Question
Are you influenced by any of the "top ten influencers in social media" according to Forbes?
Answer
No. Besides Scoble (first-to-market gadget test-drives) I have no idea what the USP (Unique Selling Proposition) of any of the others is. The names of Brogan and Vaynerchuck are familiar, but I am only dimly aware of what they are about. But that's it.
I think the problem with almost all these people from the Forbes top 50 social media list is that they enjoy a Paris Hilton variety of celebrity-hood: famous for being famous.
The actual things they all say tends to be a blur of fairly bland consensus. When I stop to pay attention to any specific thing, I invariably find myself disagreeing fairly violently.
I do think a lot of them are sincere (i.e., not all of them are social media douchebags (SMDs)), but I don't entirely get what they are all so sincere about. It seems like they're all sincere about a loose tag cloud of words/phrases like community, openness, empowerment, tribes, engagement etc. etc. When I occasionally read what they say, I imagine these sincere social media experts (SSMEs, as opposed to SMDs) having conversations over drinks at conferences that go something like this:
SSME #1: The real problem today is that there is resistance to openness
SSME #2: Yes, people just aren't used to network thinking. They still have those command-and-control mindsets.
SSME #1: And of course, there is fear of real empowerment.
SSME #2: I have to push back on that. There are some real tribal leaders out there who are secure in their own identities, who are not afraid to let go
SSME #1: But can they drive engagement beyond their tribes, that is the question
SSME #2: I agree, but only time will tell whether they are all about the conversation or whether they just like to hear themselves talk.
I've actually heard conversations like this on a couple of panels. They make me want to pull my my hair out, shove a pencil into my brain via an ear (Lewis Black (comedian) style) and scream, "WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT? IS THIS SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE?"
I think of this world as "all adjectives and verbs, no nouns." Sound and fury signifying nothing. They are kinda like the middle management of the non-consumer social Web. The only guy I sort of take seriously is Problogger Darren Rowse because he is about something (his social-media punditry is a side-gig to his Digital Photography School blog, though that may have changed).
At the top are the executive management types (people who actually have obvious power on the social Web, like Zuckerberg or Mullenweg... it is hilarious that the latter isn't in the top 10, he can send earthquakes through the entire social media world by doing simple things to WordPress).
At the bottom are the subset of the D-list types who use the Social Web to do something other than talk about the Social Web (I put myself in this category; I am mortally afraid of being promoted to the social media A-list. I prefer the D-list, where there is some hope that my life will amount to something other than talking about a tag cloud of adjectives and verbs.
It's similar to the way I was mortally afraid of being promoted to middle management while I worked in the corporate world).
Perhaps there is something deeply meta in using the Social Web to talk about the Social Web, but I suspect there is a spiral of recursive self-reference here that is ultimately vacuous. Perhaps the SMDs are actually the smart ones, because they recognize this vacuity and try to exploit it, rather than taking it seriously and talking earnestly and sincerely about it.
I think the problem with almost all these people from the Forbes top 50 social media list is that they enjoy a Paris Hilton variety of celebrity-hood: famous for being famous.
The actual things they all say tends to be a blur of fairly bland consensus. When I stop to pay attention to any specific thing, I invariably find myself disagreeing fairly violently.
I do think a lot of them are sincere (i.e., not all of them are social media douchebags (SMDs)), but I don't entirely get what they are all so sincere about. It seems like they're all sincere about a loose tag cloud of words/phrases like community, openness, empowerment, tribes, engagement etc. etc. When I occasionally read what they say, I imagine these sincere social media experts (SSMEs, as opposed to SMDs) having conversations over drinks at conferences that go something like this:
SSME #1: The real problem today is that there is resistance to openness
SSME #2: Yes, people just aren't used to network thinking. They still have those command-and-control mindsets.
SSME #1: And of course, there is fear of real empowerment.
SSME #2: I have to push back on that. There are some real tribal leaders out there who are secure in their own identities, who are not afraid to let go
SSME #1: But can they drive engagement beyond their tribes, that is the question
SSME #2: I agree, but only time will tell whether they are all about the conversation or whether they just like to hear themselves talk.
I've actually heard conversations like this on a couple of panels. They make me want to pull my my hair out, shove a pencil into my brain via an ear (Lewis Black (comedian) style) and scream, "WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT? IS THIS SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE?"
I think of this world as "all adjectives and verbs, no nouns." Sound and fury signifying nothing. They are kinda like the middle management of the non-consumer social Web. The only guy I sort of take seriously is Problogger Darren Rowse because he is about something (his social-media punditry is a side-gig to his Digital Photography School blog, though that may have changed).
At the top are the executive management types (people who actually have obvious power on the social Web, like Zuckerberg or Mullenweg... it is hilarious that the latter isn't in the top 10, he can send earthquakes through the entire social media world by doing simple things to WordPress).
At the bottom are the subset of the D-list types who use the Social Web to do something other than talk about the Social Web (I put myself in this category; I am mortally afraid of being promoted to the social media A-list. I prefer the D-list, where there is some hope that my life will amount to something other than talking about a tag cloud of adjectives and verbs.
It's similar to the way I was mortally afraid of being promoted to middle management while I worked in the corporate world).
Perhaps there is something deeply meta in using the Social Web to talk about the Social Web, but I suspect there is a spiral of recursive self-reference here that is ultimately vacuous. Perhaps the SMDs are actually the smart ones, because they recognize this vacuity and try to exploit it, rather than taking it seriously and talking earnestly and sincerely about it.