creating a new currency.

If we look at the parts of our human DNA we can see a system of intellectual, social, creative and spiritual capital. The combined iteration of each of these capital components with others, society and institutions creates life's experiences, outcomes. Each of us carriers an inventory of knowledge that are subsets of each capital component. We draw on these subsets when we engage with the world. Not unlike the Encyclopedia Britannica our inventory of knowledge is our "book of life" and we use the contents to produce value on a daily basis, whether personal or professional.

Capital represents the value we produce using our knowledge assets. Our economic paradigms seek to gain a currency from use of our assets. Today the currency is in the form of a weak and weakening dollar. In the future the currency maybe something else but the capital behind the currency has and always will represent our individual knowledge assets. Our social capital is only one part of the whole but the whole is greater than the sum of our parts. Individually we are the parts, collectively we are the whole.

Make sense?

Every time we converse, post and respond on-line and off we reveal ourselves. The word reveal means to make known, disclose, divulge, to lay open to view, display or exhibit. When something or someone is revealed each of us decides whether what or who is revealed has any relevance to us.

Many of us don’t realize how we reveal ourselves. What we reveal are the things that attract others to us or us to others. Whether an organization or an individual what we reveal are common characteristics that bring us together or separate us.

These common characteristics are transparently revealed in content that is in context to four things that determine who we are, who we want to be as well as who and what we attract.

We are all assets of the human network exchanging value with others. Our value makeup is reflected by four knowledge assets that represents value to the human network. An asset can appreciate or depreciate based on many variables. The primary variable that increases or decreases an assets value is determined by the demand for use.

Do The Assets You Reveal Create Demand for Use?

When we use the term asset we think of things that stores or lends economic value. When we think of the term value many would quickly reference terms of an economic transaction. The human network creates economic value by what we do. We earn money for what we do and exchange the money for other things of value. What we do and the exchanges we make represent "value creation and exchanges" that are and continue to be produced by knowledge assets borrowed, owned or traded between two or more individuals.

Knowledge assets are contained within human beings. The human network reveals four types of capital: 1) intellectual capital, 2)social capital, 3)spiritual capital and 4) creative capital. These four knowledge assets are used to create "value" that is traded with people and things we "value". These four assets which reveal us are defined as:

Intellectual Capital: That which we have learned, understand, know and apply to life experiences.
Social Capital: The relationships we build and our ability to interact with others.
Spiritual Capital: Our sense and faith in a higher power other than ourselves, our intellect and our social capital. This capital is usually referred to as the knowledge of "God".
Creative capital: The insights we see and the possibilities we create. Creative capital is influenced by the internal and external interaction of 1,2 & 3.

We use our knowledge assets and share them with others, organizations, institutions and society at large. We get hired for who we are which is reflective of our knowledge assets. Organizations use and abuse our knowledge assets to their gain or lose. We share our knowledge assets with family, friends and associates. We exchange knowledge assets in the form of conversations, actions and insights.

The #1 influence over economic output is individual and collective knowledge assets of people working together towards a common aim. Imagine if our collective knowledge assets were indexed, able to be searched and subsequently used, borrowed, shared and executed more efficiently. What could happen if we were enabled to identify and connect knowledge assets for collective gain?

Our life experiences shape our knowledge assets defined and then revealed by what we say and do. Collectively our knowledge assets represent the gifts and abilities we have, both the good and bad, which are ultimately shared with others through interactions and future experiences.

The Future Web of Knowledge Assets Connected

Social technology could enable individuals to leverage their knowledge assets for the benefit of others thus creating a giving exchange that provides exponential value. The technological medium will eventually index knowledge assets and create a new economic paradigm when knowledge becomes connected and taken out of silos of information.

The future web will enrich human experiences by giving, sharing, learning, relating and re-enforcing or improving the four things that reveal who each of us really are and what we have to offer and learn from each others.

If social media were an organization in the traditional sense it would be bankrupt. Yet organizations use it to try and create revenue.

If social media platforms continue to rely on advertising to support them they will be bankrupt. If social media wasn't "free" it by itself would be bankrupt. So how do users insure that social media doesn't go bankrupt? The answer lies within developments that will enable social technology to become an exchange and creation of higher value.

The Social Value Chain

A value chain represents related processes linked together and each process iteration increases value that is passed on to the next "link" of value iteration.

Fundamentally the internet is nothing more than "links" inter-connected yet the inter-connections rest in silo's not connected. When something of value is not connected to something else the creation of new value is reduced, constrainted and sometimes not even realized.

Today the internet, in all its forms, represents a continuous flow of value contained in text, images and video. The value is created by the context of the information stored in different containers. Social media has accelerated the contributions of value however the value is not connected to anything that creates context to value sought nor is it easily identifiable or accessible. While we have search engines that primarily index content that is popular. The relational attributes of these search engines are centric to key words of affinity. Key words of affinity are not enough to create, contribute or sustain a truly functional value chain.

A New Value Bank

When we use the term bank we think of an institution that stores and lends economic value. When we think of the term value many would quickly reference terms of an economic transaction. We create economic value by what we do. We earn money for what we do and exchange the money for other things of value. What we do and the exchanges we make represent "value creation and exchanges" that are and continue to be produced by knowledge assets borrowed, owned or traded between two or more individuals.

Knowledge assets are contained within human beings. The human bank contains intellectual capital, social capital and creative capital used to create "earnings" that are traded for things we "value". We use our knowledge assets and share them with others, organizations, institutions and society at large. We get hired for who we are which is reflective of our knowledge assets. Organizations use and abuse our knowledge assets to their gain or lose. We share our knowledge assets with family, friends and associates. We exchange knowledge assets in the form of conversations, actions and insights.

The #1 influence over economic output is individual and collective knowledge assets of people working together towards a common aim. Imagine if our collective knowledge assets were indexed, able to be searched and subsequently used, borrowed, shared and executed more efficiently. Our intellectual, social and creative capital currently sits in silos of information not being used efficiently or effectively. What productivity would be gained? What innovation would be born? What influence would it have on an economy? What currency could be created in the exchanges?

The answers and the new value bank will soon emerge and when it does all things will change yet again.

Numbers drive organizational decisions. Numbers are used to try and determine what and how one can improve a result.

In the world of social media everyone has become obsessed with the numbers. The irony of collecting and measuring social media data is that the moment of measure changes by the dynamic developments that happen every moment. Conversations are dynamic, numbers are static.

Knowledge is dynamic and contained within each person. Our experiences, our conversations and relevant relations changes our knowledge. That is if we approach people with a willingness to learn what they know or don't know. Doing so requires listening which in itself is a knowledge funnel.

Listening to Moments?

In business things change moment by moment. Adjusting to these changes requires a agile thinking about the meaning of changes that ultimately drive the end result. The end result of a business is represented by value obtained from the value given. Value of products, services, relationships and processes are consumed by buyers. Buyers get value when their intents are fulfilled beyond their expectations.

Expectations of buyers change and when they do a business must change how they fulfill new expectations. Unless a business is listening to the marketplace, their employees and the end buyer they cannot hear the changing expectations. Not hearing means you are not likely able to meet the expectations satisfactorily.

Social media is nothing more than a channel of communications. Technological innovation has fueled communications and the subsequent "media" is no longer controlled by the few rather by the many. Conversations change and it is the rate of change that represents dynamic moments with meaning. Measuring a point in time may reflect that moment or past moments of dialog but not future moments. To change the future you have to understand the past. However, the future is not merely a reflection of the past especially when dealing with a dynamic system changing moment by moment.

Listening to the Future

Listening to the future is a predictive model of outcomes, actions and subsequent results of the moment. If we measure moments to determine the effectiveness of past actions the results tell us little about the future. If, on the other hand, our measures are centric to probable future outcomes influenced by previous moments then we can use data to predict future moments. The problem with determining or influencing future social media moments is that the "system" is not stable rather dynamic and filled with special cause variation. Any good statistician will tell you that trying to measure an unstable system is only relevant if you understand and can measure root cuases.

So what are the root causes of social media moments? The answer is people's intent. Understanding intents will lead you to measure the things that can fulfill or constrain intents. Said things have nothing to do with use of social media by suppliers rather it has everything to do with a suppliers ability to fulfill the buyers intent. Which by the way changes moment by moment.

The obsession with measuring all things social is indicative of thinking inside rather than out. Inside thinking focuses on justification of time, energy and efforts all aimed at creating results.

Outside thinking focuses on learning market needs and intents. Do you measure market needs and intents? The irony of measuring all things social is that the measures are put for the moment.

Given the dynamic nature of how people use social technology, how suppliers are advancing the technology and the subsequent dynamics everything is but for a moment. If things are in a dynamic state then measuring a moment becomes irrelevant to what is happening the next moment.

Is Measuring Social Relevant?

Business mindsets believe that measurement of "things" is relevant to managing results. Production cycle times, process variation, employee productivity, sales, marketing etc. etc. are all "things" that most businesses believe they should measure. Most business managers don't realize many important things, that must be managed, cannot be measured. You can't measure everything of importance to management. You must still manage those important things.

W. Edwards Deming once said "Organizations are a means to improve the lives we live." How would you measure whether your organization is improving people's lives?

Brainwashed By Measuring Results

Measurement-based or fact-based management is not new. A form of it was developed during and after World War II when so called "Whiz Kids" became powerful managers within the Fortune 500. This approach to management was oriented to an industrial age that is now in the past but the practices still exist. It strikes us as cold and impersonal, the mind-set of Dilbert's boss.

Today we still see organizations holding on to part of the old mind-set, the measurement part. Measurement mentality continues on as a sacred mindset to justify actions against the holy grail of results. Meanwhile market have become more and more dynamic fueling constant changes largely because of the influence of technology and communications.

A Moment of Measure

The headlines tell us that things are changing rapidly. One day it is all about Google Buzz followed by a new move by Facebook. We chase these developments and look for ways to use these developments to produce results. However, by the time we get around to using something new something else replaces it.

The moment of measure, attention and the subsequent results become irrelevant because of the flood of new developments. Stepping away from measuring the moment can be helpful if not critical to seeing the real meaning in a space that is not stable. The only thing stable is that things will change. Changes in utility, reach and usability changes the measures of value. Obsessed with measures we jump around measuring the impact of changes only to realize new influences are changing the dynamics which changes the result.

The relevant moment of measure is in context to improvement. Without enabling improvement no measure can be relevant or in context with the intent of an organizations effort to improve results. However end results are influenced by actions way upstream. Marketing and advertising actions are downstream. Unless an organization understands and improves the attributes that influence all things downstream then efforts to measure and improve downstream actions become fruitless.

Upstream means you have to start at the beginning of any system. The usage and outcomes of social media are downstream. To fix or prevent a flood you have to go upstream to the source. Measuring how fast or slow the water is rising doesn't address the influences that make the water rise or subside.

Results are but for the moment. Knowing what influences results is a never ending process of learning and improving forever.

The term "Boss" implies authority, power and control over people who do the things the boss wants done. In a tight job market people are thrilled to be hired to do a job. In a growing job market people are chased to do a job based on their experience, education and specialty skills.

Job openings with the titles of Social Strategist, Social Media Manager, Community Manager, Social Technologist and all other things "social" has exploded in the last two years and continues to grow. With more and more brands and agencies figuring it is time to "take on" all this social stuff the demand for talent to execute "all this social stuff" is increasing. At the same time the "pool" of talent has limited supply of people who have the relevant knowledge and experience to truly understand "all things social".

Do "Bosses" Know What They Are Asking For?

Chasing "all things social" without relevant knowledge does not insure that the chase is aimed at the right things or the right people. If the Boss wants all things social do they really know what they are asking for? Unless they understand the strategic implications of "all things social" and what their intent is in using all things social then hiring people to do all things social isn't going to insure the accomplishment of relevant objectives that enhance business performance.

Asking for something you don't understand and thinking you can find people who understand to deliver you something you don't understand is a set up to failure. Failing is an expensive attempt at something you think you need but don't understand what the need is or how to fulfill it. Bosses who fail to first understand will have a difficult time being understood by the people they hire who they think understand.

If you don't first understand social then how can you be assured that you are hiring people who proclaim they do. Most people who proclaim they understand social are saying so in context of using social. There are a lot of people who know how to use social but few who really know how to help an entire organization become social.

Using social will pass because people are becoming tired of being used. Social will pass from using to being and subsequently the market will follow the few who get being and do so with an intent to better serve the buyer. Serving buyers has been and will always be the right thing that drives business results.

Hiring people with a "social something" title isn't the secret sauce that makes your organizational social. Only those with authority, power and control over people can make the changes required for the entire organization to be social. Subsequently using social to reflect your intent becomes everyone's natural and never-ending job. Delegating that responsibility to someone you hire with a "social" title but who does not have authority, power and control over the organizations intent is a waste of money. Worse yet it will backfire on you because while they will use social for your intents but the marketplace will soon discover that your intent is not to be social. There is a big difference and it is transparent.

Before hiring people to use social bosses need to learn what it means to be social. That requires a totally different knowledge and skills set than just using social.

In the previous post we discussed why producers will lose. Now we will contrast why conductors will be the winners.

The optimum business model is one of embracing the "conductor" role aimed at providing people with "ideas, information and knowledge" they in turn can use to produce what they want with their community of friends and followers. Giving people the "right instruments to create their own communities" of conversations will ultimate lead to production of commerce.

A producer tries to "pull people" to their business. A conductor enables people to find the people, products and services they want, need or desire. A producer pulls people to their web site and the people are confronted with an anti-social experience and tricked into a "capture, control and frustrate" process. A conductor ensures that people are enabled to access, collaborate and share information seamlessly with no tricks, no intents to capture, control or frustrate people trying to use something to their benefit and the benefit of others.

What Does Win Mean to a Conductor?

Social conductors are focused on helping and enabling people to win. That is the overriding mission of their organization. Unless people can win then the organization will never win. Unless the community can win then there is no value to be conducted thus no role for the conductor. A social conductor is obsessed with finding ways to let people, markets and communities win.

On the opposing side is a producer who deems wining as meeting their goals, increasing results and subsequently everything evolves around those objectives. The relationship between a producer and markets is marketing driven vs. relationally driven. The producer looks at markets as places to get vs. places to give. The rules of the game of business are different for producers vs. conductors, they oppose each other.

The social conductor wins when people win and they focus on creative ways to facilitate wins for people. communities and markets. They know intrinsically that lasting results come from satisfying people beyond their expectations and respecting their relationship with people, internally and externally. The conductor views social technology as a new frontier to serve more people. The producer views social technology as a marketing medium to reach more people with their proposition.

The social conductor doesn't worry about results or measuring social media rather they focus on measuring whether they are acting as the conductor on behalf of people. Social technology enables the conductor to do more with less and everything is done for the benefit and value of people. The conductor is focused on creation of value that people can use and measurement is centric to value improvements.

The social producer worries about results and measures everything they do with the aim of getting more by giving less. The differences between the conductor vs. the producer is what creates a win for the people they serve.

Given these scenarios which would do you think will win the most?