SocialSphere, Inc.

You are here:
Home Blogs Todd's Blog Time to Rethink our Role Models?
Time to Rethink our Role Models?
Tuesday, 06 January 2009

When Apple came clean about Steve Jobs health, the tech community (and Apple shareholders) breathed a sigh of relief. The tech stock had almost broken $200 in December of 2007, but just prior to the announcement, it was trading as low as $85. It jumped $10 on the news. There were a lot of reasons for the gradual price drop over the last year--Steve Job's health was just one of many factors that went into the pricing, factors which also included a leveling off of iPod sales and general economic concerns. Despite the short-term gains, as blogger Matthew Ingram writes (links are his), "Apple's wishy-washy approach to this whole issue over the past few months raises more questions about the company's credibility than it answers."

Apple is one of many companies that the tech community--especially the social media community--holds in high esteem. While they do make very cool gadgets, they consistently violate rule after rule when it comes to social media and community engagement. They run the most secretive marketing machine in the industry, by far. The very idea of community engagement runs against the "be cool" theme that permeates the Apple culture; after all, how could the masses know what's best for the elite Apple users? I was actually pleasantly surprised to learn from a quick scan inside the iTunes Store that the company that sued to protect the name "podcast" actually does produce a few podcasts, but it certainly doesn't blog, and transparency is definitely not the mantra you'll hear repeated inside the hallowed halls of One Infinite Loop.

And here's the kicker: Apple is not alone. Many of the companies that we in the social media community idolize blatantly disregard many of the basic standards that we've tried to put in place.

Facebook for instance, which has access to one of the largest and most active user communities in social networking history, flagrantly went against the wishes of a very vocal segment of members when it re-designed the site. Facebook had an incredible opportunity to crowdsource the design elements and features, but I am unaware of any attempt to solicit feedback on the design. (For a point of reference, the Facebook group "1,000,000 AGAINST THE NEW FACEBOOK LAYOUT!" actually has 2.7 million members, while the group "Barack Obama (One Million Strong for Barack)" currently boasts under a million.)

Twitter, which bathes in the same pop star glow that some people reserved for Second Life a year ago (and which others fear may share the same fate), also came under criticism for not reacting quickly enough after coming under fire from phishing attacks and the hacking of 33 celebrity Twitter accounts (including Fox News, Britney Spears, Rick Sanchez and yes, Barack Obama). Twitter did issue post about the attacks late on Monday--on a blog that doesn't allow comments.

Finally, let's take a look at everyone's favorite, Google. Sure, the stock dropped from an incredible $714 just a year ago to a measly $333 at the time of writing. Sure it can't hold on to its social media mavens, who seem to have taken a liking to Facebook. Sure, despite the best efforts by supporters including Jeff Jarvis, consensus is building that Google is violating its "Don't Be Evil" rule. Nevertheless, Google is still innovating. Despite all these innovations, Google also remains a very closed shop. It also sports a commentless blog. It has a tendency to absorb and the silence companies (I'm still waiting to see what happens to GrandCentral, which I use extensively). Analyst Jeremiah Owyang says that Google may be slowly coming out of its shell, social media-wise, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Transparency and responsiveness are two hallmarks of social media and whatever current Web revision you claim to be operating in. Yet four of the most talked about companies in today's tech sector practice very little of it. Is it time for the companies to change? Is it time for us to rethink the rules and standards that we like to apply to everyone? Or is it time for us to reevaluate our role models?

Trackback(0)
Comments (5)add
...
written by laurent , January 30, 2009
The striking point of the companies you choose is that they all are in a position of monopoly and have experienced huge success, people love them (well they say they do, but the back channel shows clearly that we also hate them).
In such position of power, the danger is complacency. I remember, back 10+ years ago when I was at HP and we were experiencing huge business success, Lew Platt, CEO at the time, saying: "all is good but one thing worries me: We're getting complacent" - He was breathing MBWA so he knew what he was talking about.
When a company (well it's people) become complacent, it distances itself form its customers because it thinks the customers have no choice. Why do they need to change (and social media is a change)? it works for them so they won't.
I think big successful companies are in the worst position when it comes to social media (exception exists with, and I'm not working there, Cisco: http://www.fastcompany.com/mag...-jose.html and others).
Social media requires a shift toward more transparency and responsiveness. My experience talking to clients and others in the field is that smaller companies are getting it because they're willing to try anything and they have younger staff. Bigger companies typically have an older staff whose disconnected from what's going on and they're scared. Bigger companies will attempt to show that they're doing it with big announcement about a but they won't really change the way they operate until they feel the pain. And they will at some point.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Mike Troiano , January 28, 2009
Transparency is a means to an end. It is neither the end, nor the sole means to it. Oddly enough I just finished a post on the "ends" of social media, almost all of which can and are accomplished through other means.

Each of the companies above accomplishes those ends through some means other than "transparency" in the social media sense: The vast majority of Google's revenue comes from it's ability to do one thing very well, and their advantage in that respect is sustained through our ongoing collective participation in the Google algorithm. There's a social driver for you. Twitter's story is similar - the source of their value is not their technical architecture (God knows), but the fact that we all participate in it. Their sole genius beyond the brilliance of the concept itself is in the APIs that empowered a whole ecosystem of companies to extend the experience and bring in new users. Facebook, same deal.

Apple seems to have a unique ability to anticipate rather than respond to our needs. Talent is the engine of that company; and the inconvenient truth is that too much listening and engagement can dilute talent.

Those of us spreading the gospel of social media need to be wary of presenting it as the essential cure-all to every business ill. It's not. It's just a tool in the toolbox that every good plumber needs to understand if not use in every instance.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Todd Van Hoosear , January 28, 2009
Rachel,

You're right to ask that question. It's a VERY smart question to be asking in these days of social media echo chamber reverb.

But I think a new age of customer service--and of customer service expectation--is rising.

I like how Mike Troiano puts it @ http://scalableintimacy.com (referring to the name of his blog): The question is how to you grow your business but not lose touch of the people that made your business what it is. Apple, in one sense, does an okay job, if you don't mind dragging your butt to an Apple Store. Which brings me to the second dynamic: timeliness (or call it laziness).

Expectations are rising that the companies we buy services from will come to us--that we won't have to go to them with our problems. This won't happen overnight, but the shift is definitely taking place. Home Depot does it, so why doesn't Loews? Comcast does it, so why doesn't Verizon? Starbucks does it, so why doesn't Dunkin' Donuts do it? (Actually they DO, at least on Twitter).

Sure, what I'm talking about is Twitter mostly, a very small microcosm in the vast Internet. But mark my words, it will happen. Think about it in terms of relationships: if your significant other doesn't listen to you, how can you carry on a relationship? The classic Microsoft "Break Up" ad is the perfect illustration of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3qltEtl7H8

(Who'd a thunk that I'd be holding up Microsoft as the role model that Google, Facebook and Apple should pay attention to?)

I agree with many of the 2009 predictions that crowdsourcing will begin to really see a big push this year. I'm not convinced that companies know what to do with the input that they're going to seek out there--there need to be some fundamental changes in both IT infrastructure and business management before that happens easily--but I think they're beginning to realize the strategic import of listening.

@HomeDepot didn't solve the problem that I had when I visited their Somerville store, nor could they. But they showed me that they're listening, and that will keep me coming back (well, that and the fact that they're like a half mile from my house).
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Rachel Happe , January 28, 2009
Nice post Todd - this is something that plagues me a bit...which is this - is the importance of being transparent a figment of the desires of a sub-segment of us? Do average consumers really care? Google and Apple both bother me immensely in this regard. I spent a day at Google as an analyst and I must have gotten "well, that's our secret sauce" about 20 times - what did they really think I was going to do? Go out and re-engineer the company?

Not to be a downer, but I wonder about that. I think social media may only be for companies whose first passion is to be useful and valuable to their customer and not to maximize profits. We all have to make money, it's how we pay for the electricity but companies driven to maximize short term profits can do that without building deep relationships.

Something for all of us to think about.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Internet Strategist , January 09, 2009
Major corporations whose focus is on stock prices have never been known for their transparency or responsiveness. Stock prices have so little to do with reality and so much to do with spin that any company whose priority is making money at all costs is unlikely to change.

What could create a far better world would be for consumers to vote with their money and start buying from small businesses whenever possible.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Write comment
smaller | bigger

security image
Write the displayed characters


busy