The main issue I hold with this discussion is the misconception of what a conversation is.  A conversation by definition is an exchange of information.  If there’s no exchange, it isn’t a conversation.  If a TV ad tells me to buy a car, I didn’t have a conversation with that ad.  The ad spoke at me and i probably didn’t listen because I’m not in the market to buy a car.  Referring to a brand whose strategy includes broadcasting marketing messages through social media channels as a brand attempting to ‘join the conversation’ seems inaccurate.  It isn’t a conversation at all.  I might follow @reuters on Twitter.  The account “tweets” Reuters stories.  It doesn’t follow, it doesn’t respond.  This isn’t a conversation between me and Reuters, and I don’t think that just because it’s on Twitter, a social networking service,  makes it any more of an attempt at a conversation.

I don’t necessarily believe you can equate an offline conversation to an online conversation, either.  An offline conversation is generally one to one or one to a few.  Online conversations are often defined as one-to-many but that isn’t exactly accurate either, it implies broadcasting from one person to many people.  The unique aspect of an online conversation is that it is possible to have a one-on-one conversation that is then seen and read by many.

This doesn’t dilute the value of a one-on-one conversation, it just make it public.  This is a huge opportunity for a brand as it allows the success of a meaningful one-on-one conversation to potentially influence the majority who are just listening.

Take, for example, a presidential candidate who travels to small town Iowa to have dinner with a family of four.  It seems like that candidate’s time could be better spent holding a rally with far more people, but then the media picks it up and now millions of people hear about how a candidate took time out of their busy campaign to sit down and have dinner with 4 people in rural Iowa.  They must care!  It’s a similar strategy.

Which brings me to my next point, social media is a stage.  People create and critique as a form of expression and to be seen and heard.  A recent eMarketer study shows that 85% of social media users think companies should interact with their consumers through social media.  Users want to know that brands are hearing what they have to say.  They don’t necessarily need a brand to interact with them specifically, but they want to know they are there and interacting with others.  Conversing with just one customer can show countless others that a brand is listening.

And it is listening that seems to be lost in this mix.   One of the most important traits of a good conversationalist is the ability to listen.  How can you exchange information if one or both of the participants are not listening?  It doesn’t work and that’s not a conversation.  What’s great about social media is a brand has the ability to listen in on all kinds of conversations.  Listen for questions, calls for help, complaints on forums, social networks and blogs.  Customers aren’t afraid to voice their opinions.  Identify who’s talking about you, where they’re at, and what they’re talking about.  Then get in there and exchange some information.  Continue your approach in an organized way, be responsive, be transparent, and most importantly LISTEN.  Remember that a conversation is an exchange.

Thankfully, she was found safe a few days later (turns out she had run away and was not abducted). End of story, right?

Not exactly. In an effort to protect her privacy (and not have the incident “follow” her for the rest of her life), people are being asked to remove any mentions of the incident, the child’s name, as well as photos, etc. – essentially, an attempt to give this child a “clean slate”.

A totally understandable request (which is why I haven’t linked to any of the aforementioned content), but therein lies the problem. The web is a hydra of information, and every piece of content posted online – every blog post, photo, status update, video, tweet, comment, etc. must now be treated as permanent, decentralized record. Even if something is deleted, odds are that the information has been archived and/or reposted elsewhere and will no doubt be discovered in the future. Not a big deal for the average “joe the plumber” (oops, scratch that…), but you never know when something like a moment of, say, teenage indiscretion can come back to haunt you later in life when going for a job interview, running for office, etc.

Censorship versus Privacy versus Slander

I’ve identified the following types of social media “messes” that we will all need to face at some time. If you can think of other categories, definitely drop me a tweet or post a comment:

1. Censorship – Attempt to wipe out or suppress the creation of any factual information that may harm the reputation of a person or organization. See China and Scientology.
2. Privacy – Attempt to protect the personal information of an individual that can put their identity or safety at risk. An example would be a crazed fan posting a celebrity’s email address, phone number, social security #/credit card info, location of schools attended by children, etc.
3. Slander/Libel – Attempt to challenge/rebut damaging (let’s assume false) information posted by an individual or a in more organized, calculated manner. But whether something is considered libel or slander is up for debate.

A Social Media “Fixer”?

So, how do you deal with/clean up a social media mess? Like the Harvey Keitel character in “Pulp Fiction”, could there exist a social media “fixer”, i.e., someone who can clean up a social media “mess”? That would be virtually impossible. Sure, there are plenty of companies out there who tout “reputation management” services, but those are more ongoing/proactive and often involve trying to “bury” the offending information in search results.

I’ll admit, these are somewhat uncharted waters and my analysis may be way off base but this is pretty eye-opening issue. Please don’t take this to mean we must all fear social media, but rather that we must understand how to co-exist with it (and if done properly, embrace it) and choose to accept the consequences of the actions by both ourselves and others (and have a strategy in place to deal with any future social media “messes”). Come on, we were all young and stupid once…