Tag: Twitter

A Day at the Tour: Social Media Failure, Outrage & Frustration

If you’re one of my Facebook or Twitter friends, you know I love the Tour de France. You probably also noticed how angry I am about ESPN’s Michael Smith laughing online and during his show, Around the Horn, about two cyclists being hit hard by a car on Sunday during stage 9 of the Tour. You can see how hard in the video shown on Dutch TV. No Dutch is required to know what the commentators are saying.

My friend Danielle Hatfield noticed my anger. She also recognized Smith’s behavior as a social media failure for ESPN. Michael Smith tweets as an ESPN reporter. Whether he knows it or not, he represents ESPN online. Danielle’s post, ESPN: When Your Brand Representatives Become a Liability, dives into this further.

How it all began

Here are the tweets Smith sent out to the world on Monday. They have been deleted from his Twitter account. My earlier screen captures can be seen on Danielle’s blog:

  • “For real, am I wrong for laughing at that Tour de France crash? Can’t get over the driver speeding off as if he didn’t know he hit someone!”
  • “I’m sorry that crash is hilarious. Every. Time.”
  • “It had been far too long since I’d angered an entire community. Today I’ve managed offend cyclists everywhere. Guess what? It’s still funny.”

That is how a man with 95,713 followers on Twitter replies publicly when he sees a car at high speed hitting two cyclists, one of whom, Johnny Hoogerland, flew through the air, landed in a barb wire fence and got 33 stitches later that night.

Eben Oliver Weiss at Bicycling magazine summed up the situation: “The true courageous athletes are picking themselves up off the pavement after hitting the road at 25 to 35 miles per hour and finishing a 140 mile ride. Not for high paying endorsements or lucrative contracts, but a true love of a sport and the desire to be there for their team mates.”

Why oh why

You’d think ESPN would love those kinds of heroics. How could Smith be so insensitive? His derision is easily explained. Cycling doesn’t “rate” as a sport in his mind and in the mind of many Americans.

  • Cycling is too European, despite American success. American teams and cyclists are some of the best in the world. Over the last several years the Tour of California has become one of cycling’s premier events attracting the world’s best teams.
  • Cycling is boring. Lots of guys ride in a pack all day and then sprint the last 100 yards to the finish. I used to think baseball was boring, until I understood all its nuances. There’s a lot more to cycling than a novice eye picks up: strategy, history, traditions, unwritten rules, points competitions, specialties, personalities, teamwork, athleticism, grit, courage, heroes and villains.

Maybe Smith doesn’t like cyclists in their spandex outfits on expensive bikes taking up the road. Every community has its share of rude holier-than-thou jerks, including cycling. However, most cyclists are drivers too and they are doing their best to safely share the little road they have.

Backlash

Like any community already feeling maligned and misunderstood, the cycling community responded with shock, then anger. Nancy Toby was the first to rally the troops via her blog and Twitter. The story and anger spread. But the Twitter cycling community is small and currently distracted by the Tour. We’re already spending several hours a day watching and reading about the Tour. How much time is left to fight Michael Smith and his bosses at ESPN?

At first Smith lashed out at his critics saying it wasn’t that serious — they should lighten up or go play in traffic. He proceeded to tweet all day, bantering with his followers about the angry losers. A lot of those tweets seemed to have disappeared too. Many of those “losers” were people who had lost loved ones to cycling accidents or been hit by cars themselves.

Eventually at 10:30 p.m. on Tuesday, an apology was issued: “I apologize for my insensitive remarks re: the TdF crash. I recognize my comments were inappropriate given the serious nature of the crash.”

ESPN has muzzled him. But does he really understand the callousness of his remarks and the influence they might have on his followers? Many in the cycling community continue to ask for his removal. He seems sure that won’t happen.

WilliamsR24: “All of these people attempting to ruin ur life and ur the jerk? It was a joke. Just like these people attacking u. A joke.”

MrMichael_Smith: “thanks man. believe me i’m good. not gonna succeed.”

Lessons

So what’s the moral of this story besides “don’t be a turd?”

Train your ambassadors. Your ambassadors are anyone on staff who blogs, tweets, comments or communicates on a public platform. People assume your organization condones their behavior. Show them how to communicate, especially to critics; don’t assume they already know.

Be constantly vigilant. If ESPN’s PR staff had monitored Smith’s tweet stream, you can be sure they would have stepped in and said, hey, buddy, cool it. But Smith kept going down the ugly path, egged on by his fans.

Examine your personal brand. Maybe ESPN approves of Smith’s style? Maybe, like Anheuser-Busch and Miller/Coors, ESPN thinks their entire market is 22 year-old men who are obsessed with boobs and balls (the athletic kind, of course) — a market that likes Smith’s brand of humor. But what happens when your personal brand finds it way far beyond your loyal fans? How will it play in the mainstream press? What would your mother think?

Funny how? I like dry humor, dark humor and making fun of people as much as the next person, but I know when it’s gone too far. Even Dennis Miller who skewers people with a scary yet brilliant kind of smug satisfaction knows you must think about the consequences of your humor. When you laugh at a potentially tragic and personal event, like cancer or car accidents, isn’t that crossing a line? I think so, especially when you’re a role model of sorts and your behavior might influence others to have the same cavalier attitude toward life and limb.

Respond sincerely. No one believes Smith’s apology. No one thinks he’s changed his attitude. No one believes ESPN cares. I never had an opinion about ESPN; it was just another sports channel I watched. I was neutral. Now, I’ve lost respect.

Campaigns need many voices or big influence. Does the Twitter cycling community have any real voice or power? I fear it doesn’t unless mainstream journalists or celebrities take up the cause. Lance would have been perfect for this, but he’s compromised and has enough of his own problems. ESPN is betting that after a few days, the passion will die down, the pesky Twitter cyclists will go away and all will be forgotten. That’s a shame. I bet the scorn and distaste for cyclists won’t be forgotten by Smith’s 95,713 followers on Twitter. That’s scary.

Another lost opportunity. Wouldn’t it be something if an influencer did get ESPN’s attention, educated their staff and turned an ugly episode into a positive campaign about road safety or cycling as an affordable and fun way to get and stay fit? Paging Chris Horner!

Update: If you’d like to tell ESPN what you think about Michael Smith’s behavior, go to http://espn.go.com/espn/contact. Thanks!

Fear of Being Stupid and Missing Out

Have you noticed a lot of talk lately about the fear of missing out or the fear of missing, well, everything?

Linda Holmes at NPR’s Monkeysee blog wrote about “the sad, beautiful fact that we’re all going to miss almost everything.” We won’t be as well-read as we wish. We won’t read every blog post in our Reader. We won’t see all the major critics’ top ten films of the year. We won’t get to every art museum or art-filled church on our bucket list. It just won’t happen. Can we cope?

I once had that acquisitive consuming desire to read all the classics. It was an ever expanding list fueled by books about reading that each had their own list. Even though I had a great education, I thought I had too many gaping holes in the classical period, so I embarked on my own education program. Yes, if it’s a Greek or Roman classic, I’ve likely read it. But I petered out on that plan after extending it into the medieval age. Looking back I’m glad I did it but it might explain why I was single for so long.

And then there was my presidential biography period. Inspired by C-SPAN2’s Book TV series (oh be quiet, I hear your snickering), I started with George and made it all the way to Millard before losing interest. Honestly, I’d do that one again, but in a more leisurely random manner. And, since I know you’re dying to ask me, George (#1) is my favorite president.

I’m sure I had other reading binges, but I’ve blocked them from my short-term memory, thankfully. I no longer have manias like these, even though I still have that itch to learn, I’m just not as obsessive about it.

Another aspect of this syndrome was described last month by Caterina Fake. She wrote about the Fear Of Missing Out (FOMO) she saw in the tweets of those at SXSW: what if I’m in the wrong place and missing a good party, session or cool person? “Social media has made us even more aware of the things we are missing out on.” How true that is! Yes, we can read the hashtag archive, but that only makes us hungrier to go next year, and what if we can’t? Oh, cursed fates.

Caterina added this fascinating bit, fascinating to me because I practice yoga and we think about these kind of woowoo things: “To be always filled with craving and desire (also called defilement, affliction) is one of the Three Poisons of Buddhism, called kilesa, and it makes you a slave.” Ouch. I read this and thought about Julie of the Julie/Julia project who cooked her way through Julia Child’s Mastering the Art of French Cooking. When I read Julie’s book, Julie and Julia: 365 Days, 524 Recipes, 1 Tiny Apartment Kitchen, (how freaking obsessive is that?) I kept thinking, is that really (still) enjoyable?

People who are new to Twitter are often overwhelmed and turned off by its fire hose of information. I say, dip into the stream for a bit, float around, chat, share some stories and get out. Come back later in the day if you want another dip. Yeah, treasures and trash floated down the river while you were elsewhere. Relax, or as we say in yoga, chillax, there’s plenty more of it upstream. Enjoy your float.

Grumpy Gladwell: Why the Fuss?

Malcolm Gladwell’s recent New Yorker piece, Small Change: Why the Revolution Won’t Be Tweeted, has inspired a lot of kvetching. Why do I need to add my thoughts? Especially when this post is more of a brain dump than a well thought out response? Because many people already have misperceptions about social media and those who use it. I guess I take it a bit personally. I cherish my Twitter communities. I don’t have grand expectations about Twitter — it is what it is, a place to chat, to give and receive. Yes, it can be a catalyst for change — personal, cultural or organizational. I get the sense that Gladwell assigns it roles that it is still growing into, like a teenager.

Gladwell writes, “Where activists were once defined by their causes, they are now defined by their tools.” Really? Who’s defining them that way? Oh, you are, so it must be true. No, activists are still defined by their causes. Tools are tools, nothing more. Tools can help enhance conversation, community, and, yes, causes, but they are still merely tools, used ineptly by some and to great effect by others.

Campaigns have always used the best tools available – theses nailed to doors, letters to the editor, handbills on street corners, flyers stapled to bulletin boards, neighborhood canvassing, phone trees, advertisements, and now Twitter and Facebook pages. There’s always been those who profited by the choice of tools, be it a printer or publisher, or now social media companies.

Gladwell writes about the use of Twitter in Iran or Moldova when they were experiencing political unrest. No matter Twitter’s use or effect there, the buzz resulted in more people outside of those countries paying attention to their troubles. If you were on Twitter during the Iranian demonstrations, you saw an outbreak of green avatars (profile photos), and might have wondered why. If you didn’t read or listen to mainstream media, at least you’d have an inkling of what was happening in Iran if you were curious enough to learn more.

He noted that those involved in “high-risk activism” like the civil rights movement, were more likely to be personally connected to others in the movement. He says, “The kind of activism associated with social media isn’t like this at all. The platforms of social media are built around weak ties…weak ties seldom lead to high-risk activism.”

I agree that weak ties do not usually lead to getting involved in high-risk activism. But weak ties will lead to buzz, familiarity, forming opinions, or donations. I may not commit to real activism, but now I’m aware and may even do something low-risk.

Weak ties can grow into true friendships over time, if people make the effort to develop relationships whether by phone or meeting face-to-face. If not for Twitter, I never would have met the friends I have now in Raleigh. We met and broke the ice on Twitter; hanging out in real life cemented our friendships. I would have lost touch (because I am lousy at phone calls) with my friends in DC and California if not for Facebook. Social media enhances my world of relationships. Yes, I have more shallow friends than deep friends on those networks, but shallow can turn into deep if some effort is put into the relationship.

Gladwell does understand this, “There is strength in weak ties, …. Our acquaintances—not our friends—are our greatest source of new ideas and information.” That’s an important observation. Our Twitter friends bring us diverse perspectives and different resources than what we have around us. That’s one of the reasons Twitter is my most valuable professional development tool.

However then he blows it by saying:

“The evangelists of social media don’t understand this distinction; they seem to believe that a Facebook friend is the same as a real friend and that signing up for a donor registry in Silicon Valley today is activism in the same sense as sitting at a segregated lunch counter in Greensboro in 1960.”

Really? We don’t get that distinction? Who is he talking about? Does he really think that we don’t understand the difference between our types of relationships?

He then points out a critical factor about social media, its lateral network structure as opposed to the traditional vertical hierarchical structure of most organizations. But he adds:

“Because networks don’t have a centralized leadership structure and clear lines of authority, they have real difficulty reaching consensus and setting goals. They can’t think strategically; they are chronically prone to conflict and error. How do you make difficult choices about tactics or strategy or philosophical direction when everyone has an equal say?”

Is this true? Or is this a Boomer way of looking at how new groups work? I don’t know yet. But I can imagine social networks that gather momentum, and spin off leadership groups who strategize off-line via web conferencing, and then leverage their network for action, some low-risk, some high-risk activism. Networks can be a feeder system, recruiting ground and publicity machine. There are more benefits than detriments to this type of organization. By working together, weak online ties can develop into strong personal ties; I’ve seen this happen countless time between association members.

His article, despite my issues with some of his points, is worth reading. It’ll make you think about social media in our society. In making comparisons, he brings us back to one of our history’s shining and troubling times – the civil rights movement. Why does he assume such grand ambitions for social media? It’s changing weekly; it’s barely in puberty. We’re all part of it and we’re still trying to figure it out. You can have expectations and compare it to older ways of community and communication, but if you do that, you’re bound to find ways to be let down. Focus on the good that it can bring to people’s lives. Why be so grumpy, Malcolm?

I Wasn’t Expecting That Reaction

I had a moment of bliss watching The Who perform last night at the Super Bowl halftime. I have loved The Who since junior high and remained an obsessive fan through high school, college and some years beyond – the type that had all their albums plus bootlegs (yes, this dates me), camped out for tickets and knew all kinds of arcane facts about them.

Last night I was just a normal fan grinning ear to ear (and got a bit misty-eyed, I admit) as they played. I didn’t expect a dynamo performance, after all Roger and Pete are well into their 60s, the only survivors of the original four, and can’t quite sing and move like they used to. But, in my opinion, they can still rock — Pete doing his windmill chords and Roger singing with passion. After the bliss and a bit of friendly sparring on Twitter about old rockers, I saw a retweet of this tweet from the National Association of the Deaf:

The phrase in question is from Pinball Wizard, a song from The Who’s 1969 rock opera Tommy. Tommy became blind, deaf and mute shortly after World War 2 and most of the opera took place in the twenty or so years that followed. We will all have different opinions on whether the phrase is offensive or not, whether the context matters or not and, based on that, whether the NAD overreacted or not. I want to concentrate on how the association reacted and what we can learn from that.

Their tweet got a response – about 37 people so far have retweeted or responded to it, most of them with disparaging remarks. NAD is not a complete social media rookie. They created their Twitter account last June and have 1064 followers. They also have an active Facebook page and a blog (no recent updates). Their web site has recent updates about their work with the NFL and CBS “to make advertisers who purchase Super Bowl commercials aware of the importance of captioning their content.” They do important work and are good at it.

This morning I found myself thinking again about their Twitter reaction and some issues it brings up. First, unfortunately, there’s the dreaded control issue. Did the staffer who tweeted have to seek approval before saying “the NAD will take action?” Were they authorized to say that? And if so, how did they manage to get approval so quickly? Or were they just reacting? Does NAD have guidelines for social media use? Do NAD members agree with this reaction? Only three tweets out of the 36 appear to support the NAD position. The members were not there defending them. Could this happen to your association?

And what’s the best response now? They could ignore the whole situation. 36 tweets is by no means a public outcry, although there is the possibility that someone with a much larger following than me could be writing about it right now and bring more attention to it. But more likely it’s only the prickly Who fans who care.

NAD could reply by explaining their reaction and giving us context as to why that reaction makes sense for their community. Perhaps discussing the history of their advocacy, the struggles and victories, and the need to pay attention to how we describe others. Turn it into a lesson for us. That’s hard to do in 140 characters but they could link their replies to a blog post. But 20 hours later, that hasn’t happened.

Let’s assume for a moment and for argument’s sake that this tweet was a mistake. What can we learn from this? We all make mistakes. Twitter is a fairly new evolving communication platform often blending our personal and professional lives – things can get sticky. I reacted as a Who fan, not as an association professional. Perhaps I should have ignored the RT and given them a pass, considering they’re an association and have enough battles to fight. But I couldn’t help but react – it seemed so ridiculous and wasteful to pick a battle with a 41 year old lyric. I can’t stand how litigious our society has become. I understand that sometimes legal action is appropriate, but this seemed over the top to me.

Mistakes will happen. What’s critical is how we follow up and whether we learn from our mistakes. Twitter is a public platform that’s indexed by Google, so there are more eyeballs than you might imagine who can see how you handle a situation. A mistake is an opportunity to do many different things, depending on the situation — make apologies and amends, explain a complicated or controversial issue, make friends or not. How we handle public mistakes will influence the perception that our members and the public have of us. Mistakes also help us learn how to improve our social media practices so we don’t make the same ones again.

Part of what draws us to social networking is the opportunity to learn from each other. Here’s an opportunity to imagine what you would do in their place – what if the tweet got more publicity, how you would handle the situation? How would you have prevented it? Has your association ever made what others thought was a public gaffe, and if so, how did you handle it? What did you learn?

UPDATE February 26, 2009: Thanks to Jessica Sidman at Association & Non-Profit Bisnow newsletter for doing some follow-up reporting for me. She told me about a February 25 blog post (and forthcoming video response) by NAD’s president where she explains their reasons for the Twitter reaction. They definitely did their research on the lyrics and Tommy story. The post is a good explanation with a call to action for their members to remain vigilant and educate others about how the appropriate use of the word “deaf.”

Kudos to them for the well reasoned and written response. How could they have done better? If they had posted their response earlier, it might have captured some Super Bowl momentum, and perhaps some press too. But associations are creaky institutions. We have procedures to follow, reviews and approvals, and maybe even a vote before we can take action. Our governance and departmental processes often prevent us from moving nimbly enough for the social media space.

Twitter – My Moving Experience

When I hear people disparage and dismiss Twitter, I’m compelled to tell them about my experience with Twitter, particularly how it made my move to Raleigh an entirely different (and better) experience compared to my move to Sacramento several years ago.

When I arrived in Sacramento in October 2004 to accept a job at the California Building Industry Association, I didn’t know a soul except for those who interviewed me. Slowly I widened my social circle, but for a long time it primarily consisted of those whose paths I crossed  — work friends and neighbors.

My move to Raleigh had been in the works for a while because my boyfriend is here. To prepare for my move, I started following and chatting with locals on Twitter. By the time I moved here I had dozens of people my Raleigh Twitter network. When I got here, one of them organized a lunch so I could meet him and four other Twitter acquaintances. I had beer and coffee dates with many others. I found my apartment through a Twitter friend, and learned about my hair stylist, shops and social events via Twitter.

Today, just six months later, I find myself with many friends and acquaintances, most of whom are entrepreneurs I first met on Twitter – a stimulating bunch of “grab the gusto” type people. My social calendar is now always full. When I look back and compare this to my Sacramento move, the difference is astonishing. It feels like I’ve lived here longer than six months because of my new network.

Twitter has also given me a circle of professional peers across the U.S. We chat on Twitter, read and comment on each others’ blogs and participate in weekly Twitter chats. Some of us are Facebook friends now too. When I met several of them in real life this past summer at Buzz 2009 and the ASAE Annual Meeting, it was like reuniting with long-lost friends. When you meet someone first on Twitter, you have time to get to know each other, both personally and professionally. By the time you meet, you’re not meeting as strangers but as friends who just haven’t met in real life yet. If this has happened to you, you’ll know what I mean by a Twitter hug — it happens all the time.

The tweets of those I follow have led me to blog posts and other resources I wouldn’t have known otherwise. Our twitter chats allow us to discuss successful practices and cutting-edge ideas. Twitter is now the best professional (and personal) development source in my life.

Contrary to what some say, Twitter isn’t about what you’re having for dinner. However, I have received good dinner ideas and recipes courtesy of Twitter. I’ve gained so much from Twitter that I try to help others get the most out of it too. It takes a bit of time to find the right folks to follow and to figure out how to use it in a way that works best for you and those who follow you, but it’s definitely time worth investing.

Be a Renegade – Bringing Social Media to Your Association

I know that there are many association mid-level staffers (managers, directors, etc.) who are personally engaged in social media and believe that their association could benefit from it. However they are not in a position to lead their association there. What do they do? How can they somehow work the system and get their leadership to see that social media can help their association achieve its goals and so much more?

First, they need to look over their association’s strategic plan (or mission, goals, etc.) and see where social media can fit in as another tool or strategy to achieve those goals. Pay particular attention to these areas as they can all be enhanced by social media: advocacy, public relations, member recruitment, member engagement/retention, member communication, education and events.

Set up some Google Alerts on your association’s name, acronym, and variation of name, publications, conference/trade show, chapter acronyms, competitor name/acronym, and any other keywords that will help you to listen in on what people are saying out there. Set up a Twitter Search on the same terms. You can set up RSS feeds for all of these so that you can receive the alerts and search results automatically. I use Google Reader to get my RSS feeds.

Export your member and staff list, or if that is too cumbersome, export a list of your leadership, committee members, and show/meeting attendees. Be mindful that this will exclude those whom you probably would most like to know better – your “mailbox” members (that old term should be replaced!). Upload your list to Facebook and LinkedIn, and then to a Gmail account and have Twitter search that network for you. Find out who is active and what’s on their mind. Do a lot of listening.

Also do a search for some of your leadership’s peers (both staff and members), your association’s competitors and other associations that are similar in member type to yours. Are they involved in social media? These examples can be helpful later when trying to sell your leadership on social media.

Then make a plan. Review your organization’s goals or strategic plan and note how social media tools (starting with Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter) might help your association achieve those goals. Only plan to take on one of these tools at a time – baby steps. Remember, you can’t just create a presence and walk away, you need to stay engaged, and that takes time and effort. Break your plan down into immediate, short-term and long-term ideas, keeping in mind that your plan will change as your association learns.

Try not to go it alone. Talk to some of the staff whom you discovered are involved in social networking. Bear in mind that many will not want their personal social media life to be known at work but they can be allies and advisors to you. Contact some of the members and ask them for advice. Tell them that you are “going renegade” and investigating options to further your association’s goals through social media – you’re just in the research phase. Ask their advice and if they would like to help. Take advantage of this intelligence-gathering opportunity – you can find out a lot about their real perception of the association, what they want/need, how they envision their association.

This is a lot of work but you will learn much from it. A huge concern to any CEO about social media is the amount of time it requires. This is a valid concern and one that you should be ready to address. It’s why I haven’t mentioned blogging as part of this plan, although it may be something to consider depending on your association’s resources. Another reason to have allies amongst staff is that you may already have in place others who can assist with this effort. Social media can not belong to one department alone. It must be integrated across many departments and can be an aid in breaking down departmental silos since it will require collaboration.

Here are some recent posts that will help you prepare for this task and for the nay-sayers.

What else does someone need to do before they bring their ideas (and a plan) to the big guns? Some of you have gone through this at your association. What advice do you have?

Twitter’s First Association Chat

The first association Twitter chat (#assnchat) was held on Tuesday, May 12. Jeff De Cagna (@pinnovation) came up with the idea, spread the word and moderated the chat. I volunteered to go through the tweet twanscript (oh, sorry, couldn’t resist!) and post a synopsis. Although we did not solve all of today’s association problems, we did have a good conversation about some of the issues our industry is facing and how we can begin to tackle them. Here is an outline of the topics discussed — it’s a bit rough but will give you a sense of the conversation.

Online communities as a threat to associations

  • Information – members get news and information more quickly from online peers and sources and have access to experts online.
  • Networking – associations are not usually the conduit for members’ networking online.
  • Online as alternative to the status quo of associations
  • Some associations don’t think their members are using social media, but you need to survey members to determine if that perception is in fact true, you may be surprised at what you learn.
  • Even some participants are questioning their future membership in industry associations because of the benefits (professional development, networking, information, news) received freely online.

Solutions to the online threat

  • Do associations really know what members want? Or do we and/or our boards assume we do? Ask your members, “what could we do that would make you a member for life?”
  • Demonstrate value above and beyond what people can get elsewhere. What’s indispensable?
  • How does the association enhance/augment a member’s social networking activities with other value? Association as a starting place to meet peers or the glue that holds folks together — online or face-to-face can enhance those relationships, should have both channels, members can participate in ways that work for them.
  • Be in the social networking outposts (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn) while linking to a home base for members on your web site – one supports the other. Enable associations to become the conduit for people to find each other. But why should members pay for this when they can do it themselves online? Because associations are better at organizing face-to-face meetings and events?
  • Successful associations will focus on building community, being relationship brokers and serving as a conduit.

Content as a membership value

  • Associations as holders of content (experts), “legitimizers” of content (still true?), conduit/forum for members to deliver their own content/expertise
  • Who creates content?
    • Members as knowledge/content creators – associations must encourage and facilitate that; enable members to become creators, but allow others to comment, etc. Association as curators.
    • Some associations do not have the staff resources to create content, must rely on members/others.
    • Social media can be used to co-create with contributors (not necessarily members) to build trusted markets of exchange.

Members-only content

  • Still viable? Some say no, not a useful construct.
  • How to determine what lives behind the member wall? Associations first need a social media strategy to determine that.
  • Don’t build a wall, create a fishtank – provides transparency with the membership and the profession, shows how members engage with association. Create a filter to “clean” the process as you go — new blood in staff and leadership, new initiatives, trying to break new ground. Pressure to make changes is greater outside the fishtank than inside.

Why aren’t associations changing?

  • Fear of change and the unknown, risk-averse, bureaucratic nature, slow moving, slow to critique or envision alternate futures
  • Lack of understanding drives decision makers to want more assurances, research and risk management
  • Members want safe networking with peers and safe experimentation with leading edge tools — safety as a form of deep support (AAA and AARP – their value propositions are built on safety)
  • Need to create a safe, trusted environment in which people can make sense of things, access advice and experiment
  • Education is necessary during periods of change

Membership dues revenue model – viable in future?

  • Are associations in danger of following in the footsteps of the newspaper industry? Yes, because we won’t give up what holds us back – closed membership.
  • Where then does revenue come from to support advocacy, operations and other member services?
  • If content is open to all, what are members paying dues for?
  • Social media as possible revenue source — advertisements, sponsored webinars/podcasts/videos, tie-in with events, user-generated content
  • Or, more likely, social media won’t be arevenue source but a way to build new capabilities that create revenue. Associations as a unique, personalized experience, as deep support for member.
  • Extract the value of the interaction between activated network and content.
  • Possible revenue source – product/content development
  • Perhaps a membership model that grants access to info/events based on participation level, those who give more, get more.

Tools for communication

  • Yammer for internal communications – have to have an email address from the same domain to use Yammer, otherwise you can’t login; great for cutting across departmental silos.
  • Cubetree
  • Tweetgroup – groups and attachments, wonderful application with desktop client
  • iPhone apps – American Bar Association has one for its magazine, American Booksellers Association

Questions for future chats

  • Does anyone see associations struggling to deal with the way different generations want to interact? Face to face vs online?
  • With high demand on staff in small associations, how do we get our members to support and feed content creation?

Participants

AddyKujawa, alisonharle, BeccaFlach, CharmsS, DeirdreReid, desabol, eventpublisher, j8nd, jcrosby4, Jeffhurt, jeremygriffin, jmoonah, joerominiecki, JoeStella, karenaltes, kevinpatrick, kristildonovan, maggielmcg, MissLynn13, pinnovation, rharris, rjohnston, sgiarde, unklbuck

The next #assnchat will be Tuesday, May 19 at 2:00 p.m. Eastern (11:00 a.m. Pacific). You can follow by going to Tweetchat or Tweetgrid and following #assnchat, or in Tweetdeck you can create a search column for #assnchat.

New Members and Twitter Rookies – Why Do They Leave Us?

Nielsen Online reports that more than 60% of the people who sign up for Twitter leave within a month. This finding provoked lots of conversation on blogs and listservs about whether Twitter is a fad or here to stay. Some used the study to validate their perception that Twitter isn’t worth their time.

I’m not surprised by the low retention rate. New users of Twitter leave for the same reasons new members leave associations, online communities, chambers and other groups — they never learned how to use Twitter or their membership effectively, therefore they don’t see or get the value.

  • They enter the “room” and can’t find anyone to talk to. They don’t know how to find the right people to follow.
  • They fall in with the “wrong crowd.” There are a growing number of spammers, multi-level marketers and idiots on Twitter. They follow everyone, hoping someone will follow them back. They’re only after numbers and provide nothing of quality. Many new users follow them or people who only broadcast, never interacting, like celebrities. The new user remains lonely in a crowded room and hears nothing of substance.
  • They don’t look to see how others use Twitter effectively. They don’t know what to say and, believing all the hype about Twitter, they talk only about what they’re eating for lunch. Nobody cares. Or they use Twitter as a therapist and whine about their life or crazy siblings. Nobody cares. Or worse, they become broadcasters themselves, talking only about their company or product. Nobody cares. Don’t answer the Twitter prompted question — what are you doing? Instead tell us what you’re thinking about, what you learned toda, or what you read that’s worth sharing. Aspire to be interesting — easy to say, hard to do.
  • They don’t know how to manage the barrage of tweets. They don’t have time to read it all. Besides, so much of it is crap. Yes, it is, if you follow the wrong people and don’t have tools, like Tweetdeck, to help you manage your updates.

These poor souls never learn how to use Twitter as a knowledge and networking tool. They don’t get any value from it and they leave. Who can blame them? I’ve written about this before — it’s the same challenge with new members. If we don’t teach them how to use their membership appropriately and effectively, they’re not going to get the resources they need or develop the relationships they desire. We won’t meet their membership expectations and we’ll lose them after one disappointing year.

There is a great opportunity here for organizations to be their members’ social media coach and teach them how to effectively use not only Twitter, but also RSS readers, Facebook and LinkedIn.

If you know of someone who’s struggling with Twitter, tell them about your experience – how you learned to use it and what you get out of it. The web is full of resources about Twitter. I think one of the best directions you can point them is Darren Rowse’s TwiTip blog. He and his guest bloggers focus on how to use Twitter effectively. Or, for a more amusing (but helpful) introduction, show them the Twitter Rule Book.

Twitter has turned out to be more educational and rewarding for me than I ever expected, and my passion (there, I said it) for Twitter reminds me of the same passion some of our members had for my old association. Once they figured out (or were taught) how to “work” their membership, their opportunities to learn and develop relationships were unending. Many of those members learned from others – they had unofficial mentors. Maybe it’s time for us early adopters to be Twitter mentors to others, to share how we use it and help them find the same rewards we have. Reach out and save a Twitter Qwitter!