WhatsTheBuzzAbout.com

What is Your Tolerance Level?

Occasionally things are posted in groups which are either outside of the focus of that group or seem like “spam.”  Certain postings seem to beget similar postings. For example, when someone posts an opening for a position on a group not designed specifically for job seekers, it seems that others follow suit. Likewise, someone may post a request for funds for a non-profit cause or for a singular individual on a group which might be a specific discussion group and others follow suit posting for their specific causes.

People on the group who are laser-focused generally quickly rise and complain about the lack of relevancy or the “spam” that was just posted. Their reaction is to demand that the moderator(s) ban the individual who posted the job announcement or solicitation request and to demean the poster in the forum.  They simply assume that the poster was ill-intentioned.

The lack of tolerance for a faux pas, entry social networking skills, or an erroneous post is amazing. It is as though no one ever had a learning curve themselves, and that it is perfectly acceptable to speak negatively about an individual. Sometimes those words come from seasoned social-networkers who make an assumption that because they are seasoned, they are always correct.

Have you observed who rises up in these circumstances? In general, it is either the lurkers or those who are heavy posters themselves, you know them—they are those who seem to be led to post things on sites, like the words, “I agree” or “thanks.”  How do we know that two or three posters demanding the removal of someone from the group constitutes the will of the group?

What is also interesting to observe is the reaction of moderators. Some moderators take the issue off-line by contacting the offender and then determining appropriate action. Other moderators respond to the requests and ban the offender—some moderators even taking it so far as to ban the offender from other groups even though that individual has done nothing to warrant that in another group. Some moderators join the “smear the poster” campaign.

Co-moderation becomes another issue. Co-moderators may have different styles. One might be reactive and participate openly in the forum or group about the issue while another moderator might be working with the offender behind the scenes to gain an understanding and then determine what action should be taken.  While the issue could be resolved behind the scenes by one, the other is overt and takes punitive action without the benefit of a “hearing.”

We have networks, groups, and forums which are designed to attract individuals and participants. It is reasonable to assume that if the network, etc. is designed around a subject matter that postings and discussions should center on those topics. It also seems reasonable to assume that posters are not ill-intentioned if they post something not in keeping with that general topic.

People are different.  Your tolerance level of off-subject postings might be much higher than others in the group. It could be that those individuals who receive summary feeds are not as offended by off-topic material as those who read every single posting as it is posted. Sometimes, people need to just use the delete button and let a one shot error in judgment pass.  It is all about tolerance, teaching others what is expected in a respectful way, and then disciplining those who choose to disregard the rules.

Don’t people have the right to post what they think is appropriate material and then be contacted off-line or addressed respectfully on line if they are in error? What is your tolerance level?

What is your buzz about?

Does Spam Have Value?

According to Merriam-Webster Online - http://www.merriam-webster.com – the term “spam” has a fairly innocuous definition.  It defines spam as “unsolicited usually commercial e-mail sent to a large number of addresses.”  Wikipedia takes a tough approach by defining it as “Spamming is the abuse of electronic messaging systems to indiscriminately send unsolicited bulk messages” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.

Both these definitions define spam as having the characteristic of being unsolicited.  What is implied when people speak about spam is that spam is not only unsolicited but unwanted. There is also an unstated inference that spamming constitutes some indeterminate number of unsolicited e-mails.

However, these definitions do not address a number of points:

1.       They beg the question of what constitutes a “large number of addresses.” Is a large number 50, 100, 100, 10,000, or more?

2.       Was the content of the e-mail identical or at least similar?

3.       Did the sender farm the e-mail address using electronic compilations or purchase the e-mail address?

4.       Has the sender established contact with the recipient other than through this e-mail?

5.       Is the information accurate, trustworthy, and not a scam?

6.       Can the recipient opt-out without triggering more unwanted e-mail?

7.       Should the recipient have expected to receive the e-mail?

8.       Was the e-mail of interest or of no interest to the recipient?

Perhaps the definition of spam should also include the concept of sending unexpected and unwanted similar content e-mails to at least 1000 email address. Perhaps spam is beneficial more often than not using the very loose definitions from Merriam-Webster Online and Wikipedia above.  

Let’s take a live case to consider. An organization has over 1,000 members. The members provide their e-mail addresses as part of joining the organization. The organization has not specifically asked whether they could send e-mail. They send an e-mail to each of the members announcing an event that is free, open to public, and provides free health screening services.

So what happens to the all the e-mails? Some e-mails are blocked by spam firewalls. A member opts-out of the e-mail list, even though he or she is provided his or her e-mail address. Some members have blocked attachments in an attempt to catch spam. Other members write thank-you notes for keeping them informed.

According to the earlier definitions this e-mailing is spam.  However, it is only spam to those who did not want to receive it. Some have let technology make the decision for them as to whether they should receive it. They will never even know it was sent to them.  They have given their power in this instance away.

Spam has value as long as the recipient wants to receive it. It only becomes spam to an individual when it is unwanted.  Are we placing ourselves in the position that we have to list everyone we provide our email address to as a safe-sender? How very cumbersome.

Consider whether your networks, groups, organizations, forums, companies, etc could be trying to reach out to you and may be blocked from doing so.  Add them to your safe senders list to ensure that you can receive their e-mail. On the other hand, do not provide your e-mail address to an organization if you do not want to be e-mailed.  Why join in the first place, if you are not interested in hearing from them?

Take responsibility for any unsolicited e-mail that you send. Work out a system to ensure that you do not become a “spammer” by default under the broadest definitions given to us above.  Be a good steward of your contacts and help them contact you.

Spam is not the enemy. Not all spam is generated with evil intent. Spam can be a good friend by exposing you to new ideas, new trends, or new people. Be a good steward of your contacts, and help them be good stewards as well.

What is your buzz about?

What Value Do You Bring to Your Contacts?

You have joined a variety of social networks. You have connected directly with hundreds of individuals, perhaps thousands through those networks and through email contacts over a few or many years. Perhaps individuals you do not know at all are following your blog or follow you on Twitter or are connected to you through Plaxo.

Many people believe that reactive interaction with contacts is all that is necessary. For example, if a contact reaches out to you to ask for a referral to someone else or simply to verify an address, you may consider that just responding constitutes contact and “counts” as a positive interaction.  In truth, many contacts are satisfied with that level of interaction—they just want to know that they can reach you and that you will be responsive when they ask.

Other people believe that continuous communication with their contacts is the best avenue. They may implement that through blasting newsletters, posting continuous threads on groups to which you belong and ensuring that you receive emails about each and every thread, sending e-cards for all kinds of events, e.g., birthdays, holidays, etc., or touching base at least monthly with some sort of update about their lives.

Others take an approach somewhere between these two extremes of reactive and proactive approaches.  They may reach out periodically, almost randomly, with a news article that might be of interest to you or some other reason. They may respond to your requests and occasionally make one of their own. They may send bulk invitations to join them on a group or a network.

Like many other things in life, we have the bell-shaped curve – those who primarily react on one end of the spectrum and those who are continuously proactive on the other, with most of the social networkers comprising the main bell component.

You may want to examine whether you want to change the value that you bring to your contacts. By reflecting on how and when you interact with your contacts you might decide to change your current modus operandi. You may decide that certain contracts need a different level of proactive outreach commitment than others.

Take the time to evaluate your commitment to your contacts at least annually. Think about the value that you bring to them. If you were they, would you be satisfied with your approach? You may be surprised by the revelations that you receive when you commit yourself to thinking about your actions from the perspectives of your contacts.

What is your buzz about?

Setting Social Networking Priorities

If you are like most of us, you have various social networks to which you belong, each having its particular set of participants and rules of the game. You may have chosen these networks for a variety of reasons including but not limited to the following:

·         Branding your name or your business

·         Keeping track of the activities of certain people  or trends, products, or systems

·         For fun

·         Just to have a presence

·         Business development

·         Someone you do not want to offend invited you to join and you did.

The question then becomes how to manage these networks which invariably grow to have groups or forums and ultimately, you join some of them as well. Some of these networks help you manage the volume through RSS feeds or email alerts. Some permit you to select whether to receive information immediately or through a daily or weekly digest. Some actually permit you to make changes to your preferences without having to sign on and change your profile. Regardless, each is a time consumer–another item on a growing to do list.

How do you decide which ones to which to pay attention on a frequent basis? Do you pay attention to the one which constantly notifies you via email to alert you to check your in mail and which fills your In-mail on its web site, such as Fast Pitch? Or do you ignore those constant messages for days assuming that they are internal marketing messages? Perhaps you have some social networking sites such as LinkedIn™ and you have signed up for their groups. In that case, you receive no notice that any discussion has occurred in the group and you must proactively sign on to review.  Perhaps you have some social networking sites such as MySpace or Facebook which you joined initially for fun and now you are discovering that you can create and conduct business on them through innovate applications such as Business 3.0 with its additional social shopping mall application b3buy.

You may manage your social networks through a daily review, or weekly clean-up review process. Perhaps you just decide to ignore some of the messages and daily emails that you receive from them imploring you to check what someone posted on your wall or your group. Perhaps when you have a pressing business issue, you simply ignore everything from those networks for a while.

However, you need to remember that you have created a public presence. There is an expectation from others who reach out to you through those networks that you will acknowledge them. You have a decision to make—either respond as appropriate in a timely manner or minimize your obligations. Ignoring your social networking responsibilities to which you committed does not make a respected social networker. It may hurt a potential business alliance or friendship and it will weigh on your mind until you manage it on a timely manner. Make the decision to be a responsible partner in this fast-paced environment.

What is your buzz about?