A local news and media company is getting into the social media consulting business.  You heard me right.  They’re trying to augment sagging revenues from traditional advertising by leveraging their enormous customer base with this hot new add on: social media marketing!  Step right up and getcha some!

I passionately believe in the need for a strong free press and am all for new revenue streams to keep our news organizations vital but I’m truly disheartened by the business approach of this important company.  Their strategy is to blanket their market with a cookie-cutter social media product. They are COMMODITIZING marketing!

Before I go further I need to be clear that I’m not belly-aching from any competitive  point of view. While I generate revenue from marketing consulting, 98 percent of my services are devoted to national or international clients, so I don’t play ball where these guys are operating.

Here are the “package” social media deals being offered to local businesses. They range from entry level …

• Set up Blog, LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter
• Content development sessions
• 1 blog post/week
• Will get for you an average of 50 relevant, quality followers/month
• 5-8 custom tweets/business day
• 3 relevant retweets/business day
• Cross-pollination of channels
• Single-source customer service
• Monthly customized reports

… To deluxe, which includes all of the above plus

• MySpace, YouTube, Flickr
• 2-3 blog posts/week
• Avg 200 relevant, quality followers/month
• 12-15 custom tweets/business day
• 5 relevant retweets/business day
• Quarterly contests or promotions
• Trending topics/keyword tie-ins
• Full customer service integration
• Monthly customized reports

Perhaps by now you’re heard of the “Please Rob Me” site that highlights those on Twitter disclosing that they’re away from their homes.

While the site is kind of funny, it draws attention to a serious point — disclosure of detailed personal information, including your precise physical location, will lead to crime. Notice I didn’t say MIGHT lead to crime. It is inevitable that the bad guys are going to figure this stuff out. They always do.

Last week I saw my first tweet that actually had a map attached to it. The stalkers can not only find you, the technology is telling them how to get to you.  Or your empty house.  Or your kids.

I’m particularly concerned by this emerging generation who is de-sensitized to what they’re sharing about themselves.  They’ve been conditioned to put everything out there all the time, so why not tell everyone where you are, too?  They’re actively and willingly teaching The Machine their personal habits, behavior patterns and hang-outs, just so they can be named “mayor” of a location on Foursquare or receive a free latte at Starbucks.

Where corruption can occur, corruption will occur. It is only a matter of time before a tragic crime draws attention to these serious issues and people start taking action, perhaps even legislation. Let’s not wait for that, OK?

As an individual, and especially as a parent, I think we need to draw the line on certain social web behaviors.

• Actively teach your kids to be net-savvy. Instill a healthy dose of paranoia into their mindset.  Teach them about privacy settings and being Internet “street smart.”
• Take a view that Internet access is a privilege, not a right. Set clear expectations and limits. If a child does something to endanger themselves on the Internet, there should be consequences, just as if they had wrecked a car or set a fire in the kitchen.
• Personally, I would forbid my kids from using Foursquare or any technology that reveals their personal location at  a point in time.
• Be involved in what they’re doing. Know enough about the technology to ask the right questions. Look at who has friended them and what those people are saying to your kids.  Until you are convinced they can demonstrate mature judgment, I don’t think kids have a right to Internet privacy.

A man told a story yesterday on a news report on Internet safety that as a precaution, he follows every one of his young son’s Facebook friends. “I’m a 39 year old man,” he said. “And these kids automatically follow me back even when they don’t know who I am. And their parents never question it either. It just shows me how dangerous this could be for young kids.”

If you’re a parent, deal with this. Don’t ignore the issue or avoid conflict with your kids over the family “privacy” battle.  Will you leave a comment and let me know what you think on this issue?

Part 5 of a series

Writing a series of posts on Twitter scams has been pretty depressing.

I found there is a thriving subculture of deceivers that is bizarre and disturbing. The scammers exploit the elderly, the vulnerable, the under-educated, and the desperate.  This is typical: A Twitter page of a friendly looking man who is a “Husband, Dad, Blogger and Entrepreneur” peddling this product: From Food Stamps To 7 Figures Online Free Video.

The scam sub-culture blogs about dodging regulations and adjusting tactics to capitalize on loopholes.  “Best practices” spread at the speed of light and the pyramid schemes can vanish behind the social web’s cloak of anonymity, free access and fake accounts. The scum has become more powerful through the recession, persistent unemployment and evolving technology that feeds their need to deceive.

The mere fact that I wrote articles containing the words “MLM” attracted automated spammers that nearly snowed me under with deceitful tweets.   I am sickened by the vast resources devoted to tricking us into clicking.

What can be done about it?

On a macro-level, very little.   Most regulations or policies could also hurt legitimate enterprises.  We have to take the fight to the streets.

Here are some ideas to help you fight back and at least take control in your part of the blogosphere.

Use Twitter “report for spam” option.  Any time I am spammed by porn-peddling, teeth-whitening, Trump Network sludge, I hit the report for spam button. Twitter seems to be processing at least some of these requests manually to avoid mob-rule against legitimate but unpopular tweeters, so I don’t really know what it takes to get people kicked out.  Just do your part. If enough people take the time to do it, it is in Twitter’s best interest to figure out a way to handle it.

There’s an app for that? — There is a new app called Stop Tweet that may provide hope to the idea of automatically blocking some spammers.  This utility allows you to tweak your personal settings to block and report people based on two tell-tale characteristics – no or low number of tweets and a high following-to-follower ratio.  It can also show you who among your followers who is a known spammer.  I tried this app out and unfortunately it did block several legitimate small businesses just starting Twitter accounts.  Play around with the settings and let me know what you think.

Separate email addresses — I have one email address I try to keep “pure” for correspondence with real people and another one I use for ANY app, service, or website. I even use my “spam” address when posting comments. Face it, it is only a matter of time before a database is hacked and all your identification and passwords violated. Minimize this inevitable risk by containing it to one account.

Mind the basics — You know the routine. Use strong passwords that are long, a mixture of letters and numbers, and nonsense words unrelated to any personal information. I just did research for a client project that showed the number one password for elderly people is “password.”  Help educate your loved ones, too.

Ignore them — Don’t be tempted to do what I did and explore the spam underworld. Don’t visit their sites or ask for more information, even in fun. If you respond to their spam, you’re encouraging them to continue, and they only need a tiny response to be profitable. Take my advice based on experience — ignore them completely!

What are YOUR strategies for dealing with the spam tsunamai?  What could Twitter do to step-up to the problem?

Part 1 in the series on Twitter’s Biggest Scams: Multi-level marketing

Part 2:  The teeth whiteners

Part 3: The Twitter follower scam

Part 4: The Trump Network

Part 4 of a series

Yes, it’s THAT Trump.  “The Donald” is actually behind this Multi-Level Marketing (MLM) program.  A key difference between this and the other MLM programs explained this week is that there is an actual product exchanging hands – nutritional aids.

The Trump Network was launched in the fall of 2009 — actually a re-branding of a pre-existing 12-year-old company — apparently endorsed by Trump himself.

They sell vitamins and supplements, which are popular with many other recruiting MLM companies. It costs $48 to join the program, and then you buy a marketing kit for $497 to start selling. Trump pitches it as a “gift” to the recession-wounded America, and says it is geared toward making Americans healthier.

Like a lot of MLM companies, it’s light on product information and heavy on buzzwords (the recession, the national debate over healthcare, green/organic product popularity). The actual product being sold is an afterthought on the website, highlighting opportunities in the “explosive health and wellness wave” instead.

Becauset they sell vitamins, The Trump Network can skirt being called a ”pyramid scheme” but it still looks that way in practice.  People who join the network earn most of their money from enrollment fees and maintenance costs. The independent “distributors” are then pushed to recruit more distributors of their own. In many schemes of this kind, they are required to buy more inventory than they can probably ever sell, shifting focus toward recruitment as a means of re-couping their investment, which is unlikely.

One MLM resource website did a “review” of the Trump network and explained the “get rich” process:

“You call your sponsor, and they tell you what they were told, which is basically useless, and so you fall for the most gullible, stupid strategies that you could possible engage in – depending on your friends, neighbors, and relatives to make you rich.”

I think one of the most disturbing aspects of this initiative is the judgment of Donald Trump to lend his name to something that is built on such shaky ground. Here’s a guy whose brand is synonymous with the gold standard of quality – why jeopardize his brand by implying  riches are at hand to people who are probably suffering?

Note: some of the debate in the comment section of this post focuses on the real value of the Trump brand name. This is addressed in WSJ article on a court case on this topic: click for article

Part 1 in the series: Multi-level marketing

Part 2:  The teeth whiteners

Part 3: The Twitter follower scam

Part 5: What to do about Twitter scams

Part 3 of a series

“EXTREME traffic and EXTREME income!”  the tweets scream at you. How is anybody making money off of this ridiculous offer?  Let’s investigate the “Build Twitter Followers” scam:

There are many sites dedicated to this scheme, but the one I investigated was The MLM Mastermind System.

After submitting your name, email address, and phone number (we used fakes), you are redirected to one of the longest, strangest web pages I have ever seen. It goes on for miles! There are dozens of testimonials, anecdotes, and metaphors to explain why it’s imperative for you to expand your network, create new leads, and brand yourself to start earning money.

The spam-meisters explain that if you use their system, you can do all of these things on “COMPLETE AUTOPILOT” and start raking in the cash for free, with zero effort.  As you work your way through the page, there is not a single mention of a product of any kind. You grow your business by suckering other people into growing their business, which is growing more people to grow their business, ad infinitum.

There are all the telltale signs of a pyramid scheme—promises of get rich quick, low risk, high gain, work from home, etc. The system they describe for building this network consists of software tools that will perpetuate the type of spam Twitter messages we frequently receive. These are the terms to buy into the system:

“So here’s the thing, After your 7 day trial period for only $1, the ENTIRE system is still only a measly $49.77 a month. And you don’t even have to pay that until you’ve already started USING the system, and seeing how profitable it really is. After that, for literally a buck and a half a day you will be at THE cutting edge of this industry, and using technology to build your business easier than most could imagine.”

Unwilling to surrender my credit card or Twitter account information, I can only guess at what happens next. There are volumes of reports across the web about how companies like this use your information — charging exorbitant fees, signing you up for other similar services, and other types unsavory exploitation.

Since it’s all automated, as their network expands, they can tweet these messages every few seconds, and only a very small fraction of the people that receive the messages need to click through and sign up for it to become profitable very quickly. As it grows it creates a large, viral, financial ecosystem of its own.

Tomorrow: The Trump Network.

Part 1 in the series: Multi-level marketing

Part 2:  The teeth whiteners

Part 4: The Trump Network

Part 5: What to do about Twitter scams

Part 2 in a series

One of the most seemingly ludicrous, annoying, and pervasive Twitter scams is the promise of free teeth whitening.  So, what is this all about?

The teeth whitening scams work by creating fake websites that appear to be blogs with personal testimonials. An example would be www.karensteeth.com.  These sites advertise a “special combination” of two separate products, and give instructions for signing up for free trials. The combination of two products makes it seem less like advertising and more like an economical way to “beat the system,” but the products are almost always fake. Usually these fake blogs appear to have been created by an “ordinary mom” to provide an aura of home-spun credibility.

A Twitter search for “teeth whitening” delivers hundreds of tweets, all linking to similar  types of “mom blogs.” Cross-checking the link stats through bit.ly show that most of them get at least a few clicks.

The product websites purport to offer you a trial of the whitening treatment for the cost of shipping only, but they typically also charge mysterious, non-refundable fees without ever shipping any product. The web is filled with complaints from consumers who sent in money and received nothing in return.

Here’s what the Better Business Bureau says about this scam:

“Complaintants report being billed as much as $79 for the free trial and are charged for several other services—such as a weight loss program.”

These teeth-whitening spam sites frequently carry “endorsements” from ABC, CNN, FOX, USA TODAY at the tops of their websites.  But if you take a closer look, you’ll see that the actual testimonials are quotes touting the ease/benefits of teeth whitening treatments in general, not the specific products advertised. Often, these websites simply use these media logos without any testimonial at all.

It’s important to note that it’s always just the logos of these companies that appear, never the name of ABC, CNN, etc. in plain text. This would make it searchable, and these media outlets could find them to pursue legal action.

The Twitter accounts posting this scam update several times a minute, often using trending topic  hashtags or specific usernames to lure more interest.

Bottom line, there does not seem to be anything legitimate about this scheme at all.  If you see anyone perpetuating this Twitter scam, my recommendation is to block and report as spam.

Tomorrow the series continues with spammers claiming to help you find “Extreme Wealth Through Twitter Followers!”

Part 1 in the series of Twitter’s Biggest Scams: Multi-level marketing

Part 3: Building wealth through Twitter follower lists

Part 4: The Trump Network

Part 5: What to do about Twitter scams

Article one of a five-part series

Have you ever wondered about those annoying followers you get on Twitter promising to whiten your teeth for free, make you rich in the Trump network, or help you attract thousands of followers?  I’ve been curious about these folks and how they could possibly make money off these spurious claims.

So, I figured if I was wondering, you might be wondering too.   Over the next few blog posts, I’ll try to lift the veil of mystery surrounding these business models. To understand many of these scams, you need to start with the basics of …

Multi-Level Marketing (MLM)

First let me be clear that there are many successful and legitimate “real-world” MLM businesses like Mary Kay, Discovery Toys, and Pampered Chef.  These business models rely on independent distributors to sell directly to their friends and families. The distributors profit from the sale of real products and from commissions for recruiting new distributors — so the more “levels,” the more profitable they are.

However, Internet MLM schemes seldom rely on the sale of a physical product or legitmate service.  Instead, the Twitter-variety MLM’s primary objective is to recruit new members, with revenue generated from the start-up and “maintenance” costs paid by new members to take part in this “can’t miss” route to riches.  The MLM pyramid scheme takes your money and then uses you to recruit other suckers distributors to send their money.

Does it work?  Obviously data on a shadowy industry like MLM is difficult to obtain, but an article from wikipedia.org opines:

“The vast majority of MLM’s are recruiting MLM’s, in which participants must recruit aggressively to profit. Based on available data from the companies themselves, the loss rate for recruiting MLM’s is approximately 99.9%; i.e., 99.9% of participants lose money after subtracting all expenses, including purchases from the company.”

Telltale signs of an MLM pyramid scheme:

1) Requirement to “invest” a large amount of money up front to become a distributor.

2) Upfront costs to buy “inventory.”

3) No mention of an actual product or service.

4) Plan designed so that you make money by recruiting new members rather than through your own sales efforts.

Another difference between these web-based pyramid schemes and the traditional Mary Kay-style MLM is that a great deal of it has become automated, which accounts for the sheer volume of annoying tweets we suffer through.   The automation tools (or “bots”)  they employ make it easier to spread their links more quickly.

In fact, there are lots of websites and even huge conventions dedicated to helping these MLM spammers find new spam-generating automation tricks for clicks.

And here’s a surprise …

People actually do click on the links.  URL services like bit.ly allow you to track the clicks of links hosted there, and if you take a look at any one of these spam messages, people are actually clicking on them. Whether they make appeals to the rough economic times or high unemployment, teeth whitening, weight loss, or whatever, there are lots of people who click, even if you and I wouldn’t.

Like you, I get strange Twitter followers almost daily wanting me to sign up for EXTREME WEALTH!  In an effort to provide a balanced report, I contacted more than a dozen of these MLM marketers for their perspective, but none of them responded to my requests.

Part 2 of this series on Twitter’s Biggest Scams:   The teeth whiteners

Part 3: Building wealth through Twitter follower lists

Part 4: The Trump Network

Part 5: What to do about Twitter scams

One of my pet peeves is this whole “snarky” thing. 

I often see people excuse away their unprofessional on-line behavior by saying “Well, I was just being snarky.”

Since when is it acceptable to be rude, sarcastic and dismissive to other well-meaning, professional people?   We probably wouldn’t act that way in a face-to-face interaction but somehow in the bizarro world of the social web, it’s OK as long as you call it snarky.  Inexplicably, it’s usually the more experienced bloggers who hide behind this position, and seem to be proud of it.  They wallow in their snark. 

Gratefully, {grow} has usually been a snark-free zone.  The folks in this community take accountability for their thoughts and words and don’t hide behind euphemisms.  Thank you. 

As for those who mask cynicism and cruelty behind snark, grow up.  Be accountable.  Be a leader.  Set an example.

Whew. That felt good. : )

Addendum: The day after I wrote this post, I saw this quote from American entertainer Conan O’Brien, commenting on his emotional exit from the Tonight Show: ”I hate cynicism.  It’s my least favorite quality and it doesn’t lead anywhere. Nobody in life gets exactly what they thought they were going to get. But if you work really hard and you’re kind, amazing things will happen.”

 The mysterious, mean-spirited, self-proclaimed “strumpette” Amanda Chapel is the most divisive personality in the social media movement.  She relentlessly shoots poison darts at nearly every voice of authority on the social web.  It’s typical for her to characterize many of her A-List blogger targets as:

• “Baby babble”
• “Full-on non-stop shameless surreptitious sleaze”
• “The cacophony of dopes”
• “Sacs de douche”
• “Self-important fatuous boobs”

… and worse. But her commentary can also be positively brilliant, insightful, and hilarious.  There is no humor so sublime as pomposity pricked. 

All this venom sometimes leaves me wondering if she’s a just a pesky mosquito annoying everyone at the social media picnic or if she is having a meaningful impact on the evolution of the social web.  Does Amanda Chapel even really exist?  Does she matter?

I decided to ask her these questions myself.  Here is my interview with Amanda Chapel, which was conducted last week via email (I added the hyperlinks):

MWS: You are one of the most reviled personalities on the blogosphere. Why are you so mean?

AC: Actually, that’s two separate questions.  With regard to “reviled,” I am/we are anti the general Web2 Cluetrain commie crap.  We poke at the movement’s weakest links.  We show their Golden Calves for what they actually are, i.e. self-serving buffoons.  That said, we also take no prisoners.  As such, we lay claim to, and inspire, the inverse of the movement’s immature passions … as does anyone who thinks critically … as does any skeptic who refutes a bogus pseudo religion.

As to “mean,” I am cutting.  Satire and mockery are biting at their best.  Poignant is poignant.  It’s smart and often cuts through the clutter.  I also believe that the “David Letterman Beat It To Death School of Comedy” is VERY effective and resonates.

MWS: So you refer to yourself as “we.”  This begs the question, are you real?  Are you even a woman?

AC: The identity issue is so old and tedious frankly.  It’s been asked and answered SOOOO many times.  Sadly, it keeps coming up because the nature of the SMedia crowd tends to be literal minded. Brian’s interviews with Bill were pretty explicit.*

“We” means a group represented by a single brand.  Asked and answered.

All to say, you can call me Amanda Chapel.  That’s what we are.

MWS: One of your biggest criticisms is that many of the A-List bloggers don’t have the business experience or credentials to have a voice of authority in this space.  Why are you different?  Why should we listen to you?

AC: I’m not selling anything.  I’m questioning.  Those two things are NOT on equal footing.  “Doubt” is not about credentials, per se; it is about the strength of the argument.  That said, we stand on what already exists.  The core of our system/Union is NOT enthusiasm; it’s rationalism.

MWS: What is pissing you off the most these days?

AC:  Most?  That’d be Liz Strauss, Brian Solis, and Deepak Chopra.   Ironically, as more light has been shed on the ethereal emptiness of the movement, its “evangelists” have gotten bolder and strident.  They’ve become irrepressible caricature.  It’s like watching amateur Benny Hinns whistle on the way to the bank, having only increased their flocks after being busted on 60 Minutes.  Arrrgh.

MWS: You have been one of the most visible voices of dissent for several years.  Have you made a difference?

AC:  Many say I have made a significant difference.  Frankly, I’m not so sure.  I think I’m more of a catalyst than a direct agent for change.  Our outrageousness with Strumpette,** etc. made it safe for critical thinkers like you, Bill Sledzik,  Sean Williams,  Joel Postman,  Ike Pigott, et al. to occupy the middle.

MWS: Do you have plans to ever shed the Amanda Chapel character or are you in it for the long-haul?

AC:  I think the character is only good as long as our argument is relevant.  Let’s put it this way: most of the failure of Cluetrain, etc. is pretty basic.  But it is a bubble that sadly continues to grow.  However, the FTC, Congress and business are waking up.  I’m certain when the bubble breaks a new canvas will present itself.  I’m pretty excited about that actually.  It’s long overdue.

MWS: So far I have not been the target of your fury.  What would I have to do to have you take a crack at me?

AC:  We’ve seen you slip on occasion.  But that’s rare.  To REALLY get our attention, I’d think you’d have to have had a serious head injury.

______________________________________________________

The title of this post is “Does Amanda Chapel Matter?” so I’ll offer an opinion. 

One of the most disturbing aspects of power and the social web is the herd mentality.  You’ve seen it.  If Chris Brogan, Guy Kawasaki or Jeremiah Oywang burps, it is tweeted 900 times.  That burp gets repeated and codified by other bloggers and soon, it becomes a marketing tenet, a “rule” for social media marketing.  That’s called “group think” and it is DANGEROUS.  Maybe we should call it “burp think.”

It is difficult to have an impactful, dissenting voice in this arena.  It’s like yelling for the opposing team at a home Steeler game – You won’t be heard and you’ll probably be squashed.  

But Amanda gets through.  She often pisses me off.  She’s shrill, offensive and sometimes even flat-out wrong … but her message GETS THROUGH.  We need that dissent. Even her detractors should admit we need it.  Some of the most important and effective dissenters in history have been anonymous “characters” and maybe that’s what we need to rise above social media’s sycophantic mind muck — a voice who doesn’t play nicey-nice all the time.

I think Amanda matters.   What about you?

* This refers to a 2008 series of interviews of Brian Connolly by Bill Sledzik.  In this interview, Connolly disclosed that the idea for the Amanda Chapel character started while his friends were watching a basketball game. The idea for the “blog of naked PR” was born, complete with an Amanda Chapel backstory. Between 4-7 people have sustained the Chapel character and signed a non-disclosure agreement. “Amanda” would not disclose the identity of the person or persons who answered these questions.

**Strumpette was the Amanda Chapel blog which was discontinued in 2008. 

I read a blog post yesterday that staggered me. It was about a woman who could only find success as a blogger and freelance writer after she posed as a man (under the name of James Chartrand).

The gist of the tale was that she was a talented, hard-working individual who could not make enough to feed her family until she lied about her gender. Once she became “James,” her life changed. She’s been living a double life for years and has attracted a loyal audience to her photo-free, phone-free persona. It made me sad and angry … and it stirred a lot of other people too.  It was tweeted more than 2,000 times and received more than 400 comments.

One of those commenters was Jenn Whinnem, who suggested that I blog about the underlying issues.  I thought it would be a richer experience if I could capture a woman’s perspective too, so I embarked on an experiment – a virtual chat that became today’s blog post on gender inequality on the social web …

Mark: My initial reaction was “stunned” that this kind of blatant inequality still exists, especially on the social web, which is supposed to be so democratic. I guess that myth has been exploded.

Jenn: I was saddened, but not surprised.  Since establishing a professional presence on the social web, I haven’t experienced discrimination (to my knowledge).  I have, of course, experienced sexism in the workplace – everywhere really – so I see no reason why it would be any different on the Internet. I realize James Chartrand was pushed into outing herself, but I’m really grateful for the attention her decision has brought to this topic.  When I’ve been offered a salary, I’ve had no idea if a man would have been offered more.  But “James” knows, and she shared it with us.

Mark: You said you didn’t know if you had experienced discrimination on the web and this made me think about my own behaviors. I looked at who I work with, who I am connecting with on the web, who has been guest-blogging … just any data points I could find. I guess I’m trying to judge my behavior by the numbers. Does that seem silly?

Jenn: I don’t think it’s silly at all.  Reviewing one’s own behavior is necessary for change. As for examining the ‘numbers’ aspect of it — well, that’s a pretty hot topic in social media – proving that the time spent using social media leads to dollars for your business.  I know it’s something you’ve written about, Mark.  It’s important to know which numbers you’re paying attention to and knowing what they mean.  You can look at the number of men vs. women you’re following on Twitter, but what is that going to tell you?

Mark: At the end of the day, equality has to come through self-awareness. I can try to look at numbers and still fool myself about how I treat people. I had one boss who treated women terribly … to the point that I was compelled to address it. He said, “Look at all the women who report to me. How can you say I have a problem with women?” In his case, the numbers supported “equal treatment” but his actions were incongruent. So Jenn, what do you do to see yourself more accurately?  To make sure you’re congruent?

Jenn: That anecdote is a perfect example of how someone can fool themselves into thinking they’re ‘okay’ and why there’s a real need to keep fighting for equality. For me, that fight begins with my own behavior.  I’m the first to admit that I’m often guilty of ‘incongruent’ behavior, and like you, Mark, I find that awareness is the first step in correcting that.  I also had an excellent boss (hi Alice!) early in my career who lived the mantra “nurture other women, don’t compete with them.”  And, when I think about it, this complements nicely the social media mantra “promote others, not yourself.”

Mark: Do you think that is a social media mantra or a feminine mantra?  I ask this because the comment section in my previous blog post on this topic contained speculation that some inequality stems from the fact that men are perceived to be better self-promoters than women. I think the male social media mantra might be “help others, promote yourself.”

Jenn: I’ve read the “promote others” mantra in several blog posts, but didn’t notice if the authors were men or women.  But I don’t know that this is a feminine mantra. My experience has been, at least in the work place, that women are more likely to tear each other down to eliminate the competition, rather than help each other out.  This is why Alice’s advice was so powerful to me.

I find the conversation about men or women being better at self-promotion more difficult.  If we look at gender roles in this culture broadly, I would say that self-promotion goes against socially desirable behavior for women.

Mark: That’s an interesting observation. Perhaps this cultural expectation for socially-desirable “female” behavior is just exacerbated on the narcissistic social web. Instead of being the great equalizer everybody hopes for, it could actually highlight and reinforce aspects of our culture that keep gender inequality in place?

Jenn: If I can back up a minute, where did the idea of social media as an equalizer come from?  We encourage the idea of “being human” on the social web … and any space where people are invited to be human means they’re going to do just that.  On the positive side, I think this kind of highlighting is a good thing.  When attention is drawn to inequalities, it starts to change.  Something of a theme in our conversation.

Mark: I say “equalizer” because presumably having access to free, global, immediate communication should provide genders, races, religions, rich and poor with precisely the same opportunity to communicate and connect. But I guess you’re right. If underlying inequalities persist, it’s wrong to think that will change by simply having a new way to broadcast it. It drives home for me again how silly it is when people say the social web “changes everything.” Obviously it doesn’t.

Jenn, our dialogue has brought up some vital discussion points. Let’s turn it over to the {grow} community to add to the discussion …

Jenn Whinnem is a Communication Specialist focusing on developing social media strategy for Golden Compass. You can connect with her via @JennWhinnem on Twitter.