It's Time To Transform

Let's get serious about social business.

The reverb in the echo chamber has become deafening.

Have you noticed the lack of original content being published lately?  I have.  There's a term to describe what's going on and Steve Rubel called it a year ago: The Lazysphere.

"Rather than create new ideas or pen thoughtful essays, [some bloggers] simply glom on to the latest news with another 'me too' blog post."

I use Google Reader as my gateway to social media.  Almost all blog content falls into "to know" (RSS) vs. "to do" (email).  And lately, I'm feeling that there's less "need to know" content being produced.  The best - and worst - content spurs people into action.  So what I've done is unsubscribe from about a dozen advertising, media, and marketing blogs that have lost their edge of insight and/or integrity.

"This social marketing niche is getting way too incestuous and repetitive and frankly, stupid in its repetitive back slapping, re-affirmation, ego stroking, and over amplification of the same desperate case studies." - "Shooting fish: Blog Sluts," David Churbuck, VP Global Web Marketing, Lenovo, 12/15/08.

Do we really need any more posts on how to use Twitter?  Early adopters used to scoff, "once it's in the mainstream news, it's history."  If you agree, then please read "Birds Of A Feather Twitter Together," Wall Street Journal, 12/3/08. Mashable asks, "should tech blogs shut up about Twitter?"  Answer: Yes.

Marketing causes social computing impotence. 

The presence of reverb doesn't surprise me.  I've been thinking about hundreds of social media marketing examples and the majority appear to be the unfortunate output of unevolved agency thinking on channel integration.  The old thinking went something like this:

"Most senior ad execs appear more comfortable with conventional channels, which they claim are 'integrated' because they have tacked on a Web site." - A survey respondent from my work in February 2008.

One way to look at social technologies would be as "social media," with 22 potential channels to consider for campaign integration.  And once you start thinking about using social tools as campaign support, you're thinking in terms of one-night stands with your customers, not building long-term relationships.

You want "bad profits?" Then use social technologies as part of a campaign strategy.  Case in point:  Burger King's Whopper Sacrifice Facebook application.  Funny?  Sure.  Increase in customer LTV?  I don't think so.

I've discovered that social technologies employed for marketing campaigns encounter problems:

• Programs don't scale
• Calculating ROI is difficult, if not impossible.  
• And the outside world could care less about the uproars online.  

Nobody will change the world with social media marketing.  Social marketing using technology, maybe.  But marketing has too much short-term focus to employ social technologies to their full potential.

But before you get too comfortable in your IT role...don't.  IT's track record with game-changing technologies has been dismal.  The promise of ERP, KM, and CRM?  Lost in technical requirements, specifications, and internal politics.  Let's face it: the term Web 2.0 connotes incremental change and evolution, not revolution.

Similarly, the term "Enterprise 2.0" should be discarded as an inadequate moniker to describe the full extent of recommended and required change.  Existing definitions struggle to break free of underpinning technologies.  Calling social business Enterprise 2.0 sets our efforts on a path to fail like to many technologies before.  

We need to set our sights on a bigger goal.

I believe that social technologies have the power to transform the way we live and work.  So why should we have anything less than transformation in mind when putting social technologies to use?

Our efforts need to aim forward, not backward.  We need to improve what we do today with the ultimate goal of changing the way we work and connect with co-workers, customers, suppliers, shareholders, and other system participants.  Social technologies should change the world of work - applied to not just to marketing and IT, but also HR, finance, legal, and every other functional area.  And potentially change the functions that exist at all.

The end game should be an entirely social business.  Not just point solutions to improve existing processes or programs - new ways of connecting and collaborating.  Business models will change.  Customer-centricity becomes a moot concept, as "us" and "them" no longer exist.

I don't have a neat little acronym for this.  Or a regular business term with a numeric modifier.  Social business is simply how work needs to be done - and it's different from how it happens today.

Let's work together on this.

I'm building a company that intends to make social business a reality.  The great thing is, we are starting from scratch with a lot of lessons learned.  Naturally, we're making it social from day one.  You can access my thinking here and on Twitter, along with Kate Niederhoffer (blog, twitter) and Jeff Dachis (twitter).  But don't expect us to reveal any critically-sensitive information; social media isn't socialism.

I've added some new voices to my feeds for fresh perspective on social technology.  You might find them interesting as well:  Jevon MacDonald.  Dion Hinchcliffe.  Susan Scrupski.  Sam Huleatt.  O'Reilly Radar.  Andrew McAfee.  Mike Gotta.  Waiting for former colleague Oliver Young to really turn it on.

These people don't seem to intersect too often with people like David Armano.  Greg Verdino. Max Kalehoff. Mack Collier.  Imagine the possibilities.

Some people are already operating in union between marketing and technology, like Deb Schultz, Jeremiah Owyang, Charlene Li, and Steve Rubel.

There are many others, of course.  Feel free to give me a heads up in the comments below.

I'll be exploring the building blocks of social business going forward - its elements and archetypes, its opportunities and challenges.  We are collaborating with individuals, companies, and groups, and I'll talk about those as appropriate.  Soon we'll have a name - if you understand our philosophy, you likely understand why this hasn't been a top priority.  I'll tell you more about how we're working with businesses - we believe that our approach isn't offered today and quite a few people have affirmed that position.

The best still lies ahead for all of us...and I believe that so far,

We have merely scratched the surface on the potential of social business.

Comments

[Louis Gray]

One would have to put their head in the ground to not see the echo reverb as you call it. Scarcely is there a time where a worthwhile story comes out and it's not covered by all the "me too" news bloggers. It can be a drain for those of us married to Google Reader, and I believe it's only getting worse, as the flailing economy reduces the number of new technologies and companies coming to market, while the number of blogs reporting on it increases. Among many, it becomes a game of how fast you can recap somebody else's story. Maybe you'll provide a link. Maybe you won't.

I am seeing social media start to make its way into boring old businesses that don't rely on Silicon Valley for everything. There are three steps: Understand, Observe, Do. It is happening, and the social media we've relied on for so long to help us waste each other's time just might become useful.

[Peter Kim]

Hi Louis - absolutely, social media is starting to make inroads at non-tech-oriented businesses. It's an uphill battle as just yesterday people were lamenting the demise of Enterprise RSS. Adoption becomes paradoxically process simple yet politics difficult.

Thanks for the insight - you are a name that I've heard positively mentioned many times. I've just subscribed to you to in my Google Reader and look forward to the conversation.

[Mike]

Peter,

Very well stated. I think many people have noticed this insane volume of rehashed content and thinking to the point of sheer information overload. The volume of information around the debate over the perceived value of social media to business alone would probably top all of the information on the Web just 10 years ago.

To some degree, a lot of this has detracted people from thinking bigger and developing more breakthrough ideas that can advance society and business. This is not all about marketing and more sales, although that's what we hear and read about all day along online. David Armano's highly effective "Neighbors of Daniella" fund-raiser is but a small example of how new thinking can make a big difference.

I'm looking forward to this new year as we all apply what we learned and where we failed to advance the greater cause in 2009. Thanks for the intriguing post.

Best,

Mike

[Sam Decker]

Peter,

Your post reminds me of Solomon's words in Ecclesiastes: "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun."

I think such is the case with all 'new ideas'. Reminds me of the CRM topics of the late 90s. Or all the discussions around desktop publishing. Ultimately this is a time like every other in that the best gets separated from the worst in the eyes of what works for business. However, you and I are seeing posts on Twitter and social media sites that I would suggest the rest of the marketing world rarely watches. In other words, we're talking to ourselves.

In all my experience between startups and Dell, nothing really changes until it becomes part of the fabric of the business. People's every day jobs, their performance objectives, their metrics, their operational presentations, their daily oxygen. I introduced the concept of "customer oxygen" a while ago, where the customer's voice ('social') becomes part of the business. It is then that the business and its functions can't ignore the customers perspective. And to your point, at that point, customer centricity does become moot because *it's just part of your job*.

There's still a lot to be figured out along those lines and glad you're on the case!

Take care,

Sam

[blog.stroutmeister.com]

Peter - well, it's hard to follow Sam Decker when he's going all biblical on us but I feel like I have to throw in my $.02...

1) Amen
2) I think your overarching point is that technology actually has very little to do with moving business forward unless the processes, philosophies and skill sets employed by a company are there to back the technology up. To that end, the reason I think people have become so enamored with "social" and it's transformative nature is for that very reason... it's "transformative." But that doesn't come through a "Twitter" or "blog" or "Facebook" strategy. It comes through management embracing the concepts of authenticity, openness and honesty -- something that doesn't necessarily come naturally to many companies.

As usual, keep on, keepin' on!

Best,
Aaron | @aaronstrout

[Bob Wan Kim]

"And the outside world could care less about the uproars online."

BRILLIANT! old media has to realize that the big problem now is NOT "barrier to entry," it is Barrier to Exit! [ya know... leaving the computer for the real world...]

[copydiva]

Pete,

How right you are. I was just commenting on a case study yesterday lamenting the same thing - the lack of anything but a front-loaded campaign means that so much companies have done in SM dies a death from lack of interest. You can only sustain momentum on a marketing-driven implementation for so long, because marketing, by its very nature, is short term and campaign-oriented. There's no follow through because its too hard for marketers (and agencies, in particular) to think that way.

You call it social business, that could work. I've just been saying to people that the goal should be to incorporate social media ideas/philosophies as part of an overall business strategy. Its true that now the more "regular" companies (like engineering firms and manufacturers) are starting to think about how they do this. Hopefully they'll stay away from the hype.

Keep it up.

Cheers-
Robin | @copydiva

[Simon Salt]

Dare I take issue with you on one point? Yes I dare :-) I happen to disagree about shutting up about Twitter. If you are an early adopter, power user, or consider yourself too advanced to learn anymore about Twitter - simple solution, don't read those blog posts. However, there are thousands joining Twitter everyday who have no idea how to get the most out of it. Many of them haven't seen or read those other blog posts. What do you do if the TV channel you are watching airs a re-run of a show you have already seen? Do you unsubscribe from your Cable provider or just change channel? Why do they air re-runs? Because not everyone has TiVo and not everyone has seen the show.
Lets not be elitist about Social Media, sure I agree it isn't brain surgery, rocket science or even engineering, will it change the world, no not in the sense of making it a better place (show me a traditional media format that has done that). We aren't in that business, we are in the business of selling - the oldest profession in the world. We can and should take advantage of new mediums as they become available. Twitter and tools like it are just that. In 2010 there will be something else and everyone will be writing posts just like this about how everyone should shut up about YYY.com

[Marc Meyer]

Interesting Peter. I may have echoed your sentiments without knowing it today. Not that my post was "another" post about... I merely am asking to see more from our collective minds instead of rehashed rants and how to's about Twitter.

I've always maintained from a business standpoint, that once we got past the shiny and new, then it has to work to help improve what we do. But people always got hung up on the how does it work. The how evolves eventually, but there's no mystery to putting a key in and starting it. Sometimes the processes are so complicated, you cant even start. Yet some even get hung up on the how to start, and bail right there. Still others are comfortable just repeating what they are doing or what they read instead of doing something new. and still others never will "do" but you might never know it because they are so insulated.

Integrating social into business should be the same as setting up your physical business..all a part of the sum total of doing business in the 21st century. But as a group, we can't continue to allow people to tout that social x will solve problem y. It's creating more work on our parts to refute some of those assumptions.

We need more people asking why instead of those that are saying, "you're right". though...You're right! :)

[Jeff]

Peter, thanks for writing (and truly thinking upon) the things I know I'm too lazy to explore, organize and share. Steve Rubel also coined a phrase -- "attention crash" -- and I can't help but think it feeds into the "lazysphere" since the barrier to entry as a Social Media Specialist is less than a cup of coffee. The psychology of belonging, of being popular, of being heard by the mighty powers that be (Fortune 100s) all at play here in a glorious experiment, don't you think? And one much deeper, for sure, than links, conversations, ideas.

[Jay Deragon]

Excellent post and valuable perspective. I like pushing the evelope of thought and possibilities regarding use of social media. Yet it seems that the 80/20 rules applies to the market of conversations. 80% write about the same things and 20% write about the things that could be.

But the real issue is who are the leaders which will bring forth what could be vs. what is.

[Renee Lemley]

No surprise your post is being well-received by those who have been doing this longer than the rest of us. You've absolutely earned that. And I tip my hat...to all of you.
And while I agree that we need to keep pushing our ideas forward, I, personally, also want to be careful not to alienate newcomers who are still getting their heads around all of these new ideas, tools and technologies. While Peter Kim's "community" may be fully informed and above (or annoyed by) the "echo chamber," Renee Lemley's community hasn't necessarily gotten there quite yet. I want to continue to welcome those peers and businesses into my community, even if we're dismissed (as "echoes?") by yours.
We all must walk before we can run. Thank you for leading the way. I will stay in the race, even if you've stopped looking back to see where I am. Fortunately, there are supporters on the sidelines still cheering me on.

[deb louison lavoy]

You've very honestly stated what most social media enthusiasts avoid saying - that social media is not a panacea, and by sticking our head in the sand about these limitations we are not solving the problem. I look forward to following and engaging with your social media busines.

[Tom O'Brien]

Peter:

I hate the term Social Media - and have been using Social Computing and I'll try out Social Business.

Here is where I see things. All the technologies are just pipes and plumbing. Important, but an enabler. What you do with the pipes (transformation to social business) is where the advantage & challenge lies.

People have already figured out that they no longer need to rely marketers for information. They use these pipes to connect with their like minded peers who they trust for information and recommendations. This part of the transformation is fait accompli. The web plumbing has conquered boundaries of time and space so I can find my peeps around the world without leaving my desk.

How businesses intend to operate in a world where people get their information from each other (word of mouth) is where all the angst and change exists. The answers are not fully baked, but there are lots of smart companies connecting with people in new, relationship based models. These companies are staking claims on the future. Few of them are being talked about as SM case studies. Much as I love Dell Hell, Lego and Frank from Comcast, I'd be happy to never again see a case study on any of them.

Finally, we have to stop thinking about the online world like it is some other thing. My world contains everything I do online and offline. They are not different things. It is like saying "my telephone" world - and we just don't say that anymore. (If ever.)

TO'B

[Dennis Howlett]

I'm surprised that Peter is taking this position and naming some of the names he has as representing those with a new form of social media religion. At the risk of sounding sour, I can see at least five who have pimped the crap out of social media and have apparently had a Damascus Road experience, waking up to the fact that for most of the last two years, they've been hawking a story that was empty at best. Sure, I'm often painted as the 'glass half empty' guy but when I see so many people doing a 180 as though nothing had happened I wonder just how stupid they think customers really are.

It doesn't go un-noticed that people are finally getting sick and tired of expressions like Web 2.0 and social media as expressions of some sort of road to the Promised Land. I've said on many occasions that the expressions themselves are mis-placed and don't engender enthusiasm when contextualized to the enterprise. You try getting 'social anything' of any significant meaning going inside a Fortune 500 company and then wonder why the CRM data can't be exposed. The implicit threat to internal hierarchies and structures is just too much for most managements to comprehend let alone conceptualize, internalize and act upon. The net result is that for all the repeated case studies, they make a marginal difference. Twitter and $1 million to Dell? It's a rounding error.

I've argued from day one that the fundamental cultural problems associated with making these technologies work is an order of magnitude more important than any of the technologies themselves. For as long as there are departmental silos wielding extraordinary power (think call centers) it will remain the case. That hasn't changed in the 8 years since I sat in a NYNY hotel with a bunch of analysts trying to parse what needed to happen in order to make collaboration a reality for PeopleSoft customers.

In 2001 the problems were two-fold: technology and culture. Today, the technology is trivial. Until you put it into the context of business process and then you find that much of it is substandard for enterprise use. The people problem hasn't changed one iota. That is the real challenge. All the rest is just fluff.

[mack collier]

Pete I agree with you, but I think the problem is that in many cases, people want to talk about themselves. We want to talk about social media in a way that directly affects us. We want to talk about the same topics that the social media leaders that we look up to are.

And another part of it is, at some point we were told that it's time to stop talking about the 'theory' of social media, and focus on the now. And when that happened, I think we as a group stopped exploring the potential of how social media can transform marketing. I remember when I first started reading blogs in 2005, I was fascinated by how people like Tara Hunt and Hugh MacLeod were talking about how the changing social dynamics would affect marketing from this point forward. But again, we gradually became more self-centered in our discussions.

There are still many areas of this space that I would love to devote time to. I blogged about this a bit yesterday, but I think social media offers companies enormous potential as a channel to embrace, empower, and empower their evangelists. I'd like to see that discussion gain traction.

Anyway thanks for sparking the conversation, I have to go post about Twitter now...

[Michelle Kostya]

There is certainly a lot of repetition in my blog reader. I have learned to skip the posts I feel I already read. Fundamentally I agree that there is a lack of original content, and that what is out there is simply echoing across the blogging world. However, I have to agree with Renee and Simon in their above comments. While Twitter may be old to the millions that use it - there are plenty who are still getting their feet wet. Case in point, I recently wrote one of those Twitter posts - and one of my best posts as far as comments and engagement - which leads me to believe that my community still wants to learn about Twitter. Also, there are new Twitter tools being developed all the time. Do I want to write about Twitter all the time? No, absolutely not. What I do want to do is give my community the information they are looking for. And, if that includes Twitter - I will blog about it.
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!) I guess it is the same fear I get from commenting on blogs!

[Cory Hendrickson]

Thanks Peter for both being a voice that can reach an audience with this and for bringing attention to it.

Social technologies are clearly here to stay. How they will be adapted by individuals is still a bit up in the air. Originally, everything could be seen on a campaign basis. We're now moving to a more business-centric model. Twitter as Customer Service and the like. Ultimately, we should be thinking beyond. Truly, the real power of the social technologies are not for mktg or business but for connecting individuals with shared goals whether they be commercial, enterprise based or purely social.

[Janet]

I can hardly wait for the day the term social media is less used and becomes simply the web again. After all, hasn't the web been social from day one? Wasn't that why it was created in the first place? It's not like on-line community and discussion was just invented. But for many it's a new discovery and while there are a lot of us who read social media blogs everywhere, it's important to remember that other bloggers have different networks and their readership may not cross over as much as we social media addicts think it does.

Sure, if the people we read write about something and it stirs thought we're going to blog it at some point and carry the conversation to our own readership. Is that so bad? I might point out that the transformation discussion went round and round (yes I wrote about it too) already, and it is my hope that the social media buzz will finally get people to truly understand the power of the vast community that is the internet and see the potential to transform their communication methods. We've waited this long...

[Susan Scrupski]

@dennis: For the purpose of not confusing the folks who've come here to learn something, I'm going to have to speak up. Those of us who've been tracking 2.0 in the enterprise have not been social media zealots. Social media is distinctly another area, tangential to enterprise born of cluetrain principles.

You say, "The implicit threat to internal hierarchies and structures is just too much for most managements to comprehend let alone conceptualize, internalize and act upon." That has been true, and we've all blogged endlessly about our frustrations trying to unleash enterprise's inner social child. Yet what no one-- no one who cares and has a passion for this work-- is willing to surrender is the fight to democratize global commerce through the use of these tools (with an eye toward massive revitalization and transformation).

So, it's not over before it's begun. And, incidentally, when the social media army of zealots starts getting serious about this opportunity, watch out. I know you think they're dopes, but they know how to communicate and persuade-- better than anyone in the tech sector.

[Peter Kim]

Hi Dennis - I've heard your name and work mentioned around. Have subscribed to you and look forward to learning from your thoughts.

I must admit that I can be a bit obtuse when it comes to criticism - it's a vestige of my marketing background. If you're calling me out personally, I ask that you be more direct so we can have an honest and open conversation. I assume you're not, but if I'm wrong, let me know!

To your point about the people I've listed above, I'm finding that on aggregate that their current thinking is helpful. Looking back, I'm as guilty as the anyone for the advertising I've produced and campaigns I've launched. Learning experiences. Same with the ERP consulting I've done.

Zooming out, I agree with how Gartner positions social technology on the Hype Cycle ( http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/08/18/where-are-we-in-the-hype-cycle/ ). Reminds me of the time I saw PUMA CEO Jochen Zeitz in the locker room and told him we had broken $1 million in U.S. ecommerce sales that day. He replied, "great, so when will you make $10 million?" Similarly, it's time to make social computing work for businesses at scale. I imagine that quite a few "social media experts" get a sinking feeling when faced with this challenge.

I ask for your help - as well as anyone reading these comments - on a related matter - where are the thought leaders who will help us address the "fundamental cultural problems associated with making these technologies work"? I agree with you 100% and not been successful in locating either individuals or communities in this area. Are there bloggers who sit at the intersection of change management and social technology?

The company I'm building will structure itself to address these issues - and I want to hire people who can apply experience in "people issues" to social business...any leads (public or private) appreciated. (My email's on the about page at top right or you can DM me on Twitter.)

[Peter Kim]

Absolutely Sam - I know you and I have been on a similar wavelength re: customer centricity for years. Social shouldn't be incremental - it should be transformational.

For anyone interested, here's a one minute video of Sam on customer oxygen, from Bert Dumars at Newell Rubbermaid:
http://socialmediaecosystem.blogspot.com/2008/06/sam-decker-bazaarvoice-customer-oxygen.html

(shot from the outdoor terrace bar at the Stephen F./Intercontinental, I think...)

[Peter Kim]

Especially now, more than ever.

From the Boston Globe last weekend: in a downsizing environment, employees exhibit "a lot of bad behavior - hunkering down, hoarding information, every person for themselves, behaviors that are exactly the opposite of what companies want." (from Laird Post at Booz & Co.)

http://www.boston.com/jobs/news/articles/2009/01/11/downsized_but_still_in_the_game/

[Peter Kim]

Can't Twitter just put together a good "how-to" guide and everyone link to it? What about http://twitter.pbwiki.com/ ?

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about social media here and how to use it better. That's the part about marketing gives social computing impotence. I'm interested in transforming businesses.

[Peter Kim]

Renee - of course, no offense intended to you or anyone else who'd classify themself as a "newbie" to social technology. We all start somewhere. I think what's important is that as you learn more, you continue to aim high with your aspirations.

I wouldn't tag a newcomer an "echo" - in fact, fresh perspective can help push everyone's thinking forward.

[John Welsh]

Oh my god, let me just delete my last post about Twitter! It got me record traffic and introduced me to some cool new people who had just opened a Twitter account and were really good at it. And, yes, they weren't early adopters using it for communication between other early adopters but people using Twitter for business-to-business - what we have all been hoping for. How silly of me, again, to think I should have reached out to them and given them the benefit of some of the lessons I have learnt from people like you.

Seriously Peter. Relax. Surely the blogosphere is big enough for everything. If latearly adopters like myself are enjoying the thrill, like you did in the past, do not overlook something important. Social media will only reach out to the distant borders of our empire, and therefore become the "social business" you correctly predict, by constant repetition of the core principles until all newcomers are onboard. If you are getting distracted by the echo of that process, please don't be. We need you at the front leading the thought process. Leave us at the back to pick up the latecomers at the rear. We are enjoying it.

PS By the way, my next post is about new types of multiple identities at play during business relationships post 2.0. Not a Twitter in sight (and probably not a latecomer either)!

[Peter Kim]

To respond or not to respond? ( http://moblogsmoproblems.blogspot.com/2008/12/when-and-how-often-should-blogger.html )

That is all. :)

[Peter Kim]

Hey Michelle,

Your comment is just totally wrong.

Just kidding. :)

I left some thoughts above and echo them again - whether someone has been participating in social media for three days or three years, they have unique perspective to contribute. So blog away about Twitter! You know your subscribers best and what will be most helpful.

To be clear, this post isn't about wanting every blogger to write as if every post is a PhD dissertation on social media. It's about keeping a transformational goal in mind with social technology - and every business needs to walk before it can run.

Thanks for commenting and sticking your virtual neck out there.

[Dennis Howlett]

No Peter I wasn't directing my critique directly at you but I find it hard to take with anything other than a huge sack of salt some of the things that certain people say for the reasons I've stated.

[Peter Kim]

I think you've left a sarcastic comment, John. I apologize, I'm a bit slow when it comes to deciphering sarcasm online. I'm so intrigued by why so many commenters are offended by the one paragraph on Twitter and miss the larger point.

I point you to the responses above and believe that newbies have as much to contribute to the collective as experts.

I really hope you read the entire post though, as you seem to only have picked up on the first paragraph. Don't make me break out the lazysphere stick on you.

[Mike Rowland]

I feel like Yogi Berra... it's deja vue all over again. Stowe Boyd has an interesting take on the entry above... that it is really not about the need to stop recycling and focusing on Twitter, but rather that this is an announcement of sorts (call it a competitive signaling exercise) for the new firm. So here's the Deja Vue part:

In 2000, we were hearing the experts tell us how chat rooms and discussion forums (evolved to online communities) would change the way business is done. As someone who helped companies like Cisco, SAP, Goldman Sachs, ATT, Ace Hardware, Mercury Interactive, AARP, Association for Financial Professionals, and countless startups develop the strategies to use these tools to meet clearly defined business objectives, I was in the mix providing real world ways to transform business by using the internet and communities.

In 2005, I attended the first BlogOn conference at Berkeley. There I heard several bloggers tell us how blogs would change the world and the way business is done. While that definitely happened in the political world, the jury is still out for business. But the key point was that the speakers at BlogOn never looked back to learn what was accomplished by those of us in the online community world. They assumed that our knowledge was useless. But I had to laugh when one of the speakers said "Wouldn't it be wonderful if each member of AARP had the ability to start a blog? Think of what that would do for AARP!" Being rather outspoken, I let him know privately that AARP had given each of their members the ability to interact with each other, the world, and AARP for more than seven years through their online community which we managed. Blogs? Sure a great tool. We helped SAP with their executive blogs back in 2004. They were effective, but didn't change the world...or the way business was done.

In 2007, I saw the same rhetoric about social networks. Again little of the knowledge from the past was brought into the thinking process of why they make sense for some but not for all...and they really haven't transformed how business is done. They've just provided another channel for interactions and relationship building.

So, Peter in your blog entry above I see a little of the same. Perhaps it's to differentiate your new firm. I've spoken with Jeff Dachis early on. His thinking is dead on about the need to help organizations use these great tools to transform how they do business. Central to that is a solid understanding of the business' goals. Measurement is critical. (And to say ROI measurement for Social Media is difficult if not impossible is a bit misleading.) Many firms out there understand that all efforts should not be focused on the technology, but that the hard work is on the behavioral side of the engagement (both internally and externally). And just as many know that for a project to be successful, it must be measured. We've been learning about using interactive technologies to help business transform for over ten years.

Many of us will be watching to see where your firm goes with all of this. I'm not attacking you or your company, so don't take it that way. Simply stated, I like to see how new ideas are spun from the past and used to change how we operate. I wish you the best. Given how all of us follow each other, we're really "frienemies" to borrow from Mr. Colbert. Good Luck!

[Peter Kim]

Hello Mike.

You're right, this post isn't about people blogging about Twitter. The commenters who've focused on that have fallen victim to the lazysphere themselves and failed to comprehend the message.

You're right again, this post is what my company is all about. We exist to make social business a reality. Blogging about what we believe isn't a PR stunt - it's engaging in conversation with a relevant community. It's what social business should be.

Here's some more history about what we believe from friend Doug Rushkoff. http://rushkoff.com/2008/08/04/real-social/

[Dennis Howlett]

@susan - you know my position on this very well but for the sake of those that don't:

1st up, there is nothing new in this. Seagate was operating communities years before it was fashionable to call them such. They used them for QA etc. DEC used community like features in the 80s - a service called VAXNotes. Look what happened to them in the long run. There are no magic bullets.
2nd, I've been looking at the collaboration space for close on 20 years and I can tell you as a matter of fact that breaking internal hierarchies represents a fundamental change to the way people see how business is best organized in the context of business process. It represents the toughest part of the work. The fact that supply chains are broken and that trillions of $$$ are tied up has not made one jot of difference to the way those supply chains are managed in global organizations. The fact we're in a recession *may* push people towards considering alternative methods but they've got be seen as demonstrably do-able and valuable. That's not happened.
3rd, the language that is used has connotations that management finds difficult if not impossible to swallow. It reeks of revolution, a word that has been used here on several occasions. Are you seriously trying to tell me that management will accept that proposition?
4th, show me how these measures will pay the bills, run the factories, move the materials and I'll listen more closely. In the meantime, please don't try tell me this is 'enterprise' because it isn't. It's a tiny sliver in the scale of things.
5th, even in the most social of companies, places like Google, the 1/9/90 rule still applies. Most people come to work to get a job done a, get paid and enjoy their life. They have no desire to be a part of a community. Those of us who are fortunate enough to make those choices don't always see that or take account of what it means to business. In failing to do so, we make dangerous assumptions about what people want and the pace at which they are prepared to move.
6th, Gartner and AMR have scaled back their operations, (Forrester is rumored to be next) AMR has cut out its emergent technologies unit, Mzinga has chopped its social media people, Jive is all over the place. What is that telling you?

Please do not get me wrong. I see huge potential value. As you know, I'm engaged on ESME which is designed to take some of these collaborative ideas and put them into a process context. Even then, 95%+ people we've seen (which is now more than 12,000,) 'don't get it' without very specific use cases.

Where I fundamentally disagree is in the approach. Technology will NOT solve the problems. Technology may be an enabler for those organizations that wish to pursue this path but as you know and 8 years after Cluetrain, the number who are willing to walk the walk is extremely small. Limiting it to a glorified twist on sales and marketing is a falsehood. None of this has lasting impact without internal change.

If your last contention about communication is true, then why have the social media people been little more than a side note on the enterprise landscape? Why do I still have to put up with the garbage from which social media was supposed to set me free? More to the point, given the noise to which Peter correctly refers, why has this approach had almost no impact to date except in isolated and oft repeated places?

I think that Rachel Happe summed it up well earlier today when she said: "Do the right things." That doesn't require software but a return to basic values. A practical approach that is rooted in a reality to which people can easily relate. It requires a mindset that recognizes the social but it doesn't necessarily require social anything beyond that.

[mack collier]

"You're right, this post isn't about people blogging about Twitter. The commenters who've focused on that have fallen victim to the lazysphere themselves and failed to comprehend the message."

One thing I've learned from my blog is that if my readers are failing to comprehend my post's intended message, then that's probably MY fault, not their's.

[Hutch Carpenter]

Peter - hello from a fellow Darden guy involved in the social software space. This post has three themes to it, doesn't it? Lazysphere, inadequacy of social media marketing, social business. All worthy of exploration on their own.

It's the third part, social business, that interests me. I'm intrigued by the bold statement of purpose behind your new venture:

"We need to improve what we do today with the ultimate goal of changing the way we work and connect with co-workers, customers, suppliers, shareholders, and other system participants. Social technologies should change the world of work - applied to not just to marketing and IT, but also HR, finance, legal, and every other functional area. And potentially change the functions that exist at all."

On reading that, two thoughts occur to me: (1) I agree wholeheartedly with those objectives. (2) I don't think existing market participants are too far off from that line of thinking.

Perhaps one of the biggest differentiation I see is your goal from the outset: "the entirely social business". There is a school of though that you start departmental first, then spread the culture/technology outward. At least in your statement here, I get the impression of going big early with enterprises. It's an aggressive stance, but isn't that the stuff of entrepreneurship? It puts you in league with mega vendors like IBM and Oracle. Obviously you'll have social in the company's DNA, which will be a key differentiator.

I'm looking forward hearing about your progress. And glad to see you subscribe to Louis Gray. He's sharp and you're going to get the benefit of some smart guest bloggers there as well.

[Mike Rowland]

Hi Peter,

I had to laugh when you referred me to a blog entry that I commented upon back in May 2008... see deja vue all over again! ;-)

Best,

Mike

[Peter Kim]

That is so awesome! We are clearly of like minds...

[Peter Kim]

Hello Hutch - great to hear from a fellow Dardenite. As you can imagine, my thinking has been influenced by Clawson, Liedtka, and others.

I agree, existing market participants aren't too far off, but they aren't completely aligned either. I've been reading some good stuff from Oracle for example, that is aligned but then veers off to bear down on technologies as fundamental.

We are in discussion with large enterprises, but to your point, there must be a clever saying somewhere about not trying to eat an elephant in a single bite. However we certainly see the opportunity and similar to Razorfish earlier, think that our vision is bold and entirely achievable.

[Karl Long]

I think there are plenty of leading thinkers that agree with you, @lessig and @cshirky to name a couple:
http://experiencecurve.com/archives/lawrence-lessig-on-charlie-rose-provides-hints-about-future-of-business

IMHO if you are having a problem with an echo chamber, I think it's more an issue of "filter failure" as opposed to anything else. There are plenty of people working on these problems in companies and in agencies, but the main block to progress IMHO is the "social media landgrab" that is happening both inside and outside companies. Internally PR, Marketing, IT, HR, Legal etc. are all trying to understand and 'own' there aspects of social media, and externally pr agencies, ad agencies, digital agencies, IT agencies, and 'social media experts' are all trying to carve out and define there bit of the pie. Needless to say top leadership in companies are getting a lot of different stories.

Check out @cshirky on filter failure as well:
http://lifehacker.com/5052851/information-overload-is-filter-failure-says-shirky

[Marc Meyer]

Peter, Just a thought....Can't it just be that when you are so close to something that you find fault where no others do? Or perhaps, because you know the subject and the topic so well that you forget what made it so cool in the first place? That might just be the case in the chamber.

[Ron Miller]

Hi Peter:
Interesting post and I agree to an extent. There are a lot of posts on how to use Twitter and there are a few too many like-minded people on there. It's a natural early adopter issue, but I think it's important to point out that it is that in-joe mentality that leads people like you to believe because you've read it all before and you're sick of it, that everyone must know it.

There's actually a whole world of people out there who have never heard of Twitter or only barely and have no idea what it is. There's another large group of people who might have heard of it, but don't know how to get started.

So while I agree with your basic premise, that there's a an echo chamber reaction going on, you have to be careful that you don't apply your own understanding to the world at large because most people don't have a clue about social media, its potential, it's power or its purpose.

Ron Miller
By Ron Miller Blog
http://byronmiller.typepad.com

[Barbara French]

Peter,

I continue to be fascinated with what you're up to. Normally, I have zilch, zero, nada patience for stealth start-ups. However, the way you slowly open the kimono through your blog has kept me intrigued.

Much of what Dennis said rings true for me, as well. I think one difference, is that I believe in the potential of a technology as a change agent. I believe tech can be an impetus for substantive change in society. Fire changed things. The wheel changed things. Polished glass lenses changed things. Gun powder changed things. Electricity changed things. Maybe the mobile phone is changing things -- it's too soon to tell. So, I think it's possible that you can come up with some "thing" capable of causing a fundamental change in society.

Granted, 99.9% of tech does not spark change, and isn't likely to. Seems pretty much a case of lack of imagination at the point of invention or, as Dennis' anecdotes reveal, a lack of imagination in execution. So, I think it's also possible that you will come up with some "thing" that's pretty much another brick in the wall.

Meanwhile, you make the wait highly entertaining and at times thought provoking (as with http://www.beingpeterkim.com/2008/11/social-media-isnt-socialism.html).

P.S.: Why is it that my Wordpress OpenID never seems to work with TypePad? Angst. So much for the universal social media sos.

[Andre Shoumatoff]

I guess it's my turn to stir the pot.

I personally see little potential in twitter as a social media marketing tool as I consider it a communications tool, and best at that primarily. It's sort of like marketing via the telephone. Well, we all know how this this ended.. (Federal Do Not Call list).

If it helps, I have been in social environments since about 1999 but am relatively new to the social marketing scene and its blogosphere and trends. I am currently developing my own company and am currently in a research and early development phase. I am finding the excercise "interesting." My conclusion? 90% of you have no idea what you are talking about. You hardly understand social media and it's core principles. And frankly and even it's future. The twitter example is an excellent example, again, because it's a communications tool. Really, what were you thinking?

If it helps, my story personal story with social media is I was in college and had an old Toyota Land Cruiser that was increasingly becoming a POS. So I started researching on the 1999 internet and found I'd signed onto a listserve. Yes, a "listserve" as a social technology. But of 3500 fellow Land Cruiser owners & enthusiasts to help me fix my car when I could hardly change my oil. Some of them could tell you right now what color the ground wire is to a 1973 Toyota stereo. And of course, their own social heirarchy as well. As a result of these communities, 3 years later I was converting my Land Cruiser to the efficiency of a diesel engine in my spare time. (Coincidentally, how Toyota manufacturers many of their vehicles abroad).

Quality, accessibly, free information from peer reviewed sources, combined with real world experience is like fuel on a fire. It's like asking a question with 3,000 people in the room. Software is the moderator to establish order. Like anything, the moderator can be great or they can blow, and this is what will determine what moderator we use. As the discussion goes on, those who enjoy the discussion keep coming back. Eventually tell their friends about it and tall the awesome experiences they had and what they learned.

However, what occurs in the communities (until they reach a certainly level of growth/quality of information as most people come to the community) is parrots. I believe what Peter is calling "reverb." Parrots are people in trapped in one of the core principles that attract us to social media. Peter refers to it as "ego trap" [excellent terminology]. People who are caught in the medium rather than being able to stand or walk on the fence once in a while and take a look at the shape of the city as it grows. They start repeating the same information whether correct or not for the sake of repeating it to increase their own standing in the community. Much of it is based out of insecurity actually, basically like a bad rumor going around.

Interestingly, is what I have found as more people started to enter the room the quality of information, when managed correctly (via software and some human aspects) is not only enhanced but soars. Likewise the parrots are also snuffed out.

Making a conclusion about this community (the blogoshere of social media experts), it appears to me that it's in its infancy inself. Or perhaps it is disjointed related to its own lack of architecture and too many scattered sites and blogs. Also, as many posts above point out, reading blogs is tremendously inefficient. (Though it provides plenty of ego stroking for the authors...)

Here are examples of quality of information soaring out of online communities, and how it can affect industries and companies:

1) Mountain Bikes. The technology has taken leaps and bounds since 1999 primarily with input from social communities. It is even my belief that the "29er movement" was directly born out of the social media group Mountain Bike Review with its active community of 25,000 members. today, almost every manufacturer now makes a 29er model but it was hardly on the radar just 2 years ago. Many interpret the rise of the 29er fad as "getting caught with their pants down." Smaller, trendier [please notice use of this word] companies started beating out bigger companies because they were paying attention. The side affect: the boutique builder also became mainstream as a result. Opps, Trek!! This is why I personally own a Ventana over a Trek or Specialized. And guess what, it's a superior product as well. Interestingly, many bike company owners and other key decision makers are now on this board.

More examples: 2) This poster identifies a $25 part that has played havoc with (hehem Scott Monty) diesel Ford Excursions and Superduties and their other widely known reliability problems.

3) This poster creates panic or possibly identifies what is wrong with Suunto watches and/or their customer service.

4) This thread is a recommend a good mechanic in your area thread. Particularly useful information, I guess sort of like Annie's list.

5) For an example of big business using social media (hehem, Scott Monty again), see Brian 'woody' Swearingen on LinkedIn and see my recommendation of him and how Toyota used his social media forum to market the new FJ Cruiser. And guess what, it appears it worked.

6) And finally, I disagree with 'social media will not change the world.' We've already seen the slopes distrust of traditional media. Ultimately I believe social media sites will replace traditional media sites a as we know it, we are basically just waiting for the systems, software, and architecture to catch up.

Meanwhile, this community has been obsurdly focused on Twitter and Facebook. It appears Scarlett Johansson just walked by and the community just got caught with their jaws open, staring at her *hehem* and their names are Twitter and Facebook. And it turns out there is probably a whole lot more to 'her.' Things like

[Adam "CoachAdam" Krajchir]

Peter,
Greetings from an old haunt of yours, PwC. Stated simply, we have been having a number of conversations with analysts, some entertaining, others quite hohum about all of this. But as one respondent said, there are still a lot of folks out there that no nothing about this and therefore the story still needs to be told. However, you know better than most that when you leave the marketing offices and step into the worlds of finance effectiveness, corporate performance reporting, budgeting and reporting, IT effectiveness, plant management, sustainable cost reduction and mergers and acquisitions, the typical SM rhetoric dissipates in favor of investments based on evidenced-based measurement. The application of social media technologies has tremendous promise and we are having conversations daily with our clients about the front-end use to engage stakeholders and then the back-end management about how this data is gathered, analyzed and disseminated to the right people at the right time to make critical management decisions. But 95% of the blog posts aren't talking about these items. There is a bit more discussion in the Health 2.0 space if only because EM throughput and patient education has been connected a bit more directly. Remember when everyone was talking about the promise of eBusiness? You might have been around when we were saying that eBusiness is business, meaning that it's just another set of tools and channels to do what what most every business is interested in: improve productivity, reduce costs, increase sales and earn profits. The application of social media for business is no different and at some point, just like we don't walk around talking about eBusiness, we might not be talking about SM or perhaps even social business. If your post and new venture helps to get people thinking a bit differently about it, more power to ya!
Cheers,

[Maxine Teller]

Peter,
I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment that the way business is done needs to change: the core issue is not marketing or technology, but cultural transformation.

I have been grappling for some time with the terms "social media" and "Web 2.0" because neither adequately conveys the fundamental cultural shift necessary for future success for organizations (and individuals, for that matter).
Just last week I blogged about the concept of the "truth organization":
http://mixtmedia.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/becoming-a-truth-organization/

"The cultural shift towards Truth and collaboration must be felt, understood and embraced by an organization before it can truly sucessfully leverage social media tools and Web 2.0 technologies. The organization that understands social media first as cultural shift will see why social media is more akin to business strategy, organizational change and strategic partnerships than to marketing. PR and advertising. That, is the Truth."

I am grateful for your terms "social business" and "transformation" -- they get us closer to what this is all about. I am fascinated to see where you and your emerging company take things from here.

The challenge will be in selling organizational change and business transformation: it's not pleasant to hear that you need to spend millions of dollars reinventing your organization. Even if you know that your only option for survival is open-heart surgery, it's still not easy to check yourself into the hospital.

[Peter Kim]

Thanks for sharing. I don't think that's the case here. I just read a blog post where someone said that she read the first section and was offended because she had just posted a record-traffic post about Twitter. So she missed the point about the rest of the post.

A systematic problem I encountered at Forrester and have not seen get any better: people don't seem to take the time to read critically anymore. As I said above, the commenters who've focused only on part of the post have fallen victim to the lazysphere themselves and failed to comprehend the real message.

Really, twitter fans (I am one) should look at the three weaknesses Jeremiah points out in this post. Multi-channel matters. http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2009/01/03/about-my-twitter-hiatus/

[Peter Kim]

Ron, did you even read the entire post? If so, you probably would have realized that if you classify yourself as a newbie, that rhetorical question wasn't directed at you. To your point, let's all teach the people who don't have a clue about social media to approach it in the right way - not as a point solution, but as part of a big, hairy, audacious social business goal.

[Peter Kim]

Hi Barbara - believe me, we're revealing as much as we can, as fast as we can. But we're approaching this circumspectly - as many commenters have pointed out, business has been down roads that look like this before.

Things were going pretty well for me at Forrester. I wouldn't have left if I did not believe that we could to do something important.

Stay tuned...and thanks for your patience!

[Peter Kim]

Adam - good to hear from you. I was originally on the Coopers & Lybrand side, out of Atlanta.

The truth is out there. We need to find the 5% and bring those discussions to the forefront. Specific application to roles and functions are definitely required and will make the conversations matter.

[Peter Kim]

Maxine - nice post. It doesn't surprise me that you understand what needs to be done, as you've worked with some organizations that need transformation the most. And thank you for not telling me that you're offended by the Twitter paragraph here, even though the post before "Truth" was about Twitter.

[pahlka dot]

Peter, I want to like this post because I’ve enjoyed your blog tremendously up until now, but you do a couple of seriously funky things here. One is saying “screw evolution, we need revolution.” Um, good luck with that. Setting one’s sights on a higher goal is NOT the same thing as staging a coup. Transformation and revolution are two really different ideas, and the deeper the change you want to drive the more you better be prepared to persevere. Hard, important work gets done incrementally, iteratively and for now, experimentally. Which requires a healthy dose of failure, and often a lot of introspection. This post reads like a mashup of Bruce Nussbaum’s call for transformation and Tim O’Reilly’s Work on Stuff That Matters, but unfortunately tainted with a tone of disdain. There’s a good idea in this post, but it’s lost in the pointless attempt to kill what’s gone before.

To your credit, your tone is much softer in your replies to comments. That's the real world, people still struggling to understand what these tools are and what they can do, and struggling to invent new ways to leverage the web as a platform. There you acknowledge the value of the struggle.

[Ron Miller]

Hi Peter:
I wasn't responding as a newbie, but as someone who often has to explain social media to other people who simply don't understand it yet. I agree that social networking should be part of the fiber of every business. It can help foster collaboration and information sharing in a way that just hasn't been possible without these tools, but I'm hearing mixed messages from you. On one hand, you are criticizing people who are trying to educate people about this for saying the same thing, but at the same time you are encouraging people to go into this wholeheartedly. My point is that it takes Social Media 101 to get people into the conversation, and those of us who heard the story before and bought the T shirt need to put up with posts that might sound the same to us because it's brand new to a lot of people.

A few links (not for self-promotion, but to show you what I mean):

Web 2.0 Tools Could Help Preserve Institutional Memory:
http://tinyurl.com/7ufgeu

Obama's Victory Proves the Power of Web 2.0
http://tinyurl.com/5n4zu3

Explaining Twitter's No Simple Matter
http://tinyurl.com/6455wp

Regards,
Ron

[Rachel Happe]

This is a great discussion...but I'm going to add that I think it is because it made a lot of people feel defensive. I have a couple of comments in that regard. First, when there is a new concept going around, people learn about their own perspective by mulling it over, writing about it, discussing it, etc. - often for a while. So I think the 'Echo' effect is not so much people wanting to be parrots but people who are playing with concepts themselves...trying to figure out where they stand on the issue. I think this is just part of the necessary and healthy process of coming to terms with new challenges and opportunities - even if it may seem repetitive.

Secondly, one of my big beefs around the social media/Web 2.0/whatever-you-want-to-call-it space is that Social Media Is Not Community (see my blog post on this at http://www.thesocialorganization.com/2008/07/social-media-is-not-community.html). Social media is a way to communicate - and can be used very effectively for marketing in its own right. This is a good thing and has immense value...but is a drastic difference from as you rightly point out - creating a socially oriented organization...or creating a community/network. There are very few businesses who understand that from a strategic perspective (SAP is a notable one) but plenty of companies have done a great job building communities around support or development partners.

So - while I agree with you Peter that there is a much higher value that can be pursued through social engagement and transforming organizational structures - social media and changing our communications practices has value too.

Technology is moving much faster than organizations can absorb it...the social change and opportunities requires a lot of conversation and change to people's thinking so at the risk of being contrarian, I think the extensive chatter about what social media means is a very good thing.

Looking forward to hearing more about what you are up to. Great debate!

Cheers -

Rachel

[JanSimpson]

Nice posts and I agree with you about the twitter regurge - Dan Hollings is probably the original. But I think Twitter should put something out - and the rest should just learn - yeah

Jan

[Peter Kim]

Jennifer, I haven't said we should scrap everything that's been done before.

I think that Tim O'Reilly's Work On Stuff That Matters is a great example of a higher goal. So is John Mackey's Conscious Capitalism. Doug Rushkoff points people in the right direction with Get Back In The Box.

Perhaps the clearest response I could give you is that I sincerely believe that the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Many efforts have taken us in the right direction. I realize that you may take personal issue with my comments on the term "web 2.0" - I have nothing but respect for the fact that coining this term 3+ years ago has changed the worlds of technology and marketing. The way I read the original definition - if there's a better link than this, then please share - is how Web 1.0 has evolved into Web 2.0: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

And if Tim's lesson regarding Web 1.0's shakeout and bubble are true, then I'd say we have not yet experienced this in Web 2.0...Philip Kaplan hasn't yet revived F*ed Company, we are starting to see layoffs, but companies aren't shutting down en masse.

What's energizing is that learning from history, I think we may be able to recognize this time that we're in the middle of the revolution, not realizing in hindsight that it's happened.

[Kyle Flaherty]

Peter, I thought of posting something about this to my own blog, but quite honestly I think that would just contribute to the echo chamber as I'm sure many folks will use this idea to infiltrate their own on the unsuspecting RSS reader. There-in lies one of the main issues with "social media"; regurgitation. Many of the posts I see in my reader now start off with something akin to "I was reading Mr. So&So..." and many of the Tweets I see start with the infallible "RT". When Steve and yourself describe the 'lazysphere' I feel that one element is forgotten; this is the resulting pain we must endure by allowing everyone access to these tools. The more bloggers/Tweeters there are, the more mundane the discourse will become as a whole, until you filter it to your liking, which you notably are doing. We can not be afraid to unsubscribe and unfollow (and this goes for folks who want to do the same to me).

I've been in the business of communications for a long time and have added social elements for several years, my argument has always been that "social marketing" is not revolutionary but evolutionary AND that "social technologies" have the ability to change the way people interact and work. NOT interact with companies, but each other.

Marketing will always use social technologies for their own gain and some will do it better than others and realize the impact it can have on relationships, not just leads. The problem has been that most of the examples people have clung onto in terms of social technologies have been around marketing or PR and many of the voices that should rise to the top, talking about the use of these technologies for loftier gains, do not. Why? They aren't worried about retweeting the hottest social media expert who actually has zero ideas but is simply putting out the same stuff day after day. The rise of the social media expert and the subsequent regurgitation of ideas has sullied the use of social media and has us focusing more on topics such as Twitter authority, blog list ranking and the latest tool rather than on original and helpful content (and you can place me in this area from time-to-time). This unneeded element of complexity and noise to social computing certainly helps people get paid to consult and sometimes implement, but it has lead us to a position of weak discourse. Marketing doesn't cause social computing impotence, lack of sexy ideas and originality from marketers leads to social computing impotence.

There will be people and companies who understand the importance of social business who will not only integrate technologies into their company to support this ideal, but will dissolve the typical marketing structure when implementing the ideals of social business. There will still be marketing, don't misunderstand me, but it will be done with a long-term look and in direct coordination with the consumer, rather than short-term and pushed at the consumer. Technology will be used, but it will not be the driving factor. If a company wants to implement social business this will be a must, it is never enough to put a cute trademark on a term like Web 2.0 or Enterprise 2.0.

I enjoy your optimism when it comes to the ability of social computing and the social business. I can not find fault in your final two ideas in this post, most likely because I hope that it is true. But more than that, I hope that people get the point of this post in that it is up to all of us to raise the bar of discourse, even just a little.

[Tiffany Monhollon]

The echo chamber is one thing. Another is the paradigm shift you point out as critical to the actual transformation of business. Social media won't change the world?

But people with empowered voices will.

It's easy to point out one industry that's fundamentally changing - from within and from outside - right now, because of "social media," (or empowered voices) and that's the legacy media. The very definition of what a journalist is is changing because of social media - http://tr.im/30mi Or if it isn't, then the media really is dying.

This example (to me) really illustrates the idea of the complex give-and-take that has to happen. The challenges that businesses face in their business models and their processes, and even the ethics of doing business.

And it's hard, because it calls everything into question. But it can (will be) a radical transformation.

[Lawrence Liu (Telligent)]

Yup, what @rhappe said. :-) Here's my take, which I left as a comment on @jevon's blog post (http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2009/01/13/is-it-time-for-social-media-to-grow-up/) referencing @peterkim's. Here's the complete text:

Social media is just a tool or set of tools. It does not describe a mindset, culture, or strategy, which are required for business transformation that leads to industry transformation and then world transformation.

I've seen Enterprise 2.0 and World 2.0 buzzwords used in 2008, but I didn't see Industry 2.0 even though the pharma industry has been going through substantial transformation for the past couple of years. In 2009, the auto industry as well as the financial services industry will likely take some big steps towards transformation.

I'd posit that it's "Community Centricity" in the form of business strategies (and models) that will have a transformative impact on businesses and industries in 2009 and beyond. Community Centricity is about thinking holistically and inclusively in a "people first" manner. No longer should customers/partners/employees be treated separately and differently with respectively distinctive "relationship management systems" because an employee can become a customer or partner or a customer can become a partner overnight.

Community Centricity is also about businesses playing a more benevolent role within their geographic and/or industry related communities by promoting a culture of charitable contributions and of community service and outreach.

There are other examples and factors, but I'll save those for a blog entry. Anyway, as organizations start to take a community centric approach to planning and doing, little by little, the virtuous cycle builds up towards business transformation.

So, it's not about social (media, network, computing, whatever). It's about community. And quite frankly, since the dawn of humankind, it's ALWAYS been about community.

[Debs]

Peter - i think I understand what you are getting at - but as someone who has worked in the social software space before the term social media was buzzy, I feel the need to point out that life is social - therefore so is business. It is the tools and technologies that have changed. This is more about open vs closed and collaboration vs social. I agree that more integration and less echo is very important. We are only at the tip of the iceberg.

This is not merely about marketing - it never has been. I frame my work as about people & business relationships more than marketing. It is about value. I have grown increasingly frustrated watching business focus on the social web in the same way they focused on the static web 10 years ago until there was acknowledgment that, "OMG - ecommerce, we can sell things online not just produce flash brochures?" It is an evolution. It is why i enjoy working on VRM with Doc.

Thanks for the link love here are some truly smart pioneers in the social participatory web that must be acknowledged - danah boyd, clay shirky, kevin marks, elizabeth churchill, jerry michalski, david weinberger, doc searls and many more, I am sure I am leaving out.

Cheers,
D
"technology changes, humans don't"

[Evan Shaw Blackerby]

Kudos. It's almost at the point where we may be lose credibility as independent thinkers/bloggers/writers because of the replication going on. We must be vigilant to try not to duplicate others, even though there is rarely anything "new under the sun." We must focus on being original. We were created to be unique, creative, and innovative.

Why do we use so much energy on our laziness and thoughlessness? There is a cost to everything.

[Sean ODriscoll]

Am I echoing by adding to this convo??

Probably. The end goal (in the case of business) is businesses that achieve their objectives faster, cheaper, smarter, etc. It isn't to build a social business. I'm biased certainly in that I think social technologies and relationship based models are the critical task for businesses to achieve those objectives, but they aren't the only tools in the tool belt. A social business is a viable means to an end, but not an end unto itself.

In terms of the echo chamber - yes, my ears sometimes hurt. I've nearly stopped attending social media/blog conferences for the same reason - it can be fun and re-assuring, but not very business efficient. Worse, the echos dilute the ability to find the gems that do get published every day. I've certainly found it impacts how much I blog and tweet. I'm stunned by others volumes - I truly don't know how they do it. Why they do it - I'm less interested - people have their own goals and how they personally measure ROI to them and that's a good thing. For me, most of the best learning I do on this topic is working onsite on projects in my clients - and I don't think my clients would appreciate me blogging and tweeting my way through the day while onsite with them:) So, it's a balancing act between reading, writing, direct client work (and oh yeah, being a husband and father). I'm sure I don't get the balance right all the time - and when I do - it will be right for me (not a prescription for others).

Personally, I find myself skeptical of those that talk and echo too much - I wonder - how do they have that much time on their hands.

take care
Sean ODriscoll
Ant's Eye View

[Beth]

thank you for this post ... we're almost on parallel tracks as I'm thinking about the social nonprofit and the implications for changing the way they work - not just fundraising - but leadership, governance, operations, marketing, etc.

I'm noodling here:
http://beth.typepad.com/beths_blog/2009/01/birthday-campaign-reflection-creating-a-culture-of-giving-in-your-network.html

(the last third of the post) - It started off talking about strategy and social application design and end up at the bigger picture.

[Mike H.]

Peter, Is it fair to stay that we have never had an opportunity like this because we haven't had the tools to assist in the operation of social businesses? Prior to the development of web-based tools to assist people in their work, we merely relied on the standard of making the most amount of profit possible in operating a business.

Business will always be business - we innovate and we build markets to sell what we innovate. But when we had to get blood out of stones to achieve ever-growing, never-retreating profits, we did it in a certain way.

I'm taking away from your post that business doesn't have to keep the same model of profit maximization anymore because there are social tools that create better products and services, incentivization models in place to reward creators, and social networks to communicate these efforts.

If I'm way off, by all means, I'd love to hear from anyone about it.

[Amanda Mooney]

Such a great post Peter. I've been feeling this way for a while and noticed it when I started spending more time devouring my "TBD" folder in my rss feed of random blogs and sites, as I couldn't stomach another "ten ways to use twitter for marketing and PR" posts. Nonlinear inspiration was needed in the form of any post that got back to the core of 1. good ideas and 2. people and wasn't caught up on technology or the business implications of an insight.

[Rick Ellis]

I'm still trying to parse all of this out (there's a lot to wade through in this thread). But I agree that there is a problem with the "echo chamber" effect.

I've spent more than a decade working for companies and sites that create original online content and one of the reasons that so much parroting goes on is that doing original stuff is hard. The act of writing online isn't that much different than the way you would do it with an old school typewriter. The medium and distribution changes, but it still requires the same amount of brainpower.

One of the challenges I've had with my own site is that the parroting tends to overwhelm the original source. I put something up new, and within an hour or two it's twelve links down the line of distribution.

I look forward to seeing what you do with this. And, maybe some position will open that is a good fit for me. I like trying to solve near-impossible challenges!

[Leah McChesney]

Peter,

I must admit that I too am not feeling the magic from many blogs lately, I don't feel like I am learning anything new. Seems like many "experts" are grasping at straws for forward thinking, and we all know that it quickly separates the exceptional leaders from those who claim to be. I don't think it is bad to blog about the "we already know about that", as those blogs probably would not be read by the "experts" anyway and their audience may be for those not in the know. Often these blogs begin to have a strong personailty that become entertainment. I think when you are so close to something, you assume everyone else is, and quickly become bored.I myself would never label myself as an expert in anything and think that word is flung around to willy nilly. Thanks for the great post.

[Dan]

"This social marketing niche is getting way too incestuous and repetitive and frankly, stupid in its repetitive back slapping, re-affirmation, ego stroking, and over amplification of the same desperate case studies." - "Shooting fish: Blog Sluts," David Churbuck, VP Global Web Marketing, Lenovo, 12/15/08.

Having spent the last week dealing with Lenovo's disastrous customer service, I might suggest embracing social media as a tool for improving communication. Seriously, Lenovo has my vote for absolute worst CS in any industry ever, and I've seen affirmation of the same by many others.

[Spam Sorenson]

Peter

Thanks; I am in concurrence.

Interesting, and I believe accurate. Admittedly this is my third or perhaps fourth post ever to a blog, (this is a blog, isn't it?) I do however subscribe to a few RSS feeds, but I found little to excite me about having a diary and showing it publicly. Most blogs seem to feel the need to "publish or perish" and so there are daily posts of ho-hum posts.

I do subscribe to some specific news groups which are product or topic centric, british sports cars, fly fishing, recumbent riding etc. But these are hobby oriented. Groups like bentrideronline are wonderful sources of info and help for my hobbies, but the business aspects of them are regulated to product reviews and relatively non commercial content.

Having contacted my professional associates I was curious if any of them had posted or subscribe to social network for professional reasons. The universal answer is "No." No time, - no central point of access.

For example, Linkedin is like a series of nests full of hungry birds seeking business referrals it all sounds like "hundreds of voices screaming "feed me -feed me!" Admittedly, it is a resource, but not one of any real value to me.

I am confident there is a place where words are not measured but where content is king. The people I work with my business social contacts are busy, have no time for chit-chat. The challenge is understandable. Business have a hard time integrating social networking to improved revenue streams, either as an aggregator of rich content.

The issue for a company's success tapping social networking will be when they learn to balance the social implications by deliver serious content - like mini white paper reports of significance to their marketplace. Too many companies send out press releases with no significant content, their white papers are sales brochures and - well, lame. If they have any customer feedback channels, often they censor content in corporate blogs rather than using it as a solid feedback channel and idea generator. So with all the chatter it is hard to find business oriented value in social network. BUT by encouraging feedback the channel will be bidirectional and will display a minimal of social responsibility rather than unidirectional "promote or perish."

In the real world...
As chapter director for a local IT organization, we encourage vendors to promote their case studies, and discourage sales presentations. It works. This can translate to the web, but there is a price to the organization in leaving the monolithic traditional policies and adopting even a little bit of a democratic channel. Web 2.0 to be successful in a corporate environment requires they adopt a corporate Web 2.0 culture. Lip service is usually what we get.

Anyway I agree with your post and will likely get back to business next week. Thanks for a decent post.

[Greg Matthews]

It seems as though I'm often a day or two late to the party, but I won't let that stop me from contributing! I'm not a marketer. I'm not a consultant, or an advertiser, or in PR. I'm a "businessman," for lack of a better term. As such, I'm not really all that interested in whether we're talking about "Enterprise 2.0" or "Social Business" or any other buzzword.

But I do agree with Peter - strongly - that the importance of this conversation is not in what tools we're using or whether our blogs are generating new ideas. The important thing for businesses like mine is that we change the way that we interact and collaborate with all of our stakeholders . . . customers, suppliers, even our own employees. It's why, as I'm developing a social media platform for my company, that my focus is not on whether we're blogging or tweeting. It's about being active listeners. It's about being authentic about who we are and what we do. It's about finding communities that already exist, and looking for ways to add value to them. For companies like mine, that means radical, fundamental changes in the way that we do business!
Thanks to all of you for the conversation - it's an entertaining and frequently enlightening one. And as the conversation migrates into ways that help companies like mine - and yours - to make those changes, it's going to get even better.

[david fishman]

Good post and you seem like an intelligent well educated social media aficionado. I think you could have reduced most of your post down to one thesis sentence that resonates strongest,

"Nobody will change the world with social media marketing. Social marketing using technology, maybe."

Very interested in what you are up to with your new venture.......we too have been working on a transformational technology platform that is a work/life e-commerce application. Please keep me posted on your progress.

Vaya con dios'

[Oliver Young]

Hey Pete, thanks for the shout-out. I'm trying to turn it on but am still figuring out what my voice is. When/if I hit the right formula please let me know! If you've got some advice on how to find it I'll gladly take it.

[Nick Huhn]

Sorry I'm late to this interesting discussion, Pete. All I have to add are *my* observations and experiences in a few corporate environments over the years:

1) when silos, hierarchies, 'turf' and politics guide organizational 'success', many large businesses will lack the intrinsic motivation required to benefit from having transparent, expeditious, and meaningful discussion and shared insights.
2) "transformative" to these same organizations accelerates the focus on fluff and exacerbates the very shortcomings that led to the need to be transformed.

I don't intend to be so cynical, but suffice it to say I look forward to learning how you guys tackle some of the same problems I've faced in different capacities! :)

[Beth]

HI Peter.
Thanks for the perspective. I stumbled upon your blog on accident and I am glad that I did as I am enjoying reading your thoughts on the topics that you post. You definitely bring about a different and very blunt perspective and I appreciate it. Reading this particular post and the comments that follow brings to light for me that inbound marketing has a definition that perhaps has not really been fully captured.

In any case, I know that social media if used in a focused, dedicated and "smart" way can definitely build your brand and get you a very well known web presence. I am excited to hear more about your company as the company that I work for creates Solutions for SMBs using online social commerce.

Another great perspective on inbound marketing can be found at Outbound Advertising is Dying: The Future is Inbound.

[David Armano]

Pete,

Good points here. To be honest with you, I don't see 2009 as very different from when I started the deep dive in "social media" back in 2006. Back then it was an echo-chamber of blogs, then Facebook, then twitter and now all three plus lots of other goodies.

You put some of us in groups that I'm not sure I entirely understand. Looks like 1.Tech, 2. Marketing. 3. Tech melded with marketing. What criteria did you use? I think your broader point of going deeper is dead on. The lines between marketing/technology are indeed blurring, and I don't know if anyone at this point can be neatly categorized.

We're still at a fairly early point with this whole social movement. But it will become business as usual at some point.

http://adage.com/digitalnext/post?article_id=127980

And when that happens—we'll all look back and say "how did we do business without this?". Just like e-mail and the internet today. So it'll be less about technology, marketing or the blending of the two. It'll be about business.

[Peter Kim]

Yes David, you're right on the groups - especially with your recent thinking, I'd be better off putting you in the "general business" group, although you're employed by an agency. The blurring of the lines is a good thing, especially for people who've come from marketing backgrounds - it's taking the discipline into the general management space where many CMOs would argue it rightly belongs. However, I think you'll find that many of the IT thinkers are still pretty firmly grounded in the technology discussion...

[Peter Kim]

Oh, I get it now. You write a blog about Twitter. Good point about the echo chamber there at the end.

[Peter Kim]

Just re-read your comment for the third time to make sure I got it all. You really should turn it into a blog post. Great POV here.

[Peter Kim]

Yes Mike - we're moving in that direction...you are thinking in line with us. You might be interested in learning more about the idea of "conscious capitalism."

[Colin Henderson]

I just re-read this in context of twitter comment re transformation tonight. In retrospect the original message [for me] got lost in the promotion of the new company methinks.

In any event if the point is business model change, vs social media enhancement then we are aligned, so mea culpa from me.

Have to admit this sentence was missed first time, probably due to first phrase, but thats my attention issue - this one is a keeper.

"The end game should be an entirely social business. Not just point solutions to improve existing processes or programs - new ways of connecting and collaborating. Business models will change. Customer-centricity becomes a moot concept, as "us" and "them" no longer exist."

[Sam Huleatt]

Pete - Thanks for the link! (Sorry I didn't see it sooner!) I look forwarding to helping you push forward the next wave of enterprise innovation!

Sam

[Laurent Rozenfeld]

So many good comments to read...I'm not even sure someone will get to mine. :o)

Actually, I have a question.
I am one of those who believe that social media WILL change the world and that the reason we have many parrots today is that we are gradually getting to THE bottleneck - when people will start to weight the real value of those applications and will start looking for a purpose behind social media.

Now that Obama decided that the US will be key in sustainable energy development, mentalities will change (I'm not American) and it will create new opportunities.

My question is very simple, what about digital divide?
You were referring to Beth's blog when talking about social marketing and while scanning her blog I saw she writes a lot about the difference in age of technology users.
But what about developing countries?

Many Africans and Asians still working with outdated internet technology (or none) and have difficulties getting access to the same information we do. I might be totally wrong, but I think tools such as twitter and friendfeed might work well in such environments and can bring extra knowledge, know-how and insight to local schools and businesses.

Whereas most boring companies are still hesitating about taking a dive, those countries have to start more or less from scratch.

On the other hand, when we see the success of social projects using social media to create awareness, why not go a step further?

I'm also starting my own venture which will actively use social media and though it doesn't focus on my question, I would like to know about existing projects or people looking for partnerships.

[Colin Henderson]

When I read this first and agreed with Stowes disingenuous point, my reasoning was as simple as this post is a series of link bait. Its also hard to follow and understand the point, so I have re-read a dozen times, and attempted to stand in your shoes. Here is what I see for what its worth.

RE "Nobody will change the world with social media marketing"
Let me begin there. I am a Cluetrain believer - connected and empowered employees connecting with already connected customers. It will be years before we get there though. I despise marketing and marketing campaigns. I see corporations attempting to slots social media into their marketing as yet another campaign. So yes I agree with the quote.

If your new venture is aimed at transforming business models (vs transforming social media) as I now believe then yes I think you are on to something valid.

I certainly wish you well - have followed you for many years, and respect your views. Only issue was that post.

[Peter Kim]

Thanks Colin. I appreciate the followup. I guess there's a fine line between respect and linkbait. Maybe in practice, they're the same; I had the former in mind but people may have assumed the latter.

My take is that a great percentage of the 3,000+ subscribers here know my work for its marketing focus. Over the past six months, I've been shifting my focus and learning from the thoughts of established "Enterprise 2.0" thinkers. Along the way, I haven't seen the E2.0 people referenced by the Social Media Marketing (SMM) people and vice versa. If we are going to transform businesses, I believe we need thinking from E2.0 and SMM, in addition to perspectives from change management and process thinking that rarely surface in blogs.