Last week, I responded to an article in the Harvard Business Review claiming the existence of a "Social Media Bubble”. This week I touch upon some more issues brought up in the article. To see last week's post, click here.

Have we really seen a decrease in trust due to social media? Let me put the question to you this way: Do you trust what you read in People magazine? The New York Times? We know intuitively that our experience will differ with each outlet, the same way we temper our expectations according to a social platform. Chris Brogan’s Trust Agents tells us there are members in each community who are trusted to be consistently useful. This concept has resonated with the echo chamber, but also with many who apply and leverage Chris’ ideas in their business lives. New Marketing Labs’ Outpost Marketing strategy, for example, is driven by customers with whom businesses have deepened relationships as a result of engagement with them and/or community leaders (influencers).

Gatekeepers

Regarding gatekeepers, they remain at this stage a necessary part of doing business. Companies can be human and have individual relationships, but for the most part they can’t do this all on their own. Those businesses which first commit to and execute end-2-end solutions, with the right gatekeepers, have the ability to establish long-term commercial relationships. Self serving for NML, sure, given this is one of our core solutions, but we have seen the proof. Those that can scale will do it alone, ultimately, and those that can’t will use gatekeepers.

Hate & Exclusion

I won’t spend time on hate, except to note that communities that are based on hate will attract those who thrive on same. And, I don’t believe social media drives ‘exclusion’ any more than my eating Brussel sprouts at dinner excludes my children from doing the same. They could have them, but they don’t like them, and they remain indifferent to my eating them. Are they being excluded? Exclusion in the social context is more a by-product of interest or choice rather than proactive exclusion.

Ethics

Not all companies are ethical, but it isn’t true that relationships that ethical companies have in social aren’t valuable. Many of our partners provide value to customers by providing them access to useful content. Workshifting.com is simply useful to community members. I agree that a great asset of social media is trust, connection and community. I don’t believe that every person is trustworthy, relevant or should be part of your community. This isn’t realistic. Choice and usefulness will ultimately strengthen the vitality of the web, not eat it away. Farmville may not be high quality content or make kids better off, but The Henry Ford is and does.

Is social media for posers, voyeurs and haters, or is it primarily for the development of useful communities which are helpful to people? What do you think?

Photo Credit: Thorinside