I don’t have many rules when I sit down to decide what to write here on my little slice of the internets, but one I try to stick to is “Avoid reactive post structure.”. You won’t see me writing about the Facebook/Nestle thing, Motrin Moms, or Skittles.com for two very good reasons:
- The attention span of the internet is infinitesimal. Chances are, at least one of those three things mentioned will be completely forgotten about in a year. The lessons will have been learned, or not. The coverage will have been covered.
- For me, talking about an event as the main focus of a blog is backwards. It puts the focus on the event, rather than the point of view, and makes the learning that much less “portable”.
Chances are, the lessons learned from Nestle and Facebook are much broader than “don’t respond to people on Facebook with corporate lingo”, but when the entire position is framed within the Nestle example, it becomes more of a challenge for people to apply it to their own situation, be it personal or professional, and therefore becomes less valuable to someone reading it a month, 6 months, 6 years from now.
Why not structure a post to make it about responding to people’s concerns about you with compassion and being useful in your response, using Nestle as a historical example, rather than “Boy, Nestle sure screwed up this time! Just look at what they did on Facebook!”
The lessons we are learning now while these new tech implementations of humanizing concepts are in their infancy deserve to be recorded. The thinkers and people who are passionate about it should all have a voice. But let’s document the times in a way that will resonate into the future, and not be left as a one-off relic of the times.
This is what makes content evergreen, rather than ‘news’.
What say you? Am I nitpicking?
Related articles by Zemanta
- Nestle: Even Giants Are Afraid of Social Media! (thoughtpick.com)
- What Other Companies Can Learn from Nestle’s Facebook Page (labnol.org)
- Speaking like a human isn’t quite enough (hyperorg.com)
- Learn Social Media by Example: Skittles Steals the Social Media Rainbow (thoughtpick.com)
- There’s nothing inherently useful about being an early adopter. (jeremymeyers.com)
[…] to not be a megafail!” type blogger (I’ve written a bunch about why in posts focused on writing evergreen posts, and why social media isn’t a game changer). Â I’ve been called out not infrequently […]
Actually, that’s a good point, Tamsen. Maybe what we need is to be able to articulate what’s going on today, in order to process it and be more thoughtful about it tomorrow.
I’ve also learned that people say what they will, and I think it’s better for people to be getting out there with the issues in whatever form they are most comfortable with. I have learned to ignore what I need to ignore.
.-= Lisa Hickey´s last blog ..How to develop a voice: picnic, lightning. =-.
I totally agree, Jeremy. The most helpful posts are the ones that give a unique insight into not just “what happened” but “why”. And that why can come from a really thoughtful place, not just a reaction.
The best way to really move this world forward, to create positive change, is to actually do that — no matter how small a level you’re working with. So if you’re talking with one person, help that person move forward. If you have a small group, help them move forward. If you look it it that way, even the largest organizations can actually benefit from your insights. But the comments of “oh, what were they thinking?” simply aren’t helpful. Show me how the learning could apply to other, similar problems. Or tell us what you would do, what action would YOU take that could create something positive 6 months from now — then I’ll listen.
.-= Lisa Hickey´s last blog ..How to develop a voice: picnic, lightning. =-.
I think there’s a place for both, and in many ways its a strategy-focus vs. tactics-focus question.
We need some of the immediacy of breaking down a situation as it’s happening (or as it’s just happened). The context is much smaller, and the shelf-life shorter, true. But it can be very hard to see right away what the long-term tie-in of a short-term event is or might be.
I’ll admit I tend not to read the “here’s what Nestle did wrong” posts, unless I need that kind of microscopic tactical breakdown of a situation. My natural bias is towards posts that look at the larger (or, as you say, the meta) points.
But like most things, the full picture comes from having (and reading) a bit of both. I think we’d lose something important if we only ever used a wide-angle lens.
.-= Tamsen´s last blog ..What do you expect? =-.
Actually, that’s a good point, Tamsen. Maybe what we need is to be able to articulate what’s going on today, in order to process it and be more thoughtful about it tomorrow.
I’ve also learned that people say what they will, and I think it’s better for people to be getting out there with the issues in whatever form they are most comfortable with. I have learned to ignore what I need to ignore.
.-= Lisa Hickey´s last blog ..How to develop a voice: picnic, lightning. =-.
I totally agree, Jeremy. The most helpful posts are the ones that give a unique insight into not just “what happened” but “why”. And that why can come from a really thoughtful place, not just a reaction.
The best way to really move this world forward, to create positive change, is to actually do that — no matter how small a level you’re working with. So if you’re talking with one person, help that person move forward. If you have a small group, help them move forward. If you look it it that way, even the largest organizations can actually benefit from your insights. But the comments of “oh, what were they thinking?” simply aren’t helpful. Show me how the learning could apply to other, similar problems. Or tell us what you would do, what action would YOU take that could create something positive 6 months from now — then I’ll listen.
.-= Lisa Hickey´s last blog ..How to develop a voice: picnic, lightning. =-.
I think there’s a place for both, and in many ways its a strategy-focus vs. tactics-focus question.
We need some of the immediacy of breaking down a situation as it’s happening (or as it’s just happened). The context is much smaller, and the shelf-life shorter, true. But it can be very hard to see right away what the long-term tie-in of a short-term event is or might be.
I’ll admit I tend not to read the “here’s what Nestle did wrong” posts, unless I need that kind of microscopic tactical breakdown of a situation. My natural bias is towards posts that look at the larger (or, as you say, the meta) points.
But like most things, the full picture comes from having (and reading) a bit of both. I think we’d lose something important if we only ever used a wide-angle lens.
.-= Tamsen´s last blog ..What do you expect? =-.