How to break free from the echo chamber

Last week, I wrote about my company's thinking about social media, technology and why it's time to transform.  Here's another idea worth elevating and reblogging to continue the discussion.

Michelle Kostya says,

"As a relatively new blogger, I am also just getting the confidence to post really thought provoking stuff. I think sometimes when you are new on the scene it can be terrifying to write something that may be more 'out there' or might spark conversation (ack...what if you are wrong!)"

Quite a few reactions to my earlier post were from people taking offense to my comments about the echo chamber and participation therein.  That's unfortunate, because I gather that many of these people shut down and failed to read the entire post.  The Lazysphere works in two directions - both writers and readers.  Steve covers the angle for writers.  Let me explain why it applies to readers.

When I started writing syndicated research in December 2005, a larger conversation about the format of our documents had already been in motion.  I remember Chris Charron (a co-author of Forrester's key Social Computing report) commenting at the time, "people don't read every word anymore. They skim - and most people don't even do that."  The same behavior applies to social media, especially where Twitter has users trained on 140 character sound bites.

No, I'm not trying to intentionally offend you.  If you're bristling right now and the hairs on the back of your neck are standing up, I've got two words for you:  toughen up.  If that's too much to handle, then please unsubscribe from this blog and find some feeds that won't challenge you to think harder.  But before you go, let me leave you with this advice from Lifehacker's Gina Trapani:

"[The first day Lifehacker went public], out of necessity, I started growing the thick skin anyone who has any exposure on the intertubes requires to stay sane. (In the beginning, that growth process didn't happen as quickly as I needed, and a troll could ruin my weekend. Today, I can chuckle in the face of the worst kind of online name-calling you can imagine.)"

I've discovered two rooms so far in the echo chamber - the Lazysphere and the Nice-o-sphere.  The Nice-o-sphere isn't just a matter of style, it's a matter of intent.  Some people are hesitant to post a difference of opinion or leave a critical comment, afraid that some A-list blogger may not send them future link love or be placed on a social media blacklist.  The problem with the Nice-o-sphere is that it tends to suppress genuine participation.  (No, I'm not calling for everyone to start using Strumpette as the new MLA style guide.)  Great blogging thrives on your voice, your opinion, and your passion.  Difference of opinion is healthy, natural, and necessary.

Go ahead and publish that post about Twitter.  (I've read two good Twitter-related posts recently, from Ann Handley and Aaron Strout.)  Just don't step into your own ego trap.  As Stefan Deak points out, we all have our own KPIs; if you are writing to boost stats, that's fine - just be honest with yourself and your readers.  Anyone can get beyond the echo chamber by being honest and authentic.  And as a result, you will be remarkable.  Seth Godin does this with every blog post.

I applaud Michelle Kostya and others who blog, tweet, and participate.  The percentage of people who are creating content is still quite small - only 21% of US online adults according to Forrester.  These are voices we need to hear more from, especially because they're on the client side.  People like Jim Cahill. Tim Jackson. Dave Mastronardi. Chris Hall.

If you and I are going to transform business, we need to get the entire organization going social.  This means breaking free from the echo chamber with circumspect reflection, genuine participation, and the courage to say what we really think.

Comments

[Chris Hall]

Peter,

Thanks for the shout out. Seriously... ;) I like your point about skimming vs. reading. I've found at work that nobody wants to read a five paragraph E-mail with the point of the message buried somewhere in paragraph five. For the most part, people just want the high level wrapped up with a bow on top so they can feel good about the "decision" they've made. By making things easy - one sentence situation summary plus one sentence recommendation - I am able to make progress on projects.

The problem is, making things easy for others is not an easy task... its time consuming and labor intensive but that doesn't mean it isn't necessary. ;)

[Daniel Goodall]

Email was meant to make us more productive, but most people would agree that it doesn't do that if it is over-used.

Similarly, despite the qualities we all love about Social Media, I think we need to re-assess if using it becomes counter-productive and even anti-social.

[Aaron Strout]

Peter - first of all, thanks for the shout out. To that end, I love that you pointed to my post on changing names on Twitter. The ironic part is that I did that post in about 5 minutes vs. one of my bigger thought pieces like my recent post on the "Loyalty Effect" http://budurl.com/loyaltyeffect. I do like your point though about making people think harder. I often wish that people would be more poignant in their critique of my blog posts. Don't get me wrong, I get a lot of constructive feedback but there are times where it ends up being more ego stroke and less "this is why I disagree with you."

To that end, I had a great online dialog the other day with @revznexus who asked me a lot of tough questions about my company's platform, approach and interactions with other CMO's. I welcome more constructive conversations like this: http://tweet2tweet.com/aaronstrout/revznexus/

Keep pushing that boulder...

Best,
Aarno | @aaronstrout

[Jen Zingsheim]

Daniel's point about social media becoming anti-social is important. I'm all for people creating original and thought-provoking content, and I'd love to see more of it. What I'm starting to realize I don't have the stomach for is when the discussions devolve into name calling and worse. What has happened to people's manners? Or, more to the point: if people can't have a rational discussion while disagreeing, quite frankly I don't think they are that bright. If one needs to resort to name-calling, denigrating others, and worse, then I don't care how salient the point is: I write off the author.

I understand that a thick skin is necessary, but do wish that a return to at least a modicum of civility could take place. That said, I see this sort of nastiness more on Twitter than I do in blog posts/comments. I enjoy Twitter and think that the format has merit for engaging people, but the short, conversant format is so informal that people forget they are having conversations in public.

I'll admit I'm probably firmly in the Nice-o-sphere, which I attribute to growing up as the daughter of a diplomat, then working in government, and then public relations. It's the perfect storm of paths to not rocking the boat!

[Tom Cunniff]

One of the most important skills in life is knowing how to positively and constructively disagree. Most of us have had no training in doing this.

As a result, disagreement online usually is expressed in two ways. The first are flame wars, which are honest but unproductive. The second is public nicey-nice and private snarkiness, which is dishonest and unproductive.

Very few people possess the skills to disagree constructively *and* the courage to choose the correct battles.

Social media can't solve this problem -- in my opinion, we are seeing strong evidence that it is extremely likely to amplify it.

I am beginning to think that the only productive antidote to the echo chamber is to step outside it. Having an army of drone followers is boring. Relationships with a small group of people who can constructively challenge us to sharpen our thinking is where all the fun is.

[Rob Leavitt]

A good post, Peter, but way easier said than done. I like to think that the limitations of social media and marketing today can be overcome by everyone and every business being even more social -- but your own comments on the echo chamber make it hard to be so confident. Imagine the difficulty finding actually useful content if we go from 21% to 50% of US adults creating content, or 50% of your fellow employees in a large organization. Of course you can say just tune out the chaff (and I agree that unsubscribing can be quite liberating!), but that takes time, which is difficult to devote to endless review of mostly useless comment, opinion, linking, and retweeting. Ratings or other popularity systems are far from the answer, especially given, as you say, how lazy people are in reading as well as writing. The echo chamber drives popularity, and I don't see a huge correlation between popularity and quality. No reason to stop trying, of course; I'll look forward to learning about your new venture's approach and experience.

[Pam O'Neal]

You hit a nerve with me when you wrote about the Nice-o-sphere. I struggle with this every day. Thanks for the good hard kick in the pants. My skin is thickening as I write this.

[Aaron Strout]

Oops, I'm a disaster today. For one, the period in the post I referenced in an earlier comment was broken due to the period at the end. http://budurl.com/loyaltyeffect

It would also be nice if 40 years into my life I could actually spell my first name (listed it as "Aarno" vs. "Aaron." Maybe I was subconsciously trying to morph myself into "Armano" since that guys pretty smart. ;)

[Adam Singer]

People do read every word, if you draw them in.

It is all about the lead guys.

When I write creative leads and hooks, the time spend on the pages is much greater. I've had some of my articles average 7+ minutes time spent on page when I carefully spent a good amount of time pondering a lead.

You should try and do it with everything you write. Peter does it well here, I read most of his stuff all the way through.

[Ari Herzog]

What's wrong with the echo chamber? Comparing your content to the other names you mention? Or comparing your content to what your blog readers may or may not be reading? My mother reads my blog but not other blogs; if I don't echo anything, mom loses out.

It is for this reason I don't merely echo word for word, but add my own slant.

[Michelle Kostya]

Thanks for the mention Peter. I think I am in the midst of a transformation on my blog...thanks partly to you, and partly to gaining confidence in myself as a blogger (which was due to increased comments on my own blog (helped by a tweet from a A-list blogger - which leads me to my lesson of the month - I will comment more on other blogs!)
The last week I have published at least two posts that I believe are somewhat more "thought-provoking" - albeit one is on Twitter (but that still counts!).
I will continue to post my "how-to" and social media beginner posts- because that is what my community is asking for. But, I will try to dig deep and not just play in the nice-o-sphere. That said I think we must always give constructive criticism, and remember there are humans on the other side of a blog post, or comment field. But it is certainly more interesting to have a discussion and engagement when there is a differing of opinion.

[Jim Cahill]

Hi Peter, I'm honored to be mentioned with such other great folks! I think if you stick to the mission you set out for yourself or on behalf of your company, you can find a successful niche. I look forward to seeing you again a future Social Media Breakfast or other event. Cheers!

[Kate Richardson]

Hi Peter, what you've highlighted is a longstanding dynamic of group behaviour. This happens every day in workplaces, families and other group related situations. We like equilibrium rather than disequilibrium. When the temperature rises in a group situation because someone has outed the elephant in the room or raised a point that makes people feel uncomfortable, a group's natural response is to try and 'turn the heat down'. We avoid conflict, we're afraid of criticism, and many bad decisions are made as a result.

[Evan Shaw Blackerby]

I wonder how often our egos (ironically built around our self-perceived remarkability...) keep us from being remarkable....?