Do you have what it takes to kick social media ass?

Oct 13 2009

Do you have what it takes to kick social media ass?

kickass

One of my clients is a brilliant management consultant. This photo … it’s not him.

An engineer by training, he does not come by marketing instinct naturally and asked me to help. This is a customer who is tailor-made for Twitter:

Small business-owner
Enormous, global market potential (needs a lot of awareness)
Small budget
No time to blog, develop content, etc.
Tech-savvy
Is a charming, bright person with engaging personality.

And yet he WILL NOT TWEET. I coaxed, cajoled and threatened. I’ve trained him patiently and even prescribed a daily Twitter regimen. I demonstrated the power of the platform when I found him a potential new business contact in the first hour of operation. He didn’t follow-up and is perfectly content with his tweet-free existence.

I have been thinking a lot about why.

After observing both spectacular social web successes and failures, I believe there are personal characteristics that make some people more adept on the social media scene:

1) The write stuff. Blogging/content development is the centerpiece of most social media initiatives and it’s DIFFICULT to do it consistently well. You must write compellingly, often, and perhaps most important, quickly. My opinion — being prolific is a huge advantage in this space.

2) Swagger. Some liken the social media scene to a cocktail party. But to really be successful, it’s more like being a successful public speaker. Even if you’re kind, witty and charming, do you have the CONFIDENCE to put yourself out there in a big way? Take a stand? Expose yourself to criticism?

3) Time management. Everybody knows this. ‘Nuff said.

4) Personality Plus. I don’t want to be mean, but have to be honest … some people suck online … and I don’t think they can fix it because they don’t know it. This is the downside of the need for authenticity. If you’re clueless, rude or just love selling people teeth whitening systems, that is probably going to come through in any medium and people will run the other way. Being authentic and likable matters. A lot.

Here are characteristics I intentionally left out: High intelligence, experience, education, and physical appearance.

There is one other overwhelming characteristic that seems to be a prerequisite for success in this space, but it deserves special attention, tomorrow. Can you guess what it is? What did I miss?

This is Part two of a series on “Self and Social Media.”

Part 1: The Next Social Media Imperative: Defining YOU!

Part 3: Social Media “Expert:” Women Need Not Apply?

Part 4: Social Media Ushers in the Era of Alone

Illustration: www.tshirthell.com

Filed in Social Media best practices, Twitter best practices, business relationships, personal branding, social media, sociology, twitter | Mark

11 Comments

By Gregg Morris, October 13, 2009 @ 7:25 am

Well, this probably falls under Personality Plus, but you have to like people. Like interacting with them. Have a genuine, dare I say authentic, appreciation of the human spirit. Good and bad.

I am curious about your client. Would he have put a telephone in place when it first started to be seen as a business tool? A fax machine?
By Anne Clelland, October 13, 2009 @ 9:36 am

Your points could be used as a self checklist for a company owner considering the question, “Should I use social media?”
By Mark, October 13, 2009 @ 9:54 am

@ Gregg — Good question. He has a good tech orientation, but does not like the babble of Twitter and, in my mind, does not have the confidence to put himself out there in a bold way.

@Anne — I guess I need to be more clear. I think EVERYONE can “use” social media and find personal/business benefits, friends and fun. I would not dissuade anyone from doing it. However, to really stand-out, I think these four traits need to be in place. Thanks for your comment!
By Brian Makas, October 13, 2009 @ 10:11 am

I’d add two more, first of all, being a risk taker (or at the least not be paralyzed by fear). Twitter’s does have a number of risks:

1. It demands a new level of transparency
2. Your mistakes are permanent
3. You will have porn/spammers try to attach themselves to your brand
4. Etc.

… much of traditional marketing (i.e. TV, Radio, Print) has been focused on producing one flawless piece.

… much of social marketing is about being willing to fail fast/fail often and realize that over time the “wins” will outnumber the “losses”.

And, one needs to have faith. It’s very easy to argue that:

1. Your audience isn’t on Twitter
2. They wouldn’t be willing to interact with you if they were
3. That if results aren’t measurable (down to the Tweet) that the sale must have come from another marketing effort

… but you really can’t know for sure until you try and if you start up a social media campaign/qualified leads start to increase shortly thereafter at some point you have to realize it might not be a coincidence.

Many marketers have fallen into the illusion that 100% of online marketing can be tracked. Don’t get me wrong, there is a lot that can be tracked, but (especially in B2B) there are a number of fail points where tracking can’t connect the dots.
By Mark, October 13, 2009 @ 11:09 am

@Brian, Thanks for this really great addition to the thought process. I won’t open the Pandora’s Box of measurement, but I think your ideas about faith and tenacity are good ones.
By Steve Dodd, October 13, 2009 @ 11:39 am

What I think you missed is the ability to eliminate the fear of failure. Many are scared to death that they’ll say or do the one wrong thing online that will ruin their reputation forever. That fear is actually propogated a bit by the list you’ve created. It’s all focused on “doing the right things” with not enough focus on “learning to do the right things”.
Just like your client example. You found him a lead and he didn’t follow up. That says more to me about fear (uncertainty, embarassment or something else) than lack of interest.
By Lisa Foote, October 13, 2009 @ 2:39 pm

Interesting conversation. Our primary developer recently dumped on Twitter, and I wonder if it’s particularly difficult for scientific types to “get.” I’m trying hard not to take a “you just don’t ‘get it’ ” stance, and this post helped me realize he’s not alone in having difficulty seeing the value. I don’t believe this mindset fears failure (others do): I think they’re too impatient with the “pointless” chatter that fills 80% of *all* human communication (including Twitter).
By Brian Makas, October 13, 2009 @ 3:34 pm

@Lisa I always struggle with that point of resistance myself and am looking for a good analogue to explain away pointless babble.

How about this: refusing to use Twitter due to pointless babble is like refusing to eat in NYC because there are too many fast food restaurants?

Yes there’s content that you’re not going to care about but (spam issues aside) it’s pretty easy to ignore and just follow those people/hashtags/etc that you care about.
By Davina K. Brewer, October 13, 2009 @ 3:54 pm

I’m reluctant to jump on the “you MUST be on Twitter” bandwagon, for many reasons outlined above. Twitter is one of those tools IMO that gives back what only you put in; it demands a lot of your time, so it’s not a good tool for everyone.

As you say, you have to have the skills (writing, TIME, knowledge, personality) but before joining Twitter, creating a Facebook page or starting a blog, you need a SM game plan. If all your SM eggs are in the Twitter basket, what do you do when it goes down? Just think it takes more than one tool to be a SM ass kicker.

My guess for what else you need? Generosity. It can’t be all about YOU. SM is about connecting, giving, learning and sharing: your time, expertise, advise, relationships. Look forward to the next post.
By Brian Makas, October 13, 2009 @ 4:12 pm

@Davina another resistance I hear all the time is that time argument.

Call me naive here but while I do agree that while Twitter CAN take time, why is it better to do nothing than a little (say one Tweet a week)?

It’s not about being responsive, brands are being thanked/attacked/asked questions even if they’re not online.

It’s not about criticism, companies are as likely to be criticized for not Tweeting as they are for Tweeting sparsely.

Is it a fear that the person managing the account will get addicted and not be able to stop at just one (sounds like a potato chip company)?
By Mark, October 13, 2009 @ 4:41 pm

These are all truly excellent points. You’ve given me a lot to ponder.

@Brian – Love the NYC analogy.

@Davina — I am a very practical person and would not say any platform is a “must.” You’re right — you have to have a plan and then execute. But Twitter is becoming a pretty essential business tool, for the reasons Brian mentions. 15 minutes a day would do it.

Yet, 60% of the people who try it quit in the first week. I believe many will come back.