Are we too connected to social media?
Do you ever feel like you are too wired in? Do you find yourself using a password manager to keep up with your passwords to your other password managers? Dan Keldsen just posted a very interesting piece that really got me thinking on linking all of these various social media types together to form multi-dimensional and very personal POP’s (point-of-presences) for every individual.
They are a meta-meta-aggregator in the sense that they are aggregating (collecting) information from multiple sources, and that their underlying data sources can also be aggregating information from multiple sources (such as ZoomInfo). This extends the reach and richness of the information that they are able to pull back on behalf of users of their system, in a similar fashion to the functionality of federated search or universal search in more traditional enterprise search.
In an ideal world, or at least with the smarter salespeople and marketers, such information will help to weed out who the appropriate people are to engage in more targeted discussions, and to engage in informed conversations of the “2.0 age” rather than in continuing to hammer out cold-calls and blanket, un-personalized (or badly personalized) mass-marketing.
Though Dan’s article is referring specifically to a product called SalesView by InsideView, I can’t help but notice we are drowning in a sea of social media outlets. For instance, Twitter is interesting, and a social medium to which many people subscribe. It begs a question though, in the context of its underlying purpose,
What is the end-game for this type of social experiment?
[Dan contends] social networking is not purely about person-to-person connections, or in providing a virtual watercooler (or virtual voyeur perhaps) view into your “friends” (peers, co-workers, etc.) but also for the ability of participants IN the network to use the data within that network to become smarter in the ways that they interact with the people in that network.
Bluntly put, information about people abounds through many different channels, all of which were never before captured outside of family photo albums or epitaphs. Now that all of this information exists in a connected world, it is becoming a very relevant question to ask,
What can be done with all of this information about you? Is your information usable in its new formats?
All of this latent “social information” is buried in the heap of individual silos both inside and outside of the control of any one [corporation], even deeper … than “normal” electronic information is.
InsideView has a few ideas, according to Dan, albeit a bit Minority Report-ish. However, let’s assume we all have the best intentions of using this information to the benefit of mankind; it makes me wonder whether this medium will connect us in ways never before dreamed or allow us to conduct plastic surgery at-will to our public persona? And just who decides someone, or some organization, should be granted access to a given network of POP’s?
For now, everyone is having fun, and rightly so. By all accounts, this is a golden age of connectedness not seen in centuries past. Even as we marvel at our own magnificence, I can’t help but step back, take a breath and ask if we are all too connected?
Are you part of the problem or part of the solution?
When you think of IT, MIS, or any other acronymn used to describe the technology department of a company, what is the image that comes to mind? Does it resemble a Saturday Night Live skit Nick Burns, Your Company’s Computer Guy?
Many IT-types have bemoaned the fact that technologists have gotten a bad wrap. I wonder why that is?
Simply put, the stereotypical computer tech was always long on computer wisdom but terribly short on the softer skills in life, such as tact and social grace. I am not totally sure whether most computer guys had watched too much Gordon Gekko and fancied themselves all powerful, or if they just didn’t notice they were alienating their customers. Either way, the end result was the creation of our famous stereotype, Nick Burns…
As a manager, culture is one of the most delicate things to balance. Do you choose the talented player that can put points on the board and overlook some ‘minor’ team-fit issues? Do you sacrifice and choose a mediocre player that can get along with everyone and take direction?
That’s a trick question, to a certain extent. You choose neither. It is possible to choose talented players, but you can’t forsake the overall team concept. Combined, individuals can accomplish wonderful and extraordinary things. So don’t sell yourself short and let your ‘IT rooster” rule the roost. It won’t be as easy as pounding your fist, and you have to decide for yourself if your IT guy is your go-to-guy.
If you are an IT guy or gal, make sure you put yourself in a position to be the go-to-guy (or gal). By keeping customer service in the forefront of your mind and engaging in your culture you may not win employee of the year, but you could get a reputation for solving problems rather than being one.
-
ChangeForge... a catalyst to affect the paradigm by Ken Stewart is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at www.changeforge.com. -
-
