« Viral is Not Social. It is a Virus | Main | atNickHodge 23rd April, “The Lost Uncles” »

1.  
   1. The com­munity expect Trans­par­ency and Hon­est Voice
   2. You are always on. No mat­ter the day/time, people will expect you to be a rep­res­ent­at­ive when called upon
   3. You are still a per­son: That said, organ­isa­tion much leave lee-way for people to be people. Dur­ing and after work hours. Being a face means your face is first, not the brand
   4. You are just a single voice. Each SM voice is just a voice; not the formal pos­i­tion; just a voice in the caCO­phony from the organisation
   5. Listen­ing: Maslow: every SM inter­ac­tion is tain­ted by your per­sonal self-interest; pay etc. This is nat­ural. There will be conflicts
   6. It is about your Repu­ta­tion. Asso­ci­ation with a lar­ger organ­isa­tion is about Repu­ta­tion / Con­gru­ence / same wavelength?
      1. @dek: selling your soul to a large organ­isa­tion; what does this really mean? (dek sez: Not quite selling your soul, but when someone with a repu­ta­tion, who was inde­pend­ent pre­vi­ously, joins up with an organ­isa­tion to use their fame/notoriety to spread the word, I don’t know how to react to them any more. I don’t know where they end and where the corp starts. There is an ele­ment of trust erosion — scep­ti­cism comes into play. Eg — Scoble with his new gigs last year and this year.)
2. Social media: no dif­fer­ent to real world?
   1. vs: four sci­ent­ists sub­mit­ted papers to the Sen­ate Com­mit­tee on the Car­bon Pol­lu­tion Reduc­tion Scheme (CPRS, which includes the ETS) 
      1. http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/economics_ctte/cprs_09/submissions/sublist.htm
      2. (they are CSIRO employ­ees, vs. policy)
      3. The rebel sci­ent­ists can­not com­ment on their decision because they are pub­lic ser­vants. But a CSIRO source said they could risk cen­sure and pos­sible career reper­cus­sions by tak­ing such a pub­lic stand against the Government’s con­tro­ver­sial green­house reduc­tion targets.
      4. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/national/national/general/csiro-climate-experts-defiant/1486721.aspx
   2. @duncanriley: notice you did a sim­ilar thing when we tested the audio…
      1. what was it that you made that con­nec­tion? is it just in there?
3. Social Media. Blerk. Blerk. Blerk.
   1. From ‘social media’ (tech­no­logy) to ‘shar­ing cul­ture’ (activ­ity)
   2. shar­ing. con­vers­ing. know­ledge shar­ing. hyper­in­tel­li­gence. hyper­con­nectiv­ity
      1. I notice Mark Pesce has shif­ted from Hyper­con­nectiv­ity to Hypershar­ing? 
      2. ref­er­ence @mpesce share this lec­ture: http://blog.futurestreetconsulting.com/?p=125
   3. shar­ing cul­ture is world where people use inter­net tech­no­logy to share (read/write. write=share)
   4. We are inform­a­tion rich; time poor. By timely shar­ing, we save time.
   1.  
      1. suc­cess of Google, and why twit­ter works as ‘lazy web’
      2. shar­ing is a part of our nature: we tell stories
      3. shar­ing of stor­ies: Abor­ginal dream­time (cul­ture), Arthur­ian Legends (culture)
      4. usu­ally, held back inform­a­tion (inform­a­tion is power)
         1. now, inform­a­tion is largely free. 5 minute expert on >2million top­ics, thanks to the wiki­pe­dia hive-mind
      5. Time is the new power
   2. maybe, by just shar­ing, the rela­tion­ship between people will change. will change the organ­isa­tions and sys­tems that exist today
   1. http://www.hydrapinion.com/index.php/work/2009/04/13/will-someone-please-burst-the-twitter-bu (Ian Grayson)
      1. Not burst­ing the bubble, but stop­ping the shyters
      2. easy: just don’t fol­low them. Leave in the people you want to listen to
      3. Get­ting out of our play­ground. Pass­ive aggress­ive? Just the nat­ural extension
   2. bene­fits arise from those who share. Listen to them.
4. The Chal­lenge for Agen­cies and Tech­no­logy Com­pan­ies
   1. This is not a tech­no­logy sell. You can­not buy “a social media” no more than you can buy a “web 2.0″
   2. This is a cul­tural change pro­cess; it must be an embed­ded part of the cor­por­ate culture
   3. This is not a part of Cor­por­ate Affairs/PR (directly)
   4. As per @fibendall, this is best handled by com­mit­ted cust ser­vice people; or out­side enthu­si­asts — with coach­ing (PR)
   1. With clear guidelines
   2. @duncanriley: what is the pulse from the US?
       
5. Tonight’s case study: #amazon­fail … where are the social media respond­ents from Amazon?
   1. http://markprobst.livejournal.com/15293.html (ori­ginal source) anonym­ous “Ash­ley D” from #amazonfail
   2. http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6651080.html
6.  
   1. #amazon­fail twit­ter storm, blog­ger storm: not going to com­mon on the root issue.
   2. http://www.inquisitr.com/21785/amazonfail-how-one-company-will-lose-millions/ (6% loss over 2 days; NASQ largely stable) — future quar­ters will show if any rev­enue impact.
      1. @duncanriley: I’d be selling AMZN stock when the NASDAQ opens Monday morn­ing US EDT if you hold any, if not for the hit on sales they’re about to take, but because they were stu­pid enough to do this in the first place, whether you agree with the polit­ics or not.
   3. http://neteffect.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/12/amazonfail_and_the_politics_of_anti_corporate_cyber_activism
   4. the shit­storm in the social media space, without com­ment on the con­tent. The response.
      
   5.  http://blog.seattlepi.com/amazon/archives/166384.asp?source=cmailer
      1.  
         1. Pulled in senior people (Sev-1) error 
         2. “I’ve spoken to an Amazon.com employee who works closely with the sys­tems involved in the glitch. The employee asked me not to share his name because of com­pany policies on talk­ing with the media.”
         3. watched it unfold within the organ­isa­tion, and extern­ally on twit­ter
   6. ‘glitch’
      
      1. MSM response from msm-PR. OK, but not the only response
      2. ~50-60K books clas­si­fied as Adult
   7. the issue is the impact on the repu­ta­tion of Amazon. Less trust. More dif­fi­cult to meas­ure, but not impossible
   8. oh, it doesnt mat­ter: social media is small (wrong)
   9. oh, it doesnt mat­ter: it will not effect us fin­an­cially: the jury is out, but poten­tially less than the pun­dits might say

    1. His­tory