Social Media Blog: Conversational MarketingA blog that disects conversational marketing via social media.

May 1st, 2008 at 10:04 pm

Great idea for a new blog! I'll make sure to check it out.

May 5th, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Using social media to talk about social media is like masturbating. Or a circle jerk. It's like blogging about blogging. The people that really get the medium and use it for the purpose for which it was intended - to COMMUNICATE - don't want to be pestered by marketers. Marketing spammers inevitably ruin whatever new medium they infest, requiring everyone else to go through hoops just so they don't have to see the drivel.

May 5th, 2008 at 12:30 pm

thank you for your thoughtful comment. I'll consider your advice the next time I write about social media on this social media blog. Look, I am doing you a favor by educating other marketers to use social media to enable conversations and NOT bombard people like you with annoying banners. I bet you know Josh….

May 5th, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Teaching marketers to use social media to "enable conversations"? That sounds like a circle jerk. Seriously, who is going to benefit from this besides marketers? All you're doing is teaching other marketers how to annoy people. The rest of us that don't want marketers advertising to us? WE ALREADY KNOW HOW TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS.

May 5th, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Really Skawt? Is this your idea of a conversation? Coming here and trying your best to insult me, politely? Was it one of those mortgage banner ads screaming “REFINANCE NOW” or was it the daily Viagra emails in your inbox.

All I am “doing is teaching other marketers how to annoy people?” Do your research pal. Consumers want to be heard. They want to have conversations about products and services they care about; and I want marketers who work for these companies to join the conversation. Is that annoying?

Don’t mean to be rude, but your comments are pissing me off.

May 5th, 2008 at 1:13 pm

Quite the debate raging on this Monday morning. I think what we all forget is that EVERYONE is dependent upon marketing in some way or another.

@skawt (notice Skawt that Michael and I are not hiding our personas behind an anonymous username) what do you do for a living? Whether you work as an engineer, service provider, writer, blogger, etc...my guess is that you contribute to some sort of market exchange by either creating a product, being a product, or selling a product.

So those of us who are in the "marketing profession" have a job to do too. And ours is no less of value than anyone else's. The difference here is that Michael and I are trying to change the way marketing is handled, and usher in a more progressive and thoughtful way to listen to customers and engage in meaningful conversation.

The Cluetrain Manifesto is not a bible on which to build a soapbox. Doing that makes you no different than marketers of yesterday, barking your one-sided thinking AT people as opposed to engaging WITH them.

May 5th, 2008 at 1:14 pm

And that pretty much makes my point for me. You put out a blog, which is publicly available on the internet. You have comments open. However, when you get comments critical of your view, you get pissy about it. That's too bad. If you wanted to have nothing but touchy-feely good vibes discussions, you should keep it private and only invite other marketers.

Yes, consumers want to be heard. They also want the option to NOT be annoyed by marketing. They want the option of not having to put up with marketers exploiting a medium meant for communication and turning it into one more TV commercial. Consumers should not have to spend time and effort to block marketers. Consumers do want a choice - given their druthers, most would choose to have no marketing at all.

May 5th, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Skawt - point well taken. That's okay if you disagree with me and are critical. I am so open to that. But you are comments are way off base. Reason being, you are saying the same thing that I am saying. I would also argue that you came off way pissy first, hence my pissiness. LOL

Your second point makes complete sense and I agree with you. It's not just about a conversation; but the content of a conversation. If I come across with a "used car salesman" tone, you are going to see right though it. But if I am truly listening to your concerns and changing the product because of your feedback; that is true relationship building. Dell is doing this with ideastorm.com.

May 5th, 2008 at 2:45 pm

OK, now we can discuss this on a more rational level.

The problem as I see it stems from trying to exploit a medium or service originally designed by techies to be used by technically savvy people as a communications medium. Most people on email, IRC, IM, etc don't like it when they get spammed. They don't like advertising reaching them in a medium where they are essentially trying to carry on a conversation with one ore more people. It's gotten to the point where people's systems are being infected with trojans and spyware to bombard them with advertisements.

What I would really like to see would be instead of advertising, companies reaching out to their potential consumer base and just asking them what they think is wrong with the product, what they like about it, and what the consumer wants to see to make it better. Actual conversation, not talking about having conversations. I've been seeing way too much "talking about talking" and very little actual two-way communication. Do you see what I mean?

May 5th, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Yes, I see what you mean and I agree with you. I would challenge you to read any of my latest posts and see if anything I write is contrary to that. As a direct marketer by trade, I now understand and value the conversational element of social media. A lot of great companies are doing it (Intel w/Openport. Dell, Starbucks, Legos) to name a few.

And while Twitter and other social media communication channels are “used” by “techies” it is becoming more and more mainstream. And btw, I hate “in your face” advertising as much as anyone. Talking about talking is just the first step. Companies now have to walk the walk and start having those valuable two-way interactions.

May 5th, 2008 at 3:22 pm

OK, to elaborate I've seen this "talking about talking" ideology actually going on for several years. It's like circular logic. As a non-marketer, reading it makes techies like me think it's a waste of time. I think what would impress people more would be to actually jump in and participate as users and people first before trying to use the different forms of social media as a way to interact with customers. I think it's pretty basic: "Act like one of us and we'll treat you like one of us."

The techs that design these mediums are also the early adopters. Turn them off, and they'll do everything they can to make the medium as difficult as possible for any advertising or marketing to take place. Techs don't like to waste time when they're working, and when they express their concerns, they don't like to be ignored. Here's a perfect example:

A few years ago I had gotten fed up with Bumble Bee tuna. I had eaten it nearly my entire life because I considered it to be the best. However, over the past decade after it had been acquired by a corporate food conglomerate, the quality control had plummeted. Solid white albacore tuna should not have bones in every can, nor should it be soft and broken up like chunk light tuna. In light of this, I sent a letter to the corporate offices expressing my concerns, and explained that this was the reason I would no longer be buying Buble Bee tuna in the foreseeable future. The response? An envelope full of coupons for Bumble Bee tuna products. Because of this crass cluelessness and unwillingness to listen to customers, I not only don't buy their product, I encourage others not to as well.

I think what it boils down to is that we recognize that we are customers and consumers. But we are also people, and when we are treated like beans for the bean counters rather than people, we're very likely to be very offended by the marketing from the people and companies that don't recognize that important fact.

May 5th, 2008 at 3:27 pm

I'm LOLing at all the buzzwords flying around. Can you guys even hear yourselves? "usher in a more progressive and thoughtful way to listen to customers and engage in meaningful conversation."

I am NOT saying you have the wrong aim and goal. You don't. You've got that right on. Help marketers understand this new "social media" stuff. Right.

But it's HOW you're going about doing it that kills me. Your voice, on your blog, sounds like you're a slimy marketing guy. I know that you're not, but you SOUND that way. Maybe it's because you're trying to relate/talk to other people in the marketing world, and that's the language they speak.

But to the rest of us humans, you sound "hollow, flat, literally inhuman". You're constantly beating the same drum - "social media! marketing! SEO! conversations!"

We GET it. Now how about talking about something INTERESTING!

I think that's what Skawt was saying - "talking about talking". Do you know how to talk about anything else? What do you like to do in your free time? What's your favorite book? Are you married? How did you meet your wife? Got any cool hobbies?

Give us a reason, any reason, to relate to you outside the context of how good you are at "social media" and "marketing" and "conversations". You think you're good at your job. Maybe you are. We get it. But you sound SO arrogant about it! "Read the rest of this awesome post!" *rolleyes*

You're like the guy at the party who only ever talks about his job. Drop yourself down to our level, get some humility, and BE A HUMAN.

We know when you're faking it. We just want you to get down off of your camel and talk with the rest of us humans.

May 5th, 2008 at 3:34 pm

BTW, your poll over in the sidebar is a PERFECT example of what I'm talking about. Who owns "social media"? Why are all the options different names for "marketing"? How skewed is that? What about "the humans"? "The community". "The participants."

It sounds like you're asking "which part of a company should be in charge of social media?" And that misses the point ENTIRELY! It reeks of command and control.

IMO, when "social media" is done right, and isn't just another marketing tactic, no one owns it but the participants. The fact that there's not a poll option that even remotely acknowledges this possibility is a symptom of what I'm trying to tell you.

It's incredibly arrogant and myopic. It's what drives me crazy about marketers.

May 5th, 2008 at 3:40 pm

Here's another example - look at your blog categories:

* Article Marketing
* Blogging
* Community Management
* Conversational Marketing
* Conversational SEO
* Conversion Rates
* Customer Experience
* Google
* In-House SEO
* Integrated Marketing
* Link Building
* MSN
* Online Marketing
* Other Search Engines
* Paid Search
* Search Engine Optimization
* Search Engine Software
* Social Bookmarking
* Social Media
* Social Media Optimization
* Social Media Strategy
* Spamerati
* Uncategorized
* Viral Marketing
* Yahoo

That is Marketing Buzzword Central, dude!

May 5th, 2008 at 3:45 pm

@ Josh, um...who pays your paycheck? I belive it is a marketing org, is it not? So welcome to the club. We're glad to have you.

I also find your extensive use of the word "arrogant" ironic. Have you taken a look in the mirror lately?

Now I don't mean to take this dialogue down a nasty path, but I'm tired of beling villified as a marketer. If we didn't have marketers, none of us would have jobs.

Josh, if you'd like to know more about me you're welcome to visit conversationsmatter.org where I share about my interests in my profile. But since this is a blog about social media--targeting marketing and business folks, not technologists, I might add--it is not an appropriate place for me to discuss how the hospice patient I'm seeing just died or how my 6 year old changed the admin password on his computer at daycare.

I don't think we disagree on most of the crux of this issue, btw. I think we are just prickly to the deragatory language being thrown around and the implication that somehow marketing folks are stupid and arrogant.

May 5th, 2008 at 3:50 pm

@I've learned more about you from conversations in Shanghai and on Twitter than I ever could from a bio page on some website.

And I never said I'm anti-marketing. Of course we need to sell stuff. But are you even listening to what I'm saying, or are you getting defensive and shutting down? There's a RIGHT way to market and a WRONG way. I'm talking about that difference. I'm NOT saying "marketers are evil!".

You're calling me arrogant. That's fair. We should all try to be more humble. But does that make what I say less valid?

And I never said marketing people are stupid. They're some of the most clever people out there. They have to be to continue to exist in a world where people are turning against them, more and more.

May 5th, 2008 at 3:51 pm

That last comment was supposed to start "@ Kelly" - I don't know why the word following the @ got eaten.

May 5th, 2008 at 3:55 pm

Kelly - this is Michael's personal blog. Were you referring to the new site you two launched?

This being Michael's blog, he's free to choose how much or how little of himself to share here. What I'm saying is that sharing a little bit of the human side of yourself gives other people something to relate to. Take off the badge and corporate mask, and let us get to know you. Or don't. But my point was to encourage you, and Michael, and anyone else who reads this to think about what would happen if they DID try to sound more human. Guess my point is getting lost in all the raised hackles. Sorry I even tried.

May 5th, 2008 at 3:57 pm

Why is it important for people to know other human beings that work at Intel?

So they can have conversations with them. With us.

It's impossible to have a conversation with a corporation, company, organization, or any other non-human entity. Do you disagree?

This is why I'm always getting all riled up about sounding human". You can't have a conversation with anything else. And, since this blog and the other new one profess to be all about the conversation, I find it frustrating that the voice of the sites don't sound human.

May 5th, 2008 at 3:58 pm

@Josh

Wow, no one has ever told me that my voice on my blog sounds like a slimy marketing guy or that I am arrogant. And the funny thing is that you never met me. I think the disconnect here is that you are not my target audience. I am in no way trying to please you or relate to you; because there is no possible way to please you anyway. And, your point about my sidebar. My background is in direct marketing; and have since evolved and changed.

"We GET it. Now how about talking about something INTERESTING!"

This is the core of what I write about; it’s my passion. If the blog was about golfing, I would be writing about golfing. And, if you want to get to know me, click about or connect w/me on Facebook, Linkedin if you really care.

Oh, and you may not be a marketer by trade, but you are a marketer. Deal with it.

May 5th, 2008 at 4:04 pm

@ Michael-

The fact that I've never met you means that all I have to base my opinion on is this blog.

And when you tell me "you're not my target audience", that makes me feel like you don't care about what I think, or ever want to make any connection with me. That the only people you ever want to have a conversation are those within your "target audience".

And THAT'S why I say you sound arrogant.

May 5th, 2008 at 4:07 pm

And when you say "I am in no way trying to please you or relate to you; because there is no possible way to please you anyway." that makes you sound kind of childish and petty, too. Can't we all be adults here, and debate the topic?

May 5th, 2008 at 4:15 pm

well, maybe if i didn't feel like I have to defend my blog, my tone, my passion, my ideas; it would be easier for me to open up and converse.

looking back on the comments here .... my blog has been compared to that of masturbating, a circle jerk, I have been called a spammer, that I pester people, a slimey marketing guy, unhuman, arrogant ... and childish.

do you blame me for not really caring about what you have to say? Dude, don't get me wrong, I am not offended in any way. Irritated yes; because your accusations are wrong. You look at my post titles; but have you read any of them?

Excuse the defensiveness; but c'mon ... i wasn't the one who is off topic here.

May 5th, 2008 at 4:29 pm

@Michael

As rude as I might have been, I still stand by the circle-jerk comment. It's crude, and somewhat offensive, but it does accurately describe "talking about talking".

Josh and I are techs; we're cut from the same cloth. We love the shiny high-tech gadgets. What we don't like is being ignored or treated as a number or a pair of eyeballs. Treat us like you would like to be treated.

While it's true that we're not your core audience, this situation does highlight the issue of taking us for granted as potential customers. We may not be your direct focus, but it doesn't mean we can't be interested in what you might have to say - after all, the end result of it is to get us to buy a product. And if you listen to what we have to say, your approach to marketing to us would be much more effective. That's why we get hot under the collar - all too often we get ignored by marketers who think they know better than the consumers and just end up annoying us. We start to wonder if focus groups were even involved int he decision making process, or if it was determined by letting monkeys fling poo at a wall and picking what sticks.

May 5th, 2008 at 4:35 pm

Yes, I read your posts. I'm subscribed to your feed. Here's what this one says, right above us:

"Please stop by and let me know what you think. Feedback, criticism and praise would be greatly appreciated."

I'm giving you feedback and criticism. I'm not trying to attack you personally, but I'm trying to make a point. I can understand you feeling defensive. I'm saying things that make you uncomfortable. But the reason I'm saying them is not to attack you. I promise.

I've been doing this "social media" stuff since before it was even called that. Years and years. I know how to connect with people and build community. I know how to use those skills in marketing - to build an audience, share information, etc. I know what I'm doing. One of the reasons I'm getting so frustrated is that I wish I'd get a little respect for the things that I know and have done. I'm not the new kid on the block here.

I just noticed something - your voice became human in these comments. You're talking like yourself. You're letting your feelings show through. We're having a conversation.

I know it's hard to preserve that "human" voice when you go to write a blog post. I struggle with that, too. I always ask myself "how can I write this so that it doesn't sound like a press release, or something written by the marketing committee". I don't always succeed. I probably succeed less often than I think I do.

But I try, because I really, truly, fundamentally believe that I should sound like a human when I write. Because I know that if I don't, it's a lot less likely that people are going to want to have a conversation with me. And the reason I write, on my blog, on Twitter, for ISN, or wherever else, is to have those real conversations. To make those real connections with other people. It's what I live for. I believe it's the RIGHT way to market to people - connecting with them with respect, humility, and in my very own human voice.

Another reason I get so frustrated with how Intel and other companies are using/abusing/exploiting "social media" is that they use the same old command and control techniques, and treat it just like it's another channel or medium for them to deliver their message into my brain.

It's an antagonistic view. The terminology is military, brutal, warlike. Tactics, strategy, campaigns. I am NOT a target. I resent being "targeted". I am a human being. Connect with me. Converse with me. I'm telling you how you (collectively) can do that. And I get pissed off when I'm ignored, and still treated like a target or just another set of eyeballs.

Conversations matter because they build relationships. Links between people. And as you build more and more of those links, you start getting something really, really cool and powerful and worthwhile - community. To me, that's the golden ring.

But it's possible to do things that hurt those connections, and thus hurt the community. Talk down to people. Target them. Treat them like nothing more than recipients for the message you want them to get. Don't listen to them.

And on a more subtle level, you can do things that don't necessarily hurt the connections and the community, but don't do anything to build them, either. Things like being boring or uninteresting. Not providing any human surface area for people to connect to.

In my opinion, that middle ground is the most dangerous place to be. It's where we (and I'm definitely including myself) get complacent, lazy, and (yes, I'm going to say it), arrogant.

I'm sorry this whole thing spiraled into whatever it was. It's not fair of me to judge you as a person based solely on what you write on your blog, and I apologize for any offense that was given.

I'd like to get to know you better - to connect with you in a meaningful way. But I'm frustrated because I can't find much human surface area to attach to. It's all business and marketing. So I guess what I've been trying to say, and ask for, is for you to provide me (and others) a little more of your human voice, so we can build a better connection.

Does any of that make sense? Or am I really just crazy, and talking nonsense? I feel that way sometimes...

May 5th, 2008 at 4:38 pm

P.S. - I think that I really am your target audience, in the sense that you work on how Intel can connect with technology consumers. I am the biggest technology consumer I know, and my network is full of hundreds of others.

I'm offering myself as a guinea pig for you to work on how to build connections through conversation with people like me.

And then you can take what you've learned and teach it to other marketers.

Everybody wins!

May 5th, 2008 at 5:35 pm

@Josh
"One of the reasons I'm getting so frustrated is that I wish I'd get a little respect for the things that I know and have done. I'm not the new kid on the block here."

Josh, have you ever considered the reason you lack respect is your voice? You come across as condescending when you discuss how you invented...I mean...discovered social media before anyone else. Yes, there must always be a pioneer. And thank you for your efforts in that arena. But noone will take you seriously when you continue to tout your position as social media guru (even if you don't use the words) and talk (or throw around labels like arrogant) at people instead of with people. That's what makes this dialogue so ironic. You're doing exactly what you claim to abhor.

So let's take this conversation out of the mudslinging ring and remind ourselves we are all human. Noone has a monopoly on how/when social media is used--that includes techies, which I consider myself to be as well, to a point. This should not be an "us vs. them" debate. We all want the same thing here.

And in response to your question...no this isn't my blog. But I decided to join the juicy conversation. I think that's allowed, isn't it?

May 5th, 2008 at 7:17 pm

Kelly- I hadn't ever considered that my voice comes across as condescending. I certainly don't try to be like that - I try to maintain humility, but apparently I don't do that as well as I thought.

Do you really feel like I'm arrogant, condescending, and taking undue credit for things, acting like I invented social media? Wow. I didn't expect that from you. You've never given me any indication you feel that way before. I guess I should be glad that I found out now. It really hurts my feelings, and disturbs me deeply.

I struggle a lot with Intel's whole culture of fighting to take credit for yourself. The whole stab your coworkers in the back, step on their heads so you get rated better at Focal. I always felt like I was having a hard time taking enough credit for the things that I did. I had no idea that people felt like I was taking too much or all of the credit. I'm sorry for that. This is the first time someone has brought it up. I'll try to do better.

In Intel's history of social media usage, I took risks (not ALL of the risks), did work (not ALL of the work), and pushed hard to teach people at Intel about how to use these new tools. Do I get to take some credit (not ALL of the credit) for it? Can you tell me how much credit you think I should get? Or have you told me already?

If I could, I'd let the rest of Intel be the sole judge the worth of my contributions. But that's not how Intel works - if I don't take credit for things I have done, no one else will heap credit or praise upon me. They're all too busy taking credit for things themselves, so they fare well at Focal time. That's been drummed into me the whole 8 years I've been there.

Now my gnawing self doubt and self loathing are acting up. Excuse me while I go and do some soul searching. And write a blog post asking other people to help me figure out how arrogant and condescending I am or now, but I'm really bothered about it now...

May 5th, 2008 at 8:11 pm

I have decided to close the comments on this post. While I respect everyone’s opinion, I believe that emotions were getting the best of a few of us involved (including me); and sometimes emotions will cause us to say things we don’t really mean.

Thanks for understanding and contributing to this blog.