“5 strategies for a captivating social media conversation”

Oh brother.  This is the kind of “approach” that is like scraping a blackboard to my sense of “conversation” as “envisioned” by the marketing oriented “social media experts”.  The quote below reveals for me the problems in this . 

So here we are at strategy No. 4 and I’m just now getting to the idea of participating in the social space.

We’re down to “number 4” to talk about “getting to the idea of participating”?  He unwittingly uses the exact language that reveals that this is a big problem.  It’s “using” conversation.  it is “playing participant”.  If we have to pretend to be conversant,  we aren’t being conversant. And if we have to “play” ,  we have no business saying we want to encourage conversation.  What we’re  doing is seeking traffic.  It’s the equivalent of “getting butts in the pews”.  It’s the numbers game.  I don’t eschew “numbers”.  But we have to know by now that if this is what we seek  first,  then we inevitably  end up sacrificing authenticity. 

I am so sick of organizations gushing about how excited they are to engage in Social Media” and “to be a part of the conversation”,  and then their “places” online where all this “conversation” is taking place is treated like a billboard to place  ads,  or “tacked on” to a Web space where it seems we are “invited in” and then left to “start something” while the site’s keepers shuffle off into the tasks of figuring out how to bring more eyeballs and page views to other areas of the site.  Social Media is used  as an avenue to place links  to their “real content”,  which usually ends up being right back at their linear , one way content. 

5 strategies for a captivating social media conversation – iMediaConnection.com

Your Facebook fan base (or do we call them "like base" now?) is a highly engaged audience that has publically raised their hand to say they like your products and/or services. Wouldn’t you like to do more with this group? There are many approaches to take these audiences to the next level such as offering mailing lists, surveys, or even member events can get your social audience to the next stage of engagement with you.

Really? Mailing lists?  What is this,  1995?  I’m sure there are still good mailing lists.  But this just accentuates my previous claim,  that most Web organizations can’t seem to break out of the  idea that Social Media is about marketing their same old content,  rather than extending the meaning  of content with new media.  I see organizations designate their reporters as “multimedia reporters”,  but then produce absolutely no multimedia as a part of their reporting.

I had pretty much stopped reading articles with these kinds  of titles,  but thought I’d give one another try.  Now it seems I can ignore these for another 6 months.

I see the problem as VERY BASIC.  “Conversation” in this context is treated like so many of the “shiny new objects” (although it’s not “new” at all.  Just given a sexy new label ( “social media”),  and then slapped on the end of articles or ,  if they’re really proactive,  a question is asked about an article,  then handed over “OK,  discuss”.  And we don’t hear from the organization’s people until the next question.  They are never INVOLVED in the conversation except in the rare instance of stepping in as moderator (which may happen once every 6 months).  It seems organizations consider themselves to be solely in the content churning business (journalistic and news agencies are particularly prone to this trap.)  They end up being too busy with the ongoing chores of updating and content management issues to concern themselves with getting deeper into actual social spaces beyond the usual link back to the traditional linear stuff. Multimedia is perhaps produced once a month,  if that much.  Aggregation is usually limited to choosing two or three blog posts to feature.  And “wallah”.  We’re “social”.  Wow. 

It seems painfully obvious that “conversation” is expected to actually be TWO WAY.  People talk. People listen.  Others talk.  We listen.  We energize the content and spark new ideas,  and come to know people.  I would like to know the people who are the “enablers” of this conversation.  But all too often it’s like we’ve been ushered into a room that’s been set aside for us and left there with the charge to “discuss”.  If you’re  so interested in getting a discussion going,  rather than just  being “thrilled that we’re with you” but not to go so far as to actually be sufficiently  interested  in that conversation to actually join it,  then it is rightfully perceived as a numbers game.