Category: Social Media

In my meanderings yesterday, I happened across this interesting post on Noah Brier’s blog. Here he mentioned "the strength of weak ties" in relation to social media (and a link to a PDF). I was fascinated immediately by the title and wanted to learn more. Interestingly enough, this must be a promiscuous idea, as I had already written a draft on this exact topic some weeks ago but didn’t realise it until I did a picture search for "granovetter diagrams".

This article by Mark S Granovetter dates back to 1973 and was published by the American Journal of Sociology (vol 78, issue 6). The central idea is that in a social network, the WEAKEST ties are the most powerful in terms of disseminating information. This would seem to be counter-intuitive … surely the strongest links are most important? Apparently not … and this is where it gets interesting!

There is a lot of detail in the article, so I just want to look at a couple of key points. (For more detail take a look at Shiv Singh’s post over at Boxes and Arrows where he applies Granovetter’s ideas to Web 2.0).

First adopters and early adopters

The article points out the difference between FIRST adopters and EARLY adopters. The first adopters are the innovators. They are marginal, isolated, with very small social networks. One of the characteristics of these innovators is that they have one-to-one or "bridge" relationships with people who are part of groups that are at arm’s length. It is also important to note that the bridge is only a "weak tie".
The early adopters by comparison, have a "reputation" to protect … they are not the innovators, but they travel close behind them. This means, for an idea to spread across a social network, there must be a weak link between the FIRST and the EARLY adopter. The most effective FIRST adopters are those that have a number of bridges between themselves and other networks:

Weak ties drive action

One of the surprising results of the analysis is the connection between weak ties and action. Based on a study of job seekers, it appears that finding a new role will come not through the strong ties (who you would think would have a vested interest in their friends’ success), but through the extended network of weak ties (in over 80% of cases). What is shown here is that the network of weak ties is more likely to activate a request than someone closer — perhaps the motivation here is to grow that weak tie into something more substantial.

The community is ABSOLUTELY reliant on the marginalised
But perhaps the most important point is the absolute need for alienation or marginalisation within a community. Again, this seems to me to be counter-intuitive, but the analysis (and more importantly, the testing) bears this out. Without the marginalised or the innovators, ANY community has no possibility for organisation or regeneration: "… strong ties, breeding local cohesion, lead to overall fragmentation" (p 1378). And if you think about it … it does make sense. It is like having a small CONVERSATIONAL gene pool … you need new ideas — otherwise you end up talking about the same thing over and over again.

More reading and ideas

Mark Granovetter also has some interesting thinking in a 1985 article where he identifies economic relations between individuals and businesses within social networks that do not exist in an abstract, idealised market — got to find this one too!

Winker Toto
Originally uploaded by Café Latte

There are blogs that you read that make you nod your head … you agree with the sentiments, with the content and the approach. You lurk, read and maybe even comment from time to time. You will warm to the author, maybe even try to find out more about them (read their About page, check their Technorati profile or their LinkedIn page). You may even go so far as to stalk them on Facebook where you will vascillate between "friending" the blogger or just look at their friend list. But the conversation between you and the blog author really plays out in your own mind — the mind of the reader. These blogs are Nodders.

Another type of blog is like the Nodder, but with more sex appeal. This blog also has good content, makes you smile, teases you a little. Perhaps you find the writing voice just a little bit attractive … the ideas, oh so gently seductive. Maybe this blog is pretty. Friendly. Accessible. For you. But this blog is also smart. Pretty and smart — what a combination! When you read you agree, really agree … or discuss, argue. It is a relationship after all. These blogs are the Penny Droppers. They bring the ideas together for you in a way that lets you own them. I love a penny dropper. We all do.

There are other blogs that we love, but we know they are bad for us. They draw us in … expose us to ideas, concepts, content … dirty content that we can’t resist. When we comment or participate on these blogs we do so with a surreptitious excitement. It is a risk. A challenge. It could also be a fight. We can’t help being attracted to these blogs … we add them to our feed list, we follow their authors on Twitter and we check their photos on Flickr. We get close, oh so close, to stalking the authors … digitally. But our strange, digital attraction can also end quite quickly. Over. These are the Tinderbox blogs and you know you can’t resist them.

Then there is the Winker. The Winker has great style and panache. There is some great writing and concepting … there is personality to play with and an open style. You would like to have a drink with the Winker because the Winker is a great host, a fun storyteller and could, but probably won’t, get you into trouble. Depends on the day of the week.

NOW … I am interested in these characterisations (and there may be more), because they tell us something about the way that we, as readers, relate to the blogs that we read. From a CERTAIN reader’s point of view, one blog could be considered a Winker, but ANOTHER will find that blog more dangerous — a Tinderbox — and take the content in a very different way. This is the joy and challenge of reading. And writing.

So, which are your Tinderbox blogs? Which are your Nodders? And which do you prefer?

I have been buried in a mountain of market research over the last couple of weeks. It has been an interesting exercise for me, especially considering my usual suspicion around research, its methods and even its value. One of the things that I find fascinating is the way that your own analysis and reading can actually bear out similar results to the research firms … next time you are commissioning market research — or even just digging around, try the following:

• When you are formulating your brief (or just a series of questions), hand write your brief on a separate notepad
• Write two bullet point responses to each question — indicating a low expectation response and a high expectation response
• Ask a couple of people that you know for their responses to your questions (it helps if they are in your field of inquiry)
• If you don’t know anyone who can help you, drop your question into LinkedIn or on Facebook and see what turns up (the network is smarter than you are) … (BIG thanks to Kris Hoet and Ewan McIntosh here)

Anyway, along the way, I found this summary of social media research which makes for interesting reading. Not compelling … it is market research after all!

Datamonitors predict that the explosive growth of social media membership will plateau in five years. FIVE years! It seems to me that the folks over at Datamonitors don’t understand this space at all! This is going to be a completely different space in five years … in the two years that I have been writing this blog there has been a vast amount of change. For example, about 12 months ago I was thinking that Facebook was washed up … that the horse had bolted and that MySpace had won (glad I don’t write predictions here especially given today’s news!).

And as Ann Handley jokes, blogging years are like "dog years" … one year counts for about seven in terms of experience. So if we apply this to the research … in about 35 years social media will plateau — basically growth in social media in 2042 will only be possible in line with global population expansion.

Ok, that was slightly facetious. But you know I love research … but not as much as Rob.

big Audience
Originally uploaded by .Dominic

Michael Wesch has another thought provoking video available … looking this time at the world of students … their aspirations, challenges and interests. As these kids represent the next generation of consumers (you know, the people who buy the stuff that you sell) … it is important to get at least a little insight into what makes them tick.

My latest post over at MarketingProfs attempts to look at some of what the video covers. What comes through powerfully, is that, perhaps more than ever, there is a desire RELEVANCE. And if it can’t be found with you or your brand, it will be sought elsewhere.

At the recent MarketingProfs get together, Ann Handley asked some of the crowd what happens when they Google themselves (is there a noun for this? Autogoogling, perhaps?). Here are some of the responses …

There was once a time when I was way down the list of "Gavin Heatons" … but these days I can normally claim the first and second spots. Then, my buddy Drew, kicks in … and it is a mess of Flickr, MarketingProfs and other sites after that. But I did find this interesting Google Ad on one of the sites.

Now, my name is Gavin … but even I would be hard-pressed to want to buy some "Gavin themed" items on eBay. But then, maybe I don’t know what I am missing. Just goes to show that even those smart, search context sensitive ad placements don’t always live up to their side of the advertising bargain! But, really … what DO you find when you google your own name? Do tell.

With thanks to Katie for sharing the vid.

Smoking Grave
Originally uploaded by PetroleumJelliffe

I just did a little test — ran a search on my blog content for the term "context is king". There were two entries — one here and the other here. There was also a third post, with the phrase in the text — and while I am not really a fan of quoting myself, I kinda liked this one:

… in a Web 2.0 world, where context is king, content still speaks baby … as long as you have the ears to listen.

But why is this important?

Just recently I had lunch with the CEO of a leading technology company here in Australia and he was very excited about the direction of his company. But, as I told him, technology is not the answer … having great technology is important and is something that can drive competitive advantage in all sorts of areas (hey, it can even drive sales) — but the technology is only an enabler. Once you have it, if you don’t back it up with a smart content strategy and a clear contextual strategy, you have a dead duck on your hands. And an expensive one at that.

David Armano is also musing on the reasons that execs are stumbling in the Web 2.0/social media world. He was asked about the next "killer app" — and replied "content". And he is right — it is all about content. But it is also, equally, all about context. Finding a way to cohesively integrate content and context — and thereby activating an influence and filtering network that helps shape consumer experience is where the gold dust lies. The technology just makes it work … you can use it to dig yourself a hole — just make sure you don’t fall into it.

Years ago, when I was studying performance and movement we were given small, concentrated workshop tasks. One of the most difficult was the be "happy". Despite how this sounds, it is not a simple exercise (as anyone who has seen the word "happy" in a brief will understand). First, I would start with my breathing, emptying myself of breath and then slowly inflating myself. Next I would lift my posture, straighten my spine and raise my head. I would imagine and feel the way that my breath would inhabit the far recesses of my body … reaching to my fingertips and out to my eyelashes. Sometimes I would smile, othertimes, not. But time and again I would find that my "happy" would not quite make it … it would fall short somewhere … somewhere short of "being" or "embodying".

My teacher, the lovely and quite scary, Leisa Shelton, would always want more … would want us to push this small performance closer to life — so that the distinction between the performer and the performed would collapse. While I could intellectually understand this, I found it was difficult to achieve in practice. You see, there is a vast difference between the way that you will experience something and the way that another person will perceive it — especially in performance. In performance, the body needs to appear 25% larger to give the impression of being 100% real (this was the realisation of Leisa’s teacher, Etienne Decroux while observing Rodin’s The Thinker) … these days I am always drawn to images of happiness (hence the image here courtesy of Suzanne G).

But, take a look at this challenge for a second. What does it mean to be 125% more real when translated into digital identity? What does this mean for digital storytelling … and perhaps, most importantly of all, what does this mean for personal brands and naming? Jeff Pulver has been looking at the intersection of names and personal branding for the last couple of days and is convinced of the need to have a single name across all of our social media haunts. But, apart from the challenges of having a unique name (luckily I don’t think there are too many Gavin Heatons in the world), is it necessary or is it even desirable?

I have had a connection to the digital identity "servantofchaos" for many years now, and one of the things I like about it is its potential. For example, servantofchaos has the opportunity of being 125% Gavin Heaton — it can be an oversized version of my own self, multiplied and amplified by the digital array and power of the network. It can also serve as the persona through which I can project and connect to the world in a way that my personal traits, inhibitions or even time restrictions can prohibit.

When I first started this blog and began commenting on others, I did so under the name servantofchaos. And while I no longer feel the need to do so (or have the desire to play with the identity), after all this time, I would be reticent to relinquish it completely. It has become something more than just a name … I have, in a sense, embodied it. What do you think?

Eaon Pritchard has an interesting post on branding and marketing for small business. What is excellent about this post is the way that he encapsulates and studies some of the most successful (recent) social marketing campaigns while emphasising both measurement as a definition of success but also the need to think creatively about social media as a medium.

One of the factors that Eaon emphasises is conversation and "talkability". While we "talk" or write about conversation, two of the critical elements are often overlooked — substance and surprise. These go hand in hand … you can have the best and most substantive product or service in your industry, but if there is no accompanying "suprise" factor, then the launch will be dead-in-the-water. A good example is this post by Robert Scoble explaining that no matter how funky Utterz (a new Twitter competitor) is … it won’t fly without a social network uptake.

I emphasise the word uptake here on purpose. You see, "surprise" is an important response because it indicates BOTH an emotional response and an action … and this overcomes our desire to RESIST. So if our copy, our positioning, our storytelling and our interaction strategies are not designed to surprise … then we run head-long into a barrier (it’s too hard, I don’t have time, no one is using it). This is what is meant by thinking outside of the box … and that is precisely what the picture above is about — but to learn that story, you will need to read Eaon’s post right to the end.

Update: BL Ochman has a great post on the whole Stormhoek story with more background and flavour.