Here is Elizabeth Gilbert, author of Eat, Pray, Love talk about creativity, fear, genius and fairy juice at TED.
Too much and too personal to talk about, but if you’re one of those people who ever had or wanted to write or create something, you’ve got to watch it, and… olé to you!
http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf
PR practitioners talk of engagement and conversation. PR academics talk of relationship management and dialogue. Everybody agrees that this is what PR should be doing: building relationships with publics by engaging them in conversations.
So we see organizations eager to engage with publics, and a lot of PR-motivated conversations out there. Some conversations happen between faceless organizations and publics, and others, in Cluetrain Manifesto fashion, between people who work for organizations and publics.
But, can we have too much conversation?! Is it possible that these PR engagement and relationship building efforts are flooding society with too much conversation?
PR-motivated conversations and the resulting relationships, however beautiful and friendly and useful the might be, do not come from the heart. They are not relationships motivated by care and affection. As much as we hate to admit it, they are relationships motivated by ROI.
So what happens to a society flooded with corporate, or PR conversations?
The worst case scenario, from the PR perspective, is that those conversations are discarded as spam and unwanted noise. We already have plenty of that.
The best case scenario, from the PR perspective, is that those conversations become seamlessly weaved in the fabric of everyday conversations and relationships (the kind motivated by care and affection).
But what does this best case scenario mean for society?
I’m afraid it might lead to a society that blurs the lines between personal and commercial in ways that privilege consumerism to a dangerous degree. (You’ll tell me that in these economic times there’s nothing wrong with consumerism. I’ll tell you that as much as consumerism runs this country, there’s more to life and to human beings.)
I’m afraid it might lead to a society where trust in people and relationships is eroded. I can imagine becoming “real” friends with @Person_from_corporation, and feeling affection and care. But are my affectionate interactions with this person measured at the end of the month, do they become data points in ROI reports?
So what I’m asking is, is it possible that the PR drive for engagement and relationships will lead to too much conversation?
Should we be engaging in conversation with publics all of the time, in all contexts?
When should we just keep quiet, stay out, and encourage the ongoing conversation by NOT joining it?
Today I participated in a roundtable discussion about social media in politics hosted by South Carolina Congressman Bob Inglis, who wanted to learn more about what social media tools to use, how, and when. Here is a summary of my opening remarks.
=== I brought to the table two main issues I hoped we would consider during the conversation:
1. The impact of social media on politics. I believe social media has the potential to facilitate and enhance the democratic process by empowering people. Social media empowers people not only because it grants them quick access to information, but especially because social media makes it easy for people to find others with similar interests, organize, apply pressure, and take action – all in a matter of hours.
2. Expectations related to social media. There is a specific set of expectations that have arisen around social media: expectations of authenticity, transparency, speed, engagement, dialogue, and conversation. At the same time, there is a perception that social media is “cool,” that it is the cutting edge, that everyone is using it, and that if you are not using it, you are left behind. This leads to many individuals and organizations (and I tend to think of our political representatives and other public figures as organizations, or institutions) using social media in a move that very much resembles jumping on the bandwagon.
So I advise people to consider some important questions before they start using social media professionally. The most important of those questions is : WHY? (and no, “why not?” is not a sufficiently wise answer).
WHY do you (want to) use social media? What do you hope to accomplish? How can it help you reach your goal, in this case, how does it help you better represent your constituents? How can you use social media to facilitate the democratic process? To listen? To help people form informed opinions? Do 140-character snippets do justice to explaining the complex issues we face? Also important is to ask:
WHO do you leave out?
Although I’m not aware of any reliable data about twitter demographics, given the constant online presence, I assume that twitter users tend to be relatively more affluent and relatively better educated. They are people who already consume a lot of information, who form and share opinions, and are active participants in the democratic process. By engaging with them on twitter, who do you leave out? You might risk leaving out the constituents who need you most.
Take a look at this article about the use of twitter in politics on Yahoo! Technology. Read the comments. The overwhelming majority ask “what is twitter?” “what is this article about?!” – which shows that even among people who are online, very few of them are aware of twitter or are twitter users.
So, it becomes very important to consider carefully the composition and information behaviors of your target audience before deciding if and how to engage them.
Of course, a related question is that of time and resources. Social media requires long term, sustained engagement. Do you have the time and resources required for that, and if you do, is that the best use of resources? ===
As I come across other accounts of this meeting, I will add links to this post to provide you with a more complete picture of what was discussed. I do remember Geno Church from Brains on Fire offering Rep. Inglis the same advice I give my students: “Don’t twitter before coffee and after beer.” 🙂
Please note that my participation in this roundtable does not signify any political endorsement of people or ideas. I am a teacher, and when someone wants to learn, I am happy to help. I am also eager to step out of the ivory tower whenever I get a chance!
I’ve been invited to participate in a roundtable discussion about the role social media should play in politics. The session is hosted by South Carolina congressman Bob Inglis (here’s his twitter stream).
The roundtable was inspired by the recent press coverage such as this:
“Audiences usually treat presidents to a round of polite applause, but when President Obama addressed House Republicans on Tuesday, they started Twittering.” (read entire article)
I know where I stand, but, in the spirit of social media, I was wondering if I can be your voice at this roundtable. Do you have any thoughts, ideas, wishes, requests, or advice that I can convey on your behalf?
Do you want your congressmen and senators on Twitter? How would you like them to use or not use Twitter?
How about other social media?
I just love this ad:
Learning how people learn and then customizing education to fit their needs – we need to recognize that learning today might not be what it was back when people looked to the teacher for all information and guidance.
How do you learn? How does learning happen for you, naturally, outside of the requirements of school? Tell me a story of when you wanted to learn something and you learned it. What motivated you? What did you do to learn? How did you learn? Did you learn? Is that knowledge still with you?
There’ve been several discussions -which I’m too lazy to link to- about twitter: What it is, what it should be, the right/wrong way of using it, who you should follow, who you should unfollow, and most recently, how to measure authority (whatever that is: influence? credibility? trustworthiness?)
I resist any attempts at defining the right way to use twitter and I urge you to do the same.
The right way is that there shouldn’t be one right way.
It all comes down to the way you view the world:
Possible worldview #1: The world is complex, pluralistic, and fragmented; there are multiple voices and multiple truths. People construct their worlds through communication.
Possible worldview #2: The world can be reduced down to a few simple laws, rules, and patterns. There is one truth out there waiting to be discovered.
If #2 is your worldview, then you will keep looking for the “right” way to use twitter, and for the right way to define and measure authority.
However, if you see the world as in #1, you will agree that different groups and subgroups will create different cultures around twitter, and will use it in different way. You may also agree that a person who has authority in one group doesn’t have it in another group, because each group has different criteria for authority, and in some group the concept doesn’t even exist or matter.
To me, the beauty of social media is that it is fluid, pluralistic, multivocal, fragmented, and chaotic. Yes, it’s very postmodern, and that’s the way I like it. I see no need to impose strict authoritative definitions. Once these definitions are imposed and accepted, twitter becomes them – because that’s how we construct our world through communication.
And the problem is, that once something is constructed and accepted, it becomes reified – it becomes a hard, immutable, taken for granted truth. We forget there was a time when it was open to negotiation and discussion and we continue to live with it, to obey its definitional authority, even when it doesn’t serve our purposes any longer.
To avoid this, I’d rather we keep the world of twitter fluid, complex, and pluralistic, and that we don’t agree on any one definition or right way. Rather, let us enjoy the multiple worlds and villages we’ve built around twitter, and celebrate the fact that my twitter might not be your twitter, and that’s the beauty of it.
You are invited to the …. Holiday party …
Wednesday, December xx, 7-9 pm
In Romanian culture, mentioning the end time of a party on an invitation is appalling. I mean, if you’re not ready to go all night long, don’t even bother. Mentioning the end time is like kicking people out of your house. Inconceivable. Rude.
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about people’s relationship to time, cultural differences, and the impact they have on relationship building.
I recently reconnected with an Indian friend I hadn’t seen in 10 years. We met for dinner. It lasted 6 hours. We parted ways when we were too tired to keep our eyes open and the restaurant, then the coffee shop, closed, and we had to leave.
I met a Romanian friend I hadn’t seen in a couple of years for dinner the following evening. We hung out for another 6 hours or so. Lots of catching up to do. Lots of on-the-spot decisions: walk in the park? dinner? walk me to my hotel? glass of wine in hotel lobby?
Whenever I meet American friends for dinner, after about 90 minutes they get fidgety, don’t pick up on conversation topics, glance at their watches and then out around the room, their eyes projecting their urge to get going.
When we met for lunch or coffee, the same nonverbal behaviors occur like clockwork, after about 50 minutes.
It seems to me Americans have an internal clock that times their lunch, coffee, and dinner interactions, and when a situation occurs that might mess with that clock, they spell the time limits on the invitation. It’s part of this culture, nothing to blame on anyone. But it doesn’t work for me.
I guess I don’t know how to build relationships under these severe time limits. When I relate to someone, when we have fun talking, I don’t see the reason to stop, I don’t have the same internal timer. I can’t help but be slightly hurt by others’ internal timers, though I know they don’t mean to offend me.
When my husband and I first met, we spent the entire night talking.
So how do you build relationships?
How do you build relationships under strict time limits?
Does your relationship with time affect your relationships with people?
And what happens when you interact with other cultures, either in interpersonal or public relations settings?
Cause honestly, my feeling is, if this culture’s relationship with time were a bit more relaxed, I’d have more friends.
Dr. V 