January 11th, 2012 | 
Author: I recently shared a breakfast at the home of a high-powered, very successful friend of mine. My good friend has a long track-record with a top accounting firm solving all kinds of financial-related business issues for a wide variety of Fortune 1000 companies. But my friend is an executive who is intentionally NOT engaging in any kind of Social Technologies.
Wise Road, Pompey, NY - Named after my Great-Great-Grandfather
Following the conversation on family and personal stuff, we turned to work. Knowing my pursuits, my friend shared thoughts about Social networking. After listening to his perspectives on Linkedin, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc., I asked him, “I heard you refer to ‘Social’ in the midst of everything you were saying. Let me ask you a question. When you said ‘Social’, describe what you had in mind? What concepts did the word ‘Social’ bring to mind as you were talking about it?”
He said, “The noise, the clutter, non-important things… you know, Social.”
I clarified, “So water-cooler-type talk… weather, sports, family life, community – that kind of thing?”
“Yes, exactly. I just don’t have time for all that. Like I said, when I’m in work mode, I need to stay as focused as possible on work – no distractions. I see my wife and daughter spending a lot of time on Facebook, and frankly that concerns me. Now I know they might say I spend a lot of time watching TV or playing golf. But I can’t see myself spending my precious free time on Social networks. I hear people talking about Linkedin at work, but it doesn’t seem to be productive. I also know I’ll be asked to help people – not that I don’t want to help people, but if they want my help, all they have to do is call me. I see people using Social Networks to relive the past or trying to get the next new job. Since I don’t want to do either of those, I just don’t see a need to do Social networking.”
Does that sound familiar? The conversation went on from there. I explained that unfortunately, while understandable because of the traditional use of the term, thinking of ‘Social’ Technologies as ‘personal’ or ‘non-essential’, non-business related, etc. etc. is perhaps one of the biggest misnomers in the executive ranks.
[Curious: Do you agree? Are many executives under an incorrect assumption about ‘Social’ technologies as being more about personal, non-essential stuff? Especially in the insurance vertical?]
From a business perspective, Social is NOT ‘Social’. Think UGC – User-Generated Content and all the implications therein – “Crowd” solutions (e.g. Crowdsourcing, Crowdvertising, Crowdfunding), Ratings, Online Reputation Management, professional communities, Social CRM, Rivers of Information, Customer Intel, Revenue on Demand, e-Word-of-Mouth to name a few.
I made a case that in his position, at a bare minimum, he wants to consider what’s called Online Reputation Management. What do people find when they search for him?
Going further, he wants to be thinking about what’s next, what’s beyond the brand and title on his business card? No doubt about it – no matter how successful, both brand and title will inevitably change, won’t they? And when they do, perhaps quite suddenly, will he benefit from a steady effort to build a Social network? Will he correctly understand his Social relevancy in business? And will he be in a position for broader long-term business influence, again beyond his immediate circle with the current brand and its client base?
Lastly, like the MBA process he went through a few years back that lifted his IQ substantially in a short time-span, he wants to consider tapping into brilliant content creators, peers of his that are beyond the faceless Wall Street Journal writers, his preferred info-source. Sure, WSJ writers are no doubt great writers creating a steady stream of great stories. But what about peers of his who are sharing insights and creating dialogs via blogs and Social networks? Could these insights and conversations lift his IQ in a very meaningful and practical way – directly relating to his field?
What do you think? Are Social Technologies a ‘waste of time’? Do many executives in your experience feel that Social is purely Social?
Next up:
ICMG in Phoenix. #ICMG2012 (You heard it here first: I’m facilitating a 1.5 hour session on Linkedin on Wednesday morning before the Meeting starts. Yeah, I’d rather be playing golf as well, but I was asked, so what could I say.)
PIMA in Palm Coast, Florida. #PIMAAssn Rolling out the rebranding work Bill, Al, Shannon, Denise, Mona, Ed, me and a bunch of others have done in the past year…
Hope to see some of you there.
Posted in Enterprise Social Technology, ICMG, Insurance-Technologies, Linkedin, PIMA, Social Tech | 
Tags: ICMG, Insurance, Linkedin, marketing, PIMA, Sales, social, social media, Social Technologies, SocialTech
Executives who have already reached high levels of success through traditional (non-social-networking) means may be hesitant to change their ways and try social networking. And why should they change if they have all the business they need and all the clients they need? So from that perspective, the executive might perceive social networking as a "waste of time." (I'm not saying it is, I'm just saying that it might seem that way to the exec.)
It might take time — years — before that pattern of success changes, and the executive needs a new flow of information, prospects and clients. Then he or she might look around and see the value of social networking.
Actually it is not the word social, but what it means. I use LinkedIn for professional business. Almost a little less casual than a call. I do not use face book because I believe it crosses the line. I would not want my business contacts seeing my personal info, friends and photos. I have a twitter account but do not use it because I think I have 3 followers and I do not have the time for it. You and I have had the conversation about blogging and I am not a blogger. If I thought I had something real to say then maybe I would but I do not feel like telling anyone I made x calls today or that I am going here or there. I like being a little private.
Yes, “social” media crosses a line and you have to decide how you want to be displayed and come across to a group. I feel bad for kids today who post everything to facebook and think employers are never going to care about it in the future.
This is my take. Have a good one.
Carleigh Gordon
Director, National Accounts
DirectMail.com
401-539-2990
Cell: 202-253-7596
cgordon@directmail.com
via email
You're absolutely correct. My idea (and what I hear from most execs) of "social" used to be a twenty something nerd with no social skills using electronic media to anonymously connect with the world. Certainly for me that's changing, and I suspect the same is true for others. At LTCR we're tapping social media like Facebook and Linkedin to generate a substantial number of leads, although the jury is still out regarding the quality of those leads.
Joseph C. Sturla
Long Term Care Resources
VP, Affinity Marketing
(707) 763-3707
jsturla@ltcr.com
Call it what you want – Social, Personal, Always-On, or Networking – communications have moved from low engagement to high engagement. We’ve evolved from a world of monologue to one of dialogue. As consumers, or as business-people, we want to be in control. We review products and services, we price check, and at the end of the day, we determine value. So we better be listening and we better be joining the social conversation. In today’s marketing landscape, what matters today are the conversations with and among your customers. It seems the same holds true among business people.
Lindsay really said it well. I think some people just don't understand the culture and the only way to do that is to spend some time in it. It takes a certain arrogance to assume that the millions of people on twitter/facebook, etc. are basically all mindless idiots wasting their time.
Would agree "Social" is perhaps misleading, and some may avoid these tools as a result. Its like any NEW technology, you have to give it a try first – join, lurk, read, follow, see what's out there. Then develop a deployment strategy around how you want it to work for you and/or your company. There is a lot of quality, free education, and thoughtful, innovative ideas in tweets and blogs. Being strategic about who you follow – particularly on Twitter can really pay dividends.
Mike, the “holdouts” like your friend are confused. They look at LinkedIn as “Facebook in a suit”. There is an extremely important distinction between Facebook and Linked In. Facebook is indeed for socializing whereas LinkedIn is all about social capital. Wikipedia defines social capital as: “a sociological concept used in business, organizational behavior, political science, public health and social sciences in general to refer to connections within and between social networks.” Social capital is the facilitator of commerce. LinkedIn is a game changer because of the power it provides a business person. It is like a swiss army knife with a whole host of tools that go way beyond the purely social aspect of connecting. There are plenty of reasons why this is a game changing business tool. Here are just a few that come to mind:
•Advanced Search – because of the accuracy of profile information (if you lie about anything your peers, colleagues will out you), it is more powerful than Google search. In fact, the head of LinkedIn’s Product and User Experience is being run by Deep Nishar, a former Google search guy.
•Groups – these community-of-interest-networks go beyond discussions and job postings enabling relationship building around common interests.
•Information Sharing – through the use of “social objects” – newsworthy items, not authored by you, that you can share rapidly with those you know will find it relevant.
•Paying it forward – meaning the obligation placed upon everyone in LinkedIn to make introductions for and on behalf of your 1st level connections.
•Mapping you network – for the first time in history, you can actually map most of your network. See http://inmaps.linkedinlabs.com. My network at 3,500+ connections is, in fact, too large to map, but this is a really powerful aspect of LinkedIn because ultimately, you can see a tangible representation of your network. My first level connections provide a path to virtually anyone of the 14 million people in my network that I might want to connect to.
Since there are over 150 million Linked In subscribers, given their target universe of over 500 million potential professionals, Linked In is in the “Early Majority” stage of the technology adoption lifecycle. So, it isn’t too late for your friend to join in. I suggest you give him this book to read: “The Power in A Link Open Doors, Close Deals and Change the Way You Do Business Using Linked In” by David Gowel. He and I just connected this week. You can see it on my LinkedIn Profile page at http://www.linkedin.com/in/billtyson
Another google product will soon beat facebook. Google Plus is excellent.
don't think there's any confusion with this. Social media technologies still do not create a persuasive business case for a significant investment in a busy executive's time. The opportunity may be there, but it wouldn't be apparent to your typical business person. Where's the spreadsheet that tells them x time results in y opportunities and z ROE?
1. From a personal standpoint I tend to agree with your friend. I don't understand what Linkedin is supposed to accomplish, I don't understand Twitter, and YouTube is a place to catch old sports clips for me. Facebook was a way to reconnect. I now have a love/hate relationship with it.
I do see the potential for organizations to use these resources. I don't think they are a waste of time from a business standpoint. We struggle with how to use these technologies correctly. We're still not in the game but we know we can't avoid it.
2. The comments are interesting. I identify most with the individual who said "some people don't understand the culture". That defines my experience. I don't understand it. I also agree with the individual that said they don't want "everyone to know what I'm doing all the time" so I would not use my personal FB for business.
Regards,
James
Mike, your friend (like many of his executive cohorts) plays golf. Ask him, when he goes to the course, does he play by himself, or with others? If he's playing with others, does he ever discuss anything other than the next shot? Does he ever golf with colleagues, referral sources, customers or business prospects? When he's done with his round, does he make a beeline to his car and drive home, or does he visit the clubhouse and catch up with friends and acquaintances?
I'm betting he's very social when playing golf. That's his (traditional) social network. But to access this network, he had to learn how to play golf. Same thing with social technologies. To take advantage, he's got to learn how play.
And as with golf, he won't be able to enumerate the value derived in a spreadsheet — but there will be value. Until he learns to play, he shouldn't discount the value.
That being said, I believe some people have more social aptitude than others, and the greater their aptitude, the greater the value they'll derive from many of the social technologies. Your friend may have a low social aptitude, but he still ought to be understand how social technologies work and participate to some degree.
After all, your friend doesn't have to be a scratch golfer in order to play golf and benefit from his time at the club.
As usual, Bill Tyson has done a great job of articulating what I was thinking, and done it better.
That said:
The first word that came to mind when I read your initial post was “dinosaur.” Your friend is basing his opinion of the value of social media channels on a limited sampling of his wife and daughter, and dismissing the opportunity to build and maintain his own personal brand and leverage crucial networking and educational opportunities.
I personally find it easier to refer to social media as digital channels that are part of an overall strategy when having discussions with other marketing executives. This positions social media channels as contributors to our overall marketing efforts, elevating their utility while separating them from personal biases.
Here's my take. If you have something worthwhile to say, you need an audience to hear it and respond to it. Social networking on a personal or B2B basis expands the audience exponentially. The larger the audience, the greater your chance of being heard!!!
Mike – very interesting discussion here. It is obvious that the online social world is evolving quickly.
Here is my take – Linkedin is essential for anyone building their career or businesses. As I frequently say, companies come and go but relationships and reputations endure. As a result, unless you are Jamie Dimon – I suggest having a profile and participating in interest groups through LinkedIn.
I think everyone should use Twitter to listen – the world doesn't need more noise, but Twitter hashtags and following individuals you meet or respect is a good habit. One that is like subscribing to a flow of good thoughts that you desire to participate int. By engaging with Twitter and using TweetDeck or FlipBoard for iPads – i think it is easier to consume media that is interesting to us as executives.
My experience using Google+ is growing and I am optimistic that it will become a more useful alternative then Facebook.
I can't blame people for not using Facebook. Their privacy policy has been a mixed bag and at times concerning. At the same time, if you choose to be on Facebook then it is important to monitor who is contacting you and to understand the environment where so many people spend time interacting.
All in all, I still feel like PIMA and ICMG conferences are the most vital forms of social activity. Nothing replaces real conversations and connections.