Is Social Media scalable?
November 30th, 2008 | Author: Beth Harte
Chris Brogan had a recent post about whether or not every conversation needs to be touched. Of course touching or engaging in every conversation that occurs across the Internet would be virtually impossible and a full-time job.
But how about when the conversation is no longer touched by the person/company that created it? It could be because they just don’t have the time to engage in the conversation or that they just chose not to.
When the two-way conversation ends, is that an indication that social media doesn’t scale? When I asked this question on Twitter, I received some interesting insights. Some folks thought it’s okay not to respond to every comment (and I’ll expand this to it’s okay to not engage every conversation) and some thought that companies are already showing evidence of scaling. But the most interesting perspective, and one I hadn’t thought of, came from Russ Somers. His thought was that social media scales like a party. As in you can’t dance with everyone at the party, but you can throw such a great party that everyone dances with each other.
Sticking with this analogy, I’ll ask how long does just being able to throw a great party last? When do the guests get tired of dancing with each other because their host can’t or won’t dance with them? What happens when a guest feels slighted, do they move on to the next party where the host does dance with everyone?
Analogies aside, what does this mean for businesses? If they are enticed to join the on-line conversation (social) via Web 2.0 tools (media), what happens when they can no longer provide that two-way conversation…the reason behind why they got involved in the first place?
Chris has another recent post that equates social media to café-shaped conversations as in conversations aren’t suppose to scale because they are meant bite-sized.
After mulling this over for the last four days, here’s the conclusion that I came to. Let me know if you agree or disagree.
Two-way conversations are not scalable. Once they reach the tipping point, two-way conversations revert back to one-way conversations (or the community conversing amongst themselves). At this point, Web 2.0 tools join the arsenal of traditional marketing tools (such as direct marketing, e-mail marketing, PR, advertising, etc.) to continue mass, one-way communication efforts.
If you agree, how can companies manage small-scale two-way conversations in such a way that they do not alienate the people that are trying to have a conversation with them?
If you disagree, how is social media scalable? Is it only a matter of building out a social media department that handles responding to blog posts or community managers to handle on-line requests?
[Image: Archives of Ontario]
Tags: 45 Responses to “Is Social Media scalable?”
Leave a Reply
That’s a great discussion, Beth. Raises some other questions too, but in response to the question you pose, I think that it’s no longer a two-way conversation when you can’t keep track of it anymore.
Example – You’re a company who hosts a blog and opens up for comments — the day that a colleague asks what the tone of the comments and conversation has been and you can’t answer b/c there are too many is the day it cannot be a two-way convo anymore. Now if you see responses, read them and determine they don’t call for a direct response, that’s still a two-way conversation b/c you can still track the full conversation. Just my two cents!
Nicole’s last blog post..Aaand curtain…
It makes sense to keep in mind that normal conversations don’t scale very well either. I imagine a meeting with 100 participants would be difficult to manage as a series of two way conversations as well. That’s why I think the party analogy is an apt one.
But a good host does attempt to drop in on every conversation and make sure his or her guests are enjoying themselves. If a few guest seem to be all right, you move on. If someone looks uncomfortable, you engage them and maybe introduce them to others.
I think the key concept here is that you can keep individuals engaged with your organization without always needing to engage them directly. Let your evangelists and larger community keep the party going and drop in when you need to.
I have to agree that two-way conversations become too burdensome and overwhelming, unless you have infinite resources, to manage once they get to a certain level. At that point, the brand, product team or company should be focusing on influentials to carry the message. Also, social media marketing should not be the only tactic you use, but a part of an overall, integrated marketing plan that includes traditional PR, Marcom, Advertising, Interactive, Search, etc… It is the combination that delivers the power of your brand and product messaging.
Also, do not forget that if you provide a high quality and highly recognized brand and product, you may get strong social media interaction through word-of-mouth without a large social media effort. A good example is our Sharpie brand. Running a quick Google Blog search delivered over 180,000 results, on YouTube over 4000 and on Twitter pages and pages of results. Since we just started our social media marketing effort in November, 2008, it is hard to imagine we created that much buzz in such a short time – in other words we didn’t, it was already happening without us. Also, not all those results are our brand as their are Sharpie sailing boats…but they probably only represent about 20% of those results.
So, two way conversations have their place and are a great way to start a social media effort. However, at some point, you will either succeed through your overall marketing effort that is scalable or have to reconsider your strategy.
Fun discussion and well worth continuing…this is an evolving area and deserves continued analysis.
Bert DuMars’s last blog post..ScobleizerTV – The Half Life Of An Online Conversation
Beth (my wife’s name is Beth), this is a soberingly good question.
I was thinking today how it’d be a good idea to start a blog for my church choir. Then I thought, there’s no way I could keep up my site, contribute to Brogan’s http://dadomatic.com (already falling behind), and my “real job’s” blog.
Further, if I were ever to leave my real job (no current plans) I wonder if there would be anyone to take my place in the blog department.
I’m a relative newcomer. I got my own blog in 2/08 and joined Twitter in 9/08. I’m completely sold on social media for lots of reasons (I’m a personal fan of the high Google results, myself), and love the conversations.
But you’re right, how many conversations can one person have at a time?
Interested to see everyone’s comments on this.
JoeHageOnline.com’s last blog post..Get a free bank!
See I am starting to have this problem on Twitter. When I ask a question, I will start getting replies so quickly that I can’t get to them all, and the ones that are like ‘great point!’ are the ones that usually get skipped while I have to devote more time to one that asks a question back.
What I do is try to make sure that I come back to that person later and reply to them. But attention doesn’t infinitely scale, or at least mine doesn’t
mack collier’s last blog post..The Viral Garden’s Top 25 Marketing & Social Media Blogs – Week 130
Beth, I think this is a critical question to raise. It may even be the single greatest challenge we will face in the next-generation of marketing.
There are always two levels of marketing — strategy and execution. At a strategic level, few would disagree that participation in social media-brokered customer dialogue is critical. It helps companies both propogate their brands and listen to the customers of those brands. Win-win. The challenge then becomes the execution. As you say, how do we conduct all of these micro-conversations?
I’m wondering, though, if it is not all-or-nothing. Is there something in-between? I worked in a Congressional office for two years, early in my career. We often had to contend with the challenge of brokering constituent dialogue. Everyone would like to think (s)he can have a direct conversation with his/her Congressional representative. And as a Congressional office we DO want that brand reputation (and ideally the brand substance, when possible). But there is no Congressional staff big enough to handle every small request that comes in, and a Congress-person is only a single individual, with limited time. One way we would do this is filter out what we thought needed to be answered personally by the Congressman, what should be handled personally by a staffer and then what should be handled as a ‘batch’ letter/e-mail from the Congressman. It’s not an exact science, but having differing priority levels helped us filter and stage our interactions. We also had differing levels of ‘canned’ versus ‘customized’ responses.
And I would add that often the stuff that got kicked to the top were the biggest complaints, but we realized that good constituent services meant that we needed to listen not only to supporters but also critics.
Just thinking out loud, this may be a way to think about this challenge when it comes to managing marketing communications for a brand.
Adam Needles’s last blog post..Top 20 Cross-channel Marketing Execution Platforms?
The oddity is despite the questions I raise and the conversations I contribute to, I rarely see responses to a degree more than 1% of the people who I know are following. For instance, Mack is inundated with Twitter responses; I don’t receive enough. I can’t explain it.
Ari Herzog’s last blog post..From Shelter to the Turnpike, Does Facebook Replace Reunions?
Beth, Good Morning
Great Post, I believe that a good conversation leads to a more good conversations, which leads to a Following. The common word here is Lead. We need Leaders. SM is a great venue for Leaders.
The process is scalable as the Leaders foster a path for the Influenceers within the following then begin leading pieces and parts.
The point is we can all throw a party for 10, 100 or 1,000 but as the number increases leadership begins to emerge for a successful party.
Eric Brown’s last blog post..Do The Right Thing, Someome is Watching
My vote: When you no longer are able to interact on a one on one level with your followers, clients and commenters…then you should consider hiring another person. Can’t lose that narrative.
Stuart Foster’s last blog post..Finding Your Home Base
I just wrote a post about focus and this sort of dovetails into that. Do we focus on A conversation, THE conversation or pieces of ALL conversations. A conversation scales very nicely. THE conversation might not scale with everyone but some will benefit and pieces of many conversations do not scale. Twitter is a great example of pieces. Blog posts have the potential but one on one’s as in A conversation between me and you will scale very nicely. I think it all depends on the platform and the circumstances surrounding it.
Marc Meyer’s last blog post..Lets Focus
It’s definitely a difficult one to maintain.
I normally recommend my clients that an interactive newsletter is a great way of maintaining the conversation – offer areas of replies and suggestions for future topics and themes.
Additionally, I think even just the occasional response from a blog author in the comments box goes a long way to keeping that feeling of “immersion”. I’ll try my best to converse with every commenter, since I feel it’s the least I can do to thank them for their time with me.
Admittedly, my blog has nowhere near the visitors that the superstars do, so it’s easier for me. But if the superstars just take some time out to converse – it makes all the difference.
Danny Brown’s last blog post..Ten PR People to Follow on Twitter
I’ve been contemplating this with regard to government agencies using social media. I’m not familiar enough with the corporate world to compare, but it seems to me that efforts to connect with the public would work better broken down. A school resource officer talking to students and parents via MySpace, for instance, or identity theft investigators talking to elder groups and advocates–rather than one public info officer blogging or tweeting to an entire town, at which point the temptation would be to broadcast as usual.
Christa M. Miller’s last blog post..Officer reputations–through Google’s lens
For businesses this “problem” might actually be a bit easier to solve and it involves inviting all of your company colleagues to the dance, as hosts.
I agree that a designated community conversationalist will lose the ability to scale the conversation as the business grows or the company’s online presence becomes established. But if the task is segmented and shared with the sales, account servicing, HR, PR, and MKTG departments the conversations again are made more “bite-sized” and manageable.
Sharing the “host” responsibility across departments means that customer complaints can be serviced by customer services reps, brand discussion can be engaged by marketing dept, and prospects handled by the sales team.
Of course getting everyone to the accept the invitation to the dance is the challenge du jour, but not impossible with the right snacks and music….
Thanks, Beth. I’ve been struggling with this for the last few weeks too, being fairly new to Twitter.
In the real world, everyone knows that you can’t be friends with everyone. With electronic media, it is easier to reach lots of people than ever before. But with social media there does seem to be a limit (unless you have an infinitely growing staff) to how many communications you can have.
Liz Strauss talks about social media like a barn raising. What do you think? http://www.successful-blog.com/1/how-social-media-can-help-you-build-a-better-business/
Maybe there is a way to have everyone dance at your party, but it’s different than how I’ve been looking at Twitter so far. Maybe I should be looking at it more like a Forum. There is a good example of having people dance with each other at your party. Members help out members without the business having to respond directly to inquiries.
Or is social media, like Twitter, just a means of making a business face more personable? It shows more of the human side of business owners and employees, but will people really care if we don’t write them back? I kinda don’t think so after a while.
Todd Smith’s last blog post..Fresh, Homemade Cheese Recipe
The conversations aren’t scalable, but hopefully our attitudes are. What’s important is that we value the people more than the transactions.
The best company I ever worked for always asked, “Are we choosing for the customer?” Relationships grow when we value them.
Thank you for writing this. It’s a conversation that we need to keep coming back to as we grow and adapt.
Liz Strauss’s last blog post..What Is Social Media?
“The oddity is despite the questions I raise and the conversations I contribute to, I rarely see responses to a degree more than 1% of the people who I know are following. For instance, Mack is inundated with Twitter responses; I don’t receive enough. I can’t explain it.”
Ari up until the last couple of months, most of the questions I raised on Twitter only got a few replies. If someone popular like Liz or Beth jumped in, then the conversation took off. But now, luckily, most of the questions I pose on Twitter get plenty of replies, and for that I am very thankful.
My guess is that you’ll see the same as your number of followers continues to grow.
mack collier’s last blog post..Being a farmer versus beating a dead horse
This is a really important question; thanks for the post.
The party analogy is a good one and I’m glad someone mentioned the host. A good host greets everyone who arrives at the party, and tries to introduce them to someone who might be a good conversational fit.
In a business context it’s figuring out who else can be a good co-host that may be the challenge; I’ve never met ANYONE who said they had more than enough staff for the work already waiting to be done, and social media adds to the pile.
Right now I’m the only one doing social media work in our small comm office. As I learn the tools, I’ll enlist others to be co-hosts.
I’m by no means an expert, but here are thoughts on one piece of the work to be done from inside a small communications shop directly–
It will be critical to use good content aggregators that help us scan quickly and get a sense of the conversations.
I do that with keyword Google Alerts, Twitter searches, and Social Media Firehose, all going into my Google Reader so I only have to look in one spot.
(Tell me what I’m missing in this conversation-monitoring toolkit please!)
In spaces where we have an ongoing presence such as Facebook or Twitter, just as the host might realize because of repeated questions and comments that everyone needs to be told where the hard-to-find bathroom is, or it’s time to get everyone lined up for the buffet, we can do an announcement or comment to all that meets the self-identified needs of at least some of the guests.
Others who didn’t even know there WAS a buffet, so to speak, now have the information and can recognize the organization as meeting needs they haven’t yet identified.
This listen-to-many, respond-to-many can work for at least some issues, in some applications.
It will be tougher on external blogs that talk about us because it requires posting responses one at a time. This is not a huge issue for us yet; in our case we need more word of mouth so I think of this as a nice problem to have someday.
And as others said, I won’t ignore traditional communication tools. If something is being discussed in the blogosphere, we may need to post information on our web site, issue a news release (with lots of rich, issue-relevant content so it ranks high on Google), provide information to our employees and students so they have our perspective, and all the rest.
I look forward to reading more comments as this conversation develops, and appreciate recommendations for listening tools.
@BarbChamberlain
I agree with you. After thinking about this since August, I still believe that technologies scale but the programs and labor involved can’t. By definition, doing social “correctly” means 1:1 input-output and marketing is all about 1>1 leverage. Social media scales, but social media marketing doesn’t.
Peter Kim’s last blog post..November 2008: Most Popular Posts
Great post (and thank you for the shout out), and some thoughtful comments from smart folks here.
Seems to me that this is an area where we might learn from the way different sales and customer service models scale. Inside sales scales in a linear fashion. If you want more capacity, you put another person on the phone. Social marketing (in the sense of a company representative interacting directly with the public) scales in the same linear way. So you’d scale it up by adding headcount, but past a certain point it’s expensive to grow and you look to alternate channels.
Partner-enabled sales and ecommerce scale much better, but at a cost of intimacy. Are there social marketing equivalents to distributors and ecommerce? If we involve automation, it may depend on one’s definition of social marketing. Some days I feel like Amazon’s recommendation engine knows me better than some of my friends do
Peter Kim had a similar discussion recently. Very interesting topic.
http://www.beingpeterkim.com/2008/08/social-media-ma.html
And just today, David Armano mentioned that he iused Twitter in two ways – to scan (and therefore identify patterns) and to filter (people will help surface the important topics).
I think social media is scalable by its very nature – though we have got to stop thinking of ourselves as a single node, but as part of a network. It is this distribution of self that we have not yet worked out … though I have an idea that it is to do with the collision between what I would loosely call “our personal brands” and our purpose.
Gavin Heaton’s last blog post..The Filter-Tipped Internet
[...] Is Social Media Scalable? [...]
[...] 2, 2008 by melyt A few blogs (starting with Chris Brogan’s) that eventually led here have been talking about the need for companies to respond to every comment they receive. And this is [...]
really great post, it has me really trying to refine my opinions on things. I have a LOT of thoughts, so I apologize if this is rambling and not as clear as it could be (Feel free to respond
)
When you state:
>But how about when the conversation is no longer touched by the person/company that created it?
There is often a general consensus that “listening” is as valuable an aspect of social media and engagement as actively contributing. So I don’t think there is any harm in taking a step back occasionally.
In fact, the need to be at the forefront and outwardly active in a situation really reminds me of more traditional media: when the creator is too actively involved, it almost seems as though they are trying to stay in control or manipulate the message.
I used to work for Resource Interactive, a digital agency whose work was based around “the OPEN Framework (devised by thought leaders at the company). The notion was that companies had to be willing to give up some control to really leverage the power of passionate brand evangelists. One key point was conversations were no longer two way (company to consumer), it was actually a “love triangle” between the consumer, the brand and the community. At Resource we didn’t just tell our clients to set up twitter accounts or blogs, we encouraged them to build communities, to allow individuals to communicate among themselves. I worked on the People’s Choice Awards site, and there was no direct conversation from Procter and Gamble to the site visitors: the focus was on offering them a platform, and then getting out of the way.
When we look at how sites or communities or projects can be sustainable, we have to be willing to give up some control, and empower others to continue on. Social media is about people sharing their passion and enthusiasm, and I think facilitating that sharing is equally as important as being right there with them. (i.e. teach a brand evangelist to fish, rather than feeding him)
When the two-way conversation ends, is that an indication that social media doesn’t scale?
Andrea Hill’s last blog post..Context-specific (how people and places increase personal relevance)
[...] is the major strategic challenge that marketing thought leader Beth Harte recently called out in a piece titled “Is Social Media Scalable?” on her The Harte of Marketing blog (related to a blog post by Chris Brogan). “… [...]
Wow! Thank you everyone for your great insights, perspectives, and experiences. I for one have learned a lot more.
I normally respond to everyone…but, this time I am not because I don’t want to take away from what you have all shared. Is that okay?
Beth,
Your question about not responding reminds me of the discussion on someone’s blog (found via Twitter) about how much/whether the blog owner should comment on comments–you must have seen that?
I think this is a great discussion and if you have additional thoughts, you can probably get another 2-3 posts out of this that we will all appreciate (and upon which we will comment freely
).
@BarbChamberlain
[...] Is Social Media scalable? [...]
[...] Is Social Media Scalable by Beth Harte [...]
Beth:
It is a great question – just look at the number of responses. I suggest that as the popularity of a blog or a tweet grows – you grow your strategy with some of the steps suggested in Groundswell. You go from Listening to Engaging to Energizing for example.
Ed
Ed Callahan’s last blog post..MindManager – a virtual, portable whiteboard
@BarbChamberlain, perhaps you are referring to Mack Collier’s blog post ( http://tinyurl.com/5az8zc) on this? If so, yes indeed I read it and commented twice! Only because it was about Mack and me.
)
@EdCallahan, thanks for stopping by–it made my day.
Just to reiterate, this is not about me. I can handle comments just fine. When the day comes that I have over 50 comments here, I am sure there will be other scalability issues.
For now, no worries.
My post is really about companies and how do *they* scale. And I think we’ll see this to be a continued conversation in 2009.
Social Media scales exactly the way real world interactions do. The more people that are privy to our conversation the less we are actually able to speak with each and every one of them. Relate this conundrum to a speaker at a conference. We don’t expect him to speak to everyone in attendance, but he tries to address as many as possible within the time constraints. Taking it a step further, celebrities are even expected NOT to speak with everyone, as if they did they’d never accomplish anything- they’d be chatting, taking photos & signing autographs all the time.
There comes a point when we must say no as humans. Our physical capacity to respond to everything put in our path becomes diminished by the sheer growth of interactions. The power of no, or in this case the power of saying nothing, becomes a great tool in our communications arsenal.
Nothing has changed in social media. This false sense of intimacy here is emboldening many to feel all their interactions should be responded to. Can you do it in real life at the scale you’re doing it online? That’s where scalability comes in.
Take a lesson from people that communicate with large groups of people in real life regularly. How are they doing it? Translate that.
Damien Basile’s last blog post..Different Communications for Different Media: Why Robert Scoble Is Wrong
If social media is meant to be an online extension of our real life interactions, it will follow the same rules of engagement that exist in the offline world in that, as many have pointed out, it would be virtually impossible to sustain [meaningful] two-way communications for any significant length of time.
Not only would it be an impossible task, but it would eventually lose it’s meaning. Just as you don’t have an endless connection to someone in the meatspace, physically chattering in their ear ad nauseum, the endless connection in the cyberverse is not — and should not — be a gateway for infinite virtual prattle. The same dynamics apply online — people will get annoyed and tune out. Conversations should add value; otherwise they merely become more noise in an already overcrowded echo chamber.
The real benefit of the two-way interaction lies in what it sparks. It’s the outcome of those communications that are scalable, not the communications themselves. So, if a company creates a positive brand experience through two-way conversations with its customers, the experiential elements of that will carry through the social sphere — even though the brand may not have directly interacted with each person whom that outcome touches. It takes on meaning by virtue of the fact that it’s a brand who DOES ENGAGE, but that doesn’t mean that it has to engage EVERYONE or engage ALL THE TIME.
Is social media scalable? I’d say yes, at least from the standpoint of the intangible aspects that result from those social media interactions. But that scalability is directly proportionate to the quality, commitment and consistency of those engagements, and the [perceived] value it generates. So, the short answer is yes, you can implement a social media campaign that scales but cannot necessarily control the degree to which it does. Marketers need to understand that engaging in social media includes relinquishing some of the control to your users, making it even more critical to focus on the quality and integrity of those communications.
At the end of the day, the difference between traditional marketing and social marketing is that you’re engaging WITH — and CONNECTED TO — real people vs. messaging AT — and DISCONNECTED FROM — a faceless demographic. And having worked on both sides of that equation, I’m not even certain that the latter ever successfully scaled so much as continuously repeated (and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated…).
[...] Harte’s main point about the scalability of social media in corporate America – and it’s an important one – is that if companies reach a level where [...]
[...] it’s that sort of scalability issue that make this model of customer service almost impossible to bring to the masses. But that’s [...]
Excellent provocation! Two things come mind. First, companies/individuals must be careful with communications. Set appropriate expectations. The customer cannot be your new BFF. Second, work harder at turning your best customers into evangelists. That should help temper the scalability issue.
Bill Bean’s last blog post..Tweetdeck
Zappos and others have created a scalable scenario by encouraging and empowering the entire staff to be brand evangelists through social media (Twitter specifically, but expansion beyond that platform is inevitable). I recall reading a post (can’t remember who, thinking Mack Collier) that said, in essence, think of the benefits a large corporation would receive if they took a million dollars from the ad budget and hired a staff of ’social media relations’ experts to, listen, blog, comment on blogs, and Tweet all day, every day. Which would have more of a positive effect on the bottom line? A couple of network TV ads that were largely ignored or several hundred (or thousand) customers transformed into enthusiastic brand ambassadors through meaningful conversations. Corporate marketing directors easily discount the idea, claiming they have a consumer affairs hotline that can address issues in real time. When, in the real world, they perform below consumers expectations. On the phone they are expected to be reactive, concerned and compassionate. Regulatory and legal constraints prevent them from offering what the consumer expects. In a social media setting, the consumer is sought out and contacted proactively, which generally impresses the consumer. Just as the editor of the New York Sun Time proclaimed to Virginia, yes there is a Santa Claus, I submit to you, Beth, that, yes, Social Media IS scalable. It just depends on your belief in the value of it and your commitment to fully funding social media relations in your company. So I bid you Happy Social Media to all, and to all a good night.
[...] Harte wrote a great post about whether social media is scalable that elicited dozens of comments. The conversation reveals that social media reverts to traditional [...]
[...] Harte recently wrote a blog post asking if social media is scalable. She asserted that once hundreds or thousands join the conversation, one person/company cannot [...]
I would say it is scalable as long as the people doing the conversation for a company are equipped with proper tools under proper work conditions. From my experience it workes best this way:
1. Define topics using standart search algorithms.
2. Define places to follow the conversation and keep them up to date in real time (monitoring services help, but this is still the biggest challange).
3. Make sure that your staff comes in great numbers (think about 1000+ permanent promoters as you need a loud voice when it comes to putting things right)
4. Measure success only in your own seeded items (don´t try to measure the overall success – semantics seem to not be good enough so far)
5. Repeat
Joining the conversation trying to turn all your key-customers into evangelists is a good plan too, but it´s much more vulnerable to attacks from within the community. Imagine you have 5 of them: 1 loses interest in your company because of a new competitor who is better then you, 1 moves to a 3rd world country and is cut off the internet, and 1 dies.
The more people you´ve got, the less risk you face. Here in Germany a couple of very successful campaigns have been promoted massively only to get them on top of the critical mass for viral effects to kick in and it worked fine. It´s just not very common yet to really put some cash into this form of promotion.
[...] got this from reading Beth Harte’s post “Is Social Media Scalable?” In it, she seems to limit the discussion to two-way conversations and then comes to the conclusion [...]
[...] question has been whether the conversation is scalable. It seems it can be. But as Amber Nashlund says, “It’s not a plugin, people … [...]
[...] crafted a post yesterday that discusses one challenge that comes with blog comments: scale. (Beth Harte had a lively discussion about scale on her blog a while back, too.) Scale is a very real issue in social media, simply because [...]
[...] Is Social Media Scalable by Beth Harte [...]
[...] modern day potential of social media is unknown and difficult to measure. What we do know is that those who try and get it understand that conversations are [...]
[...] are plenty of questions worthy of discussion: the risks of open dialogue, the question of scaling human interactions, what really constitutes the “ROI” of all this (a topic I’ll tackle later this [...]