Social media blogger Chris Brogan recently wrote about the idea of “microfame” and the power of social media to make people “famous” on any of a number of levels. Chris Brogan for example has become “famous” in the world of social media as an expert in the latest trends and developments. Likewise, I have a friend (offline) who has become “famous” within his small Facebook circle because of his profile pictures (currently John Travolta circa Sat. Night Fever) and updates.
The point is that we now have a very powerful platform to connect and express ourselves in ways that weren’t possible just five years ago. However, while it is much easier today to become “famous,” this fame doesn’t necessarly mean opportunity. According to Brogan,
We have this distribution mechanism, this platform, this potential to share ideas that matter, that brings us a further opportunity.
But fame isn’t trust, and the real goal, in my estimation, would be to develop trust, build relationships, and earn the attention of people in our circles of interest. That’s what matters.
As more and more self proclaimed “marketing gurus” and “social media marketing experts” jump into the world of social networking, it quickly becomes obvious that while they may have thousands of friends on Facebook or friends on Twitter, what good is it if they don’t provide something of value.
As my Twitter following grows, I’m finding that I’m being followed more and more by people with 10s of thousands of followers and I’ve followed some of them in return. However, I’m quickly finding many of the twitter users with the most followers have the least to say. I even followed one who has “twitted” about nothing more than how many followers she has and an occasional comment about coffee or something.
I’m also finding, that as I follow more and more people on Twitter, the less I’m actually reading on Twitter. I know which twitter users I enjoy, those who I talk to and those who provide valuable information. The rest get screened until I find value in something they provide.
The same is happening to my Facebook account. As the list of Friend’s grow, I tend to look for those I am interested in reading about and letting the rest go by. As the numbers grow, it’s the only way to manage these networks.
Without providing value, internet “fame” is worthless. People quickly learn how to screen the noise and even worse, label the spammers as such.
And yet there are so many out there that don’t get this basic concept. Take a look on almost any LinkedIn group and you’ll see people looking to blindly expand their network. There are now a number of Twitter applications that do nothing more then bring the classic pyramid scheme to Twitter to build followers. If you’re looking to add a random collection of followers quick, they may work well.
The RNC leadership even got into it a few weeks back bragging about who had the most “friends” on facebook culminating in the absurd challenge, “I’ll meet you on Facebook any day.”
From a business perspective, a large network is of no value unless the members of your network see value in what you bring to the table. By consistently providing value and conversing on a level of transparency and trust, the network will respond. Your network will grow, it will be much easier to spread content (with your name attached) and ultimately, bring in more customers.
What does your business bring to the table? Have you considered a white paper? White papers provide valuable information and can establish your company as an expert in the industry. Contact Jim Lodico to see how he can help you harness the power of white papers today.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Excellent post, Jim. As I said to you — in a Direct Message on Twitter! — “learning” Twitter is a process, and I think it’s an individual process. I’m with you — I recently started getting a sudden surge of followers on Twitter, and it was exciting: until I checked the profiles of each person (which was time-consuming in itself).
Many — if not most — of the followers didn’t seem to have anything to do with what I do for a living (copywriter/consultant) or the things I might tweet about. Most of them had over 1,000 followers or were following (???) 1,000s.
Some had over 20,000 —- What?!
As the new people showed up on my alerts, I stopped feeling positive. What could this possibly have to do with me? Why were they choosing me?
I had to conclude that I was caught up in some kind of “twitter net”, like fish in the ocean, randomly scooped up.
I did follow some people back. But that was after reading their tweets, and looking at their numbers, and what they did. If they looked interesting and sounded like people I’d like, I followed back.
I’m on Twitter to connect with sources, to learn, to hear the voices of people all over the globe. I want quality.
I’m not there to be a collector or crow about my “numbers.” Because really — what does that have to do with the real world, and real work???
Thanks so much for this post.
Blindly scrambling to get as many followers as possible is the latest lemmings to sea trend on the internet. No one seems to stop and ask why they NEED 10,000 followers. Not to mention how impossible (at least on Twitter) it is to really manage, digest and truly converse with that amount of people.
I think though this is just one more example where people are grasping at straws; obsessed with tactics and ignoring the fact that tactics serve nothing without a vision. Susan Rice Lincoln http//:www.masterthenewnet.com