The last couple of weeks has seen some volatile debate on social media, on clubs, inclusion and exclusion. Under the surface of this debate lies the question of ownership and expertise – who qualifies as an expert, who has a voice and where the rules of engagement. I have even been mentioned in the discussion.
I was going to respond with a post of my own, but found that Greg Verdino sums up my view perfectly (it’s worth reading the whole post):
If you pay attention to what the marketing blogosphere buzzes about, you have probably noticed that a number of people have been debating what qualifies someone to be a social media 'expert.' Is it personal experience or a long list of client case studies? Is it the title on your business card or some vague blurb in your Twitter bio? Does simply being "born digital" (whatever that means) make you an expert? Or given that today's social tools are so new and the rate of change so fast, does it even make sense to call anyone a social media expert?
I've been following the debate and gritting my teeth, holding back on adding my two cents. But, generally speaking, my question is "who cares?"
Who cares what defines social media expertise? And why are we even devoting digital ink to answering that question?
The only think I would really add to this, is to remember that social media is not about you. It’s about your clients and their customers. It’s about finding win-win outcomes for products and services and the people who use and consume them. All the rest is insignificant.