Positive Online Presence

Readings this week revolved around conversational marketing. I watched the video "Conversational Marketing" and read the article, "Why Conversational Marketing Requires Fundamental Business Change."

Each of these made me think of on-line personalities that I follow closely. I realized that I continue to follow these figures because they adhere to the three items that the second article says are required for conversations on-line with consumers.

Conversations must be:

1. On-going
2. Two-way
3. Authentic

A personality and businessman that I follow is Gary Vaynercuk. Gary started off in the wine business, but now touts his social media skills and advice across the country. He seems to be making a healthy living with this, but throughout it all, he adheres quite strictly to each of the three above rules. He continuously talks about being genuine in business and, quick to address issues personally, does anything that is possible to please his customers (I have read many positive stories about his business' excellent customer service quality).

If you ever want to check out a guy that knows how to handle himself and cares for his customers (on-line and otherwise) like no other, look up Gary Vaynerchuk. And if you want to watch some fun videos of his wine ultra-unique wine tastings, check out Wine Library TV. It's definitely not low on energy.

• Conversational Marketing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y94Tv_b6h7g

• Why Conversational Marketing Requires Fundamental Business Change: http://www.allbusiness.com/marketing-advertising/marketing-advertising-overview/12600515-1.html

Firefox to the Nth power

Crowdsourcing, the use of an open-call by a company to many individuals, has exploded in recent years. As with many other breakthroughs of late, this can also chalk its existence up to The Internet (yes, capital letters).

Computer technologies and the web have created an environment that allow for people to contribute to projects and ideas simply because they are personally interested (or from some other enticing means), and not because they are paid by the employer to do so. To get started, the video "Crowdsourcing" with Jeff Howe is a great tutorial.

Having now learned what crowdsourcing is and how incredible its potential can be, Mr. Dan Woods' article flipped me on my head. His article, The Myth of Crowdsourcing, proposed that crowdsourcing is far less important and groundbreaking that it is made out to be. In fact, he states there is no "crowd" at all. From Dan:

There is no crowd in crowdsourcing. There are only virtuosos, usually uniquely talented, highly trained people who have worked for decades in a field. Frequently, these innovators have been funded through failure after failure. From their fervent brains spring new ideas. The crowd has nothing to do with it. The crowd solves nothing, creates nothing.

So there's no crowd at all? Only "virtuosos"? The more I think about it, the more I can see how this could be. When was the last time I posted something to wikipedia? Never (not counting the one time for extra credit for class). Created a new software code? Never. I would only contribute if it were something that strikes home with me.

Open-calls to "crowds" do seem to create an atmosphere in which people are more inclined to contribute. Though it seems the only ones that step up are those that are already invested in the matter in some way. I'll remember that next time I'm on Wikipedia.

Crowdsourcing by Jeff Howe

The Myth of Crowdsourcing by Dan Woods

Week 1 post

For this week's blog, I read the articles "Six Degrees of Lois Weisberg" and "Clive Thompson on Real-World vs. Social Networks vs. Facebook 'Friends.'" The "Six Degrees" article retold the idea of six degrees of separation through the life of a woman names Lois Weisberg. While reading this article, I found an interesting point was raised which I have included below:

Granovetter, by contrast, argues that what matters in getting ahead is not the quality of your relationships but the quantity -- not how close you are to those you know but, paradoxically, how many people you know whom you aren't particularly close to.

This idea is perhaps more poignant for me at this point in my life, as I am fully immersed in a full-time job hunt. The idea that I could be talking to less helpful people than others simply by speaking those who are close to me is intriguing. Going forward, I may start to rekindle old ties to see what opportunities may reveal themselves.

The Clive Thompson article posed a very different thesis. The author wrote about the rising trend of "reality mining." In this case, real life situations (in the workplace, for example) are analyzed - or "mined" - to determine possible inefficiencies. I have always found this type of analysis very interesting (e.g. the idea of removing inefficient physical movements in an operating room). I had not considered that this could be happening in a work environment, but upon reading this article it became immediately obvious. I couldn't help but to think of my first day of work, or even my first few weeks of work - I couldn't have possibly been a more inefficient worker. This, multiplied across large companies, multiplied throughout the entire workforce, becomes a staggering thought. I leave you with this food for though: Were this inefficient workplace curve to be even slightly lessened, can you imagine the increased output of companies worldwide?

Here we go

Welcome, everyone! I am Austin, an MBA student at the Kogod School of Business. I am writing this blog for my latest class, Social Networking, Social Media and Web 2.0. I'll be making weekly posts, so check back often. Here's to the social media revolution!

On my honor, all posts on this blog are my own.