On Social Networks, Law, Privacy and finding a Balance
|
 |
Thursday, 03 April 08 - 10:34 PM (GMT +12:00) By John Dierckx in Social & Business Networking Online |
| ||
Recently I was approached by a client with a rather unusual request. Could I assist in closing down social networking accounts of one of his children who had tragically died in an incident. Besides that there were reasons to suspect that the accounts or more specifically the associated mailboxes, may have held clues as to the circumstances surrounding this tragic incident, however not enough indication to justify a search warrant.
I prepared the release forms and privacy consent forms usually associated with trying to obtain such information. Armed with the information and documentation available I tried to obtain access to the accounts of the child.
It took me almost half a day to find an email address or point of contact for these networks and than what happened. One network never replied, one network sent me replies from three different people, all expressing their sympathy with the loss of MY child, indicating that they had not gone through the trouble of opening or looking at the attached documents provided with my request on behalf of my client. Most inappropriate would say especially considering the reputation of this company. You send a simple yet urgent request and the Gates' are opened for multiple answers all indicating that the technical staff had not properly read the request.
In addition to this a wall of legalisms that even a legally trained professional like myself found hard to go over. Most of all it felt so inappropriate in these sad circumstances.
And what to think of this, when tragic things happen with your children, there may the occasion where there is no will and therefore no executor of an estate. As a parent you become the "administrator" of the "estate" or belongings of your lost child. Legal terms require an executor of an estate, whether that is an unrealistic or not applicable situation or not. In this event it required some additional correspondence with local authorities, which takes a few extra days. Two days after my initial reply that I would work on obtaining the required paperwork I receive a reminder and the question whether I "still need the assistance".
Is it part of the "technical support" persons' job description to leave your heart at home when you come to work or am dealing here with technically able but socially challenged geeks here that can not appreciate the circumstances of a case?
Whilst I can most certainly understand that there is a need to protect the privacy of users of networks, but sometimes, automated responses are not the way to go. Sometimes you may want to take just these five extra minutes to read carefully and consider the circumstances of the request, if only from a human standpoint. Is it so unreasonable to consider the interests of a client's parents n such tragic circumstances? I appreciate law in many senses but there are situations where law and justice may not lead to the same end results or when law is diverging from our basic (or at least my basic) sense of humanity.
What is happening in our world of online social networks? Has social been degraded to a technical term meaning connected to one or more other people?
I could not help thinking about the joke at the end of Bee Movie, where a mosquito presents himself as a lawyer to the client a cow. The cow asks "are you a lawyer as well?" The mosquito answered: "I have always been a blood sucking parasite, all I needed was a briefcase." Was it maybe that same lawyer that advised on how to respond to humane requests from concerned parents and by all means not to worry about the circumstances of the request because saving your legal butt prevails?
Re Looking From the Outside In: Renaissance & Enlightenment Revisited
|
|
|
Sunday, 25 November 07 - 11:49 AM (GMT +12:00) By John Dierckx in Social & Business Networking Online |
| ||
I am reading all the messages about social networking for business and can but conclude we are in a exciting time. A Renaissance of business and business models being tested by new social media. It is however important to understand, before you start making drastic alterations that Renaissance is a period leading up to Enlightenment. That is the period in which drastic and revolutionary changes will take place.
A recent post by Jay Deragon titled Looking from the outside in is in my view a good example a read worthy post however not for the reasons one might expect. It is in my view an example of where things can go wrong in terms of understanding where we actually are in terms of development and using secondary sources to make your point. An example of mixing up opinion with knowledge.
We are in the Renaissance stage when it comes to Social and Business Networking and it's use for business. A stage where ideas get tested and ideas about new models start popping up. In a very direct sense, Jay Deragon's well read and very rich blog could be seen as an example of what goes on in the mind of a Renaissance thinker. He is coming up with great ideas and opinions, asking a lot of relevant questions. We need to be careful however not to mix things up with knowledge and actual understanding.
In the previously mentioned post Thinking from the outside in he writes and cites:
Businesses are just discovering the systemic nature of the medium and the media continues to drive home the message within business circles. Jennifer LeClaire of TechNewsWorld writes “The phenomenon of social networking for business purposes is a logical extension of personal networking. After all, businesses are merely people linked by common economic purpose, said Barry Kessel, managing director and chief client development officer at global marketing firm Wunderman.”
“A recent Pew Internet study lends credibility to the concept. Pew researchers report that more people are using the Internet to strengthen social ties that they maintain in the offline world.”
“Increased travel costs and a depressed economy are two factors driving the trend. Time being money, online social networking is also winning favor with time-stretched businesses. It costs less and takes less time to network
online than in person, said Scott Allen, co-author of “The Virtual Handshake: Opening Doors and Closing Deals Online.”
“As more business happens online, it’s natural that the business dealings that lead up to the transactions would happen more online. We have a generation coming into the workforce now that have grown up with broadband. IM and SMS
messaging are actually preferred over the phone by many of them,” Allen told TechNewsWorld.
The quote of Jennifer LeClaire may underpin his visions or opinions but is not necessarily of any authorative value. In fact there is some deceptive flaw in this reasoning. If it were really that obvious as presented by Jennifer, why are not all businesses utilizing the new social media on a large scale? Why is there still resistance and doubt? Well perhaps because there are other questions that arise with the emergence of social networking for business purposes. To name a few:
- employment issues
- IP protection and information leakage
- revenue modeling
- risk management issues and (IT) security issues
- reputation issues
Whilst it cannot be denied that business is in its essence a human thing there is in this modern day and age more than just humans interacting with humans. These interactions do not take place in a vacuum but are part of a larger constellation of economic, business and legal frameworks and interests.
The way social networking will develop for business purposes, is not just dependent on the way the networks and their applications grow. They will need to be seen in the wider contexts of business and not just from a perspective of numbers, options and new applications. These are the actual challenges of the existing business models and not the revolution yet.
“For starters, companies are realizing that levels of communication are increasing on social-networking platforms — outside the control of the corporate IT department. In addition, companies have a lot to gain from social networking, according to some experts.”Another example of a misleading quote. Look what is happening: at first it starts off with a factual representation but whoops, look what happens. The poison is in the tail of this quote: how did we get from increased social networking traffic (factual) to the presentation that companies have a lot to gain. That is only according to some experts: but who are these experts and what do they base their expertise and expert opinion on. With the current speed of new developments, are there actually any experts, or are we slowly seeing the rise of self appointed experts.
The quote of Graham Cluley is of a more realistic nature:
“There are some pretty obvious benefits to using social-networking applications as a business tool, according to Graham Cluley, senior technical consultant with security firm Sophos. “It’s a great research and recruitment tool,” he said. “You can check people out, see what their career history is like, who they associate with, even what their conduct might be like outside the office.”But spot the difference. This is not predicting any large scale revolutionary things, it is a simple day to day use of new media, one I recognize because I have been doing that myself for a longer time. Where things go wrong is if you generalize this by focusing on the first part of the quote only "There are some pretty obvious benefits to using social-networking applications as a business tool". A very specific application of these new media does not mean that in general there is a pretty obvious benefit for any business. Cluley continues:
“However, Cluley said that the benefits of social networking could be taken a step further. “If you look at Facebook, it’s a platform, and you could easily develop applications to sit on top of that, to do virtually anything around collaboration,” he said. For example, firms might consider creating a messaging application that workers can log onto while on the road, or a quick reference guide for employees that pulls in links as part of news feed.”A great idea but not more than that. Cluley clear identifies a possibility but uses the word "could" and we need to keep in mind that Cluley speaks from his own context and not as a business thinker in general. As a risk management/security expert he will recognize that other bridges still need to be built. It is however very easy to present this as vision and knowledge by putting it in the context of a claimed vision of a relationship economy.
“Social networking provides a ready-made knowledge-management platform, said Bradshaw. “In an increasingly competitive world, the most valuable asset companies have is their knowledge, and the one thing this type of platform lets you do is find people with the knowledge you need, and use those skills better in collaboration with other people.”Again a dangerous quote if not read carefully. It cannot be denied that social networking may help you identify valuable resources. I can vouch for that myself. But this doesn't necessarily mean social networking in the sense of Facebooks, Linkedin's, Marzars and others etc. Are we talking about redefining our intranet (especially in larger multinationals) or are we indeed talking about online collaboration with third parties. Again if it were all that simple, we would have seen an incredible rise in online conglomerates of smaller collaborating businesses. And whilst there are some this is far fro the rule so far. Especially in the area of collaboration on developing and creating knowledge, the information age itself throws up some barriers when information and knowledge became an asset and therefore protection worthy. Finding people is the easy part, protecting your hard earned interests when it comes to IP is an entirely different matter. One which could use further exploration and research. The new social media industry may very well be at the heart of knowledge identification, collaboration in the information age throws up some additional questions in this area which have been far from addressed. So again: what we identified is a potential opportunity that could warrant further exploration and not the new trend or direction.
Finally, from Renaissance to Enlightenment
Jay closes:
Looking from the Outside in
For businesses to maximize the opportunity of the medium of social networks they’ll need to gain a perspective from the outside in. What we mean is that thinking tends to be molded over time by ones view of their environment, their business rules and the mental models learned from experience. However, looking from the inside out can sometimes be limited by the paradigms of experience, the lack of outside knowledge and limited vantage points.
As the media reports more and more about innovative uses of social networks for business purposes the old mental models will be pushed from the outside in. The analyst, consultants and market makers will create the new paradigms which eventually will be adopted by businesses globally.
If the phenomenon of social networking for business purposes is a logical extension of personal networking then the collective individuals currently using networks will be those that create the new paradigms….until the next generation expands our thinking even more.
What say you?
I say Jay that you are not concluding on the basis of previous paragraphs, you are assuming things on the basis of the assumptions of others. I read over Jay's post and Michael Pokocky's reply response, I guess that is all outlining the difference between Renaissance and Enlightenment culminating in a (French) revolution.
We are in the Renaissance stage when it comes to Social and Business Networking and it's use for business. A stage where models get tested and ideas about new models start popping up. After proper research we may reach a state of Enlightenment in which we can actually start working at throwing over models if and when required or desired.
For now, notwithstanding his hard work of Jay Deragon to convince us of a new reality called the "relationship economy": everything is still in a stage of discovering, experimenting and most of all a lot of wishful thinking: where things go wrong is when we start mistaking that for knowledge.
I think that the response on this post by Michael Pokocky is driven from a similar perspective especially where it comes to the use of sources to prove a point. I think I can speak for the both of us however when I say that the work of Jay Deragon is of great value in that it provides us with a continuous flow of valuable ideas and opinions for which we can all praise him. The Renaissance was shaped by those that were willing to put their shoulders under new causes with all the achievements and failures that came with it. Regardless of that we need to be thankful for such purpose driven people.
My point in this post is just outlining that we need to be careful in not mixing up opinions and experiences with actual knowledge and understanding.
I think it was in Sun Tzu the Art of War I once read that the wise general makes a lot of calculations. Social networking may very well open us up for a completely new way of doing business. It is however far to early to make any definite conclusions on where it will all take us. It may still turn out to be a fad. It is in my view important to understand that a revolution is usually a reaction to an unsatisfactory situation. In that sense the attention to social networks as a potential means to force change is very understandable. There is a lot of downward spiraling going on which is reflected in economic and business failures, market issues, the rise of fraud, political instabilities, rising crime figures, the rise of social justice and environmental sustainability as key issues on agendas, the rise of religion and spirituality and many other general trends. These are the actual context in which social networking for personal, business and even political purposes need to be seen. A wider approach will ultimately lead to a better understanding of the role and place of social networking in our future.
For now I would say may this post and the responses be a stimulus for all that believe in this idea to start exploring and researching properly.We may very well be heading
towards a completely new way of doing business and a new economy but a lot of work is still in need of being done on the research side. It is important that we start seeing and studying these phenomena in their wider context and from there we can actually start working on a potential revolution.
Thanks again Jay for your fantastic work and Michael for your constant replies.
Social Networks, Renaissance But No Enlightenment Yet.
|
|
|
Tuesday, 20 November 07 - 11:32 AM (GMT +12:00) By John Dierckx in Social & Business Networking Online |
| ||
Several authors and bloggers, most notably Michael Pokocky as a commentator and Jay Deragon as a blogger, are writing about the subject of social networking, the social web and its implications for business. I myself have been looking at the phenomenon from a viewpoint of how it can add to my and my clients businesses. A lot of these posts appear to be dealing with predictions on what the future of the social web will bring for business. My careful conclusion so far is that no one knows what this new phenomenon will end up meaning for business and more importantly that it is too early to make such predictions if you look at the phenomenon itself.
Renaissance
Calling myself here on my blog the Renaissance Man, it makes me happy to finally use that word Renaissance to explain my thought. The Encarta 2005 describes the Renaissance as:
That 17th century for those with an interest in history was the period known as "The Enlightment". It was in this period that the radical changes took place. It was the time of Descartes, Copernicus and Galileo, the time of Isaac Newton, Kant, Montesquieu, Beccaria, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. In Europe the time that lead up to the French Revolution."... the Renaissance was clearly a time in which long standing beliefs were tested; it was a period of intellectual ferment, preparing the ground for thinkers and scientists of the 17th century."
Translated to this day and age it cannot be denied that we are indeed again in a time in which important things are tested, if only and comparable to the times of the Renaissance there are a lot of things that require dramatic change. Driven by the circumstances so eloquently described by Michael Pokocky in his Sophistica Manifesto when he speaks of the world heading towards a vertigo.
Whilst there is enough to write a book about, I would like to limit myself here to the phenomenon of social networking.
Social Networking Fad or Change: Thoughts on What and How
In a recent post with the title of this paragraph Jay Deragon concludes that:
"Sounds like many global leaders are examining the revolution brought on by waves of disruptive, revolutionary technological advances that are driving the new economy."He wonders if the business leaders that are being quoted in his article may perhaps be referring to the "relationship economy". These leaders speak in terms of "globalisation, individualisation, networked structures, web-shaped relationship patterns."
What these leaders apparently do not speak off is social networking and social networking online. This is an important notion since it appears to indicate, at least to me that these leaders speak of the WHAT and not so of the HOW. That is probably where the big difference in thinking is between the leaders and the followers. They thing in WHAT terms where the HOW will enfold itself.
This difference is clearly visible when you look at the reactions to the post.
"With Microsoft’s acquisition of Facebook, or a portion of it, online social networking suddenly became validated to be more than “just a fad.” (Mark Kerrigan)
“Fad for sure. That’s why we have illusion. Revolution? First you need a leader and then you need to define your cause clearly and then you need to sell it to the people and then you need to explain to the people why its going to work. Now all I want to know is who would want to take on a job like that and who is going to pay them? Read the current anniversary issue of The Atlantic, The Future of the American Idea and then you’ll have at least some idea of the extent of the problems inherent in the Gold Rush of 2007″_Michael Pokocky (Michael Pokocky)
See the difference in thinking here?
Social Networks as a Revolution
When Jay writes that social network sites achieved a mass scale that will prove hard to dislodge, his argument appears to be based on a numbers game and less on the quality and nature of this phenomenon. And let's be honest, social networking sites are actually enjoying massive growth. But.... are they actually testing existing business models, Can we see the social networking sites and the massive public interest in these sites as a test to existing business models and a path towards the "relationship Economy". So far I have seen no substantial evidence of that. At best these sites and the associated applications offer an addition to the existing array of marketing and sales techniques at this stage.
Back to the underlying question however: what does this attention for those networks actually mean. Whilst it is attractive to think in terms of revolution if only because it sells, I have seen no compelling evidence that indicates that these social networks and their massive growth are an expression of discontent or even a perspective of required change to our existing business models. Could this massive growth maybe the expression of something completely different: perhaps a generally felt sense of disconnection, a new sense of community, an escape from daily reality. I don't have the answer but it seems to me that this is a fair question. And, are those social networks and the social web really that disruptive as they are presented to be?
In the EIU report Foresight 2020, the following 5 major trends are predicted:
- Globalisation
A redistribution of economic power - Demographics
Population shift will have a considerable impact on economies, companies and customers - Atomisation
Globalisation and networking technologies will enable firms to use the world as their supply base for talent and materials. Fragmentation of processes, firms, customers and supply chains.Effective collaboration will become more important. - Personalisation
whilst price and quality remain important personalisation and with that customisationability of products and services will be a key issue. - Knowledge Management
The focuss of management will be on the areas of the business where personal chemistry or creative insight matter more than rules and processes. Improving the productivity of knowledge workers through technology, training and organisational change will be the major boardroom challenge of the next 15 years.
When I place these major trends in the light of social networking and the discussion of social networking sites and technologies, it appears quite clear to me that social networking is not a revolution in itself , the new technologies are not the revolution instead, they could be supportive in realising the expected changes. In that sense it becomes important to distinguish between social networking as such and the social networking and social web technologies.
The technologies and the networking sites may end up being supportive to the real changes but they are not the revolution themselves, at least not in my view. This is what in my view Michael Pokocky understood where Kerrigan is reading more into things than they may be. Michael thinks in WHAT Kerrigan and Deraagon, appear to be thinking in HOW. There is a risk in the latter, a risk of making wrong choices. As long as the WHAT is not clear (enough) the HOW is not a question yet.
In terms of renaissance as a time in which existing models are being tested: globalisation, demographics, atomisation, individualisation, web shaped relationship patterns, they are the actual, drivers for change. At best social networking and social web technologies can contribute and support these drivers of change. In my view therefore, the social web and social networks are not a sign of the revolution they are supporting deeper felt and underlying needs.
Business has always been a human relationship model and it appears that that doesn't change much. In a sense our ecoinomies have always been relationship economies. Those new technologies aid in the realisation of such change drivers as globalisation, atomisation and personalisation, but they are not the revolution itself. And all this time, while our eye is on the technology the real changes seem to be taking place on a different level. In that sense I would have to agree that where social networking and social web applications are presented as the revolution they are indeed a fad, they are they HOW and not the WHAT.
In more general terms I guess we should all try not to get confused. This time, like the renaissance in which existing models are being tested, not because of new technologies but because of deeper underlying drivers. The social networking hype and social web are expressions of this. The real revolution is taking place on a different level however.
The answer to that can be found if one asks the question: what is this enormous attention and success of social networking sites actually telling us. A question which seems to be neither discussed or investigated because we are all so busy trying to find a way to cash in on the existing chaos. Give yourself some time to find out the WHAT and the HOW will follow.
Re networkingitis
|
|
|
Wednesday, 31 October 07 - 10:31 AM (GMT +12:00) By John Dierckx in Social & Business Networking Online |
| ||
In a recent comment on my article "Re -Feeding the Free Factors" Jay Deragon pointed me to another blog of his "Tipping Point or Burnout with a request to share my thoughts. That is exactly what I will be doing here.
Let me start of by saying that it was hard to come up with anything that had not been said already in the comments by Michael Pokocky ( See here and here). In these two comments Michael very eloquently pointed out what can be said about this topic in an intellectual sense.
What rests is my personal perspective.
Tipping Point or Burnt Out
Let's start of by the thrusts of the "what say you" question by Jay:
“I’m going to stop because I’m making myself dizzy. To be sure, online social networks will rise in importance and become integrated into our lives far beyond what we can imagine. But this brief recall exercise underscores that too many social-network services tend to be clunky media destinations, requiring too much intention, focused navigation and maintenance. There’s only so much of my attention and effort to go around, yet still great hunger for value.”
Recently we’ve read several forum post of people stating that the time has come for them to stop all this networking and confine their activities to just a few forums and networks because they are burned out. They also state that chasing economic opportunities within networks has not produced the results required to keep them engaged.
So are we all getting burned out or is the medium at a tipping point where it will become an efficent and effective tool to conduct commerce? Will things begin to become simplier or even more chaotic? Will individuals and businesses alike be able to justify their time and energy with the medium or will all this pass away as a blip on the landscape of technology?
It first made me remember a long talk I had with a Buddhist monk on a plane some time ago as well as a remark I made in another post: Do We Really Need Social Networking? In Hindsight I should have added "What Say You?" Although he question was meant as a teaser, there was a serious note underlying this question. I guess Jay's Post underlines this.
Let's be honest, why are we actually doing what we are doing? Ultimately it is to make us happy isn't it? I guess the big realization of the relative importance of social networking and social media came to me when I had been talking about World Peace with a Buddhist Monk some time ago.
Technology as an Enabler for Man v Man as an Enabler for Technology
Regardless of the anything those social networks are or are not. It seems to me that things are not that hard at all. What I see happening is that people are apparently mixed up in where they stand in this online networking and social media thing. I guess Michael Pokocky said it all but here some additional thoughts.
Where is see the burnouts appear is in that people are mixed up about their role in that by now: people seem to be enablers for technology instead of the other way around. We have this crazy idea that we need to be everywhere ate the same time, we need to be online and available 24/7 but who actually made us come to think like that?
I see the same in all these online networks. "You just have to be there" at the latest new network. It is not that different when it comes to having a corporate website and being out there on the internet to participate in the global economy. Get real all of us.
I do not deny that there are possibilities and opportunities but do we need to try and take advantage of all of those and can we? Apparently not, looking at the burnout remarks of those with "social networkiningitus". We are made to believe and act upon these believes by those that talk us into applying and joining new media and technologies in the end instead of the other way around.
I just asked a question on facebook, "why are you here?" and isn't that what it is all about? First decide on what you want and hey, if this internet thing or social media thing or mobile media thing is helping you in that in an effective and efficient way, great, if not:skip it. If it turns into a distraction but you wanna hang in there: streamline your incoming and outgoing traffic. Look at Michael, he withdrew several times and got more attention than in those days he was so active. In fact it is how we really got to know each other and turned a connection into a relationship and.by now a deep friendship.
So as soon as you cannot answer the question of why are you here or why are you using this technology but more importantly why do you do what you do, than either use you delete button or hang on passively and get on with it as soon as you have an answer. That is quite the opposite of what I see happening.
Technology should be an enabler for you and not the other way around.
The monk on the plane understood this. He knew what his purpose was and for that he did not need a computer, a notebook, a mobile phone a website and a blog. No, he needed a way to travel around and just speak to people.
That's what made me realize the relativity of the importance of all these new media and internet technologies for my purpose. Ultimately what I want is to be happy. I see helping others as part of my purpose and refer back to the articles about giving and giving to get. For me however it has always been clear that this was to be within my means. That's how I look at this social media thing.
Why am I blogging, because it makes me happy if I see responses in my mailbox by people that say he John thanks that was helpful. In terms of return on investment, that's enough return for me. It leaves me free to do things when I feel like it or have the time. When it comes to those networks, same thing, and besides that it has offered me an opportunity to meet new people I enjoy sharing ideas with. For the rest, like I have said on many a occasion: Linkedin is my search engine for professionals, Xing, Marzar, Plaxo, Ryze, Academici and a whole bunch of others, ok I joined them but I am not active there: too much noise. Facebook, works for me to stay in contact with my good friend Michael and to see what the business 3.0 thingy does. Lot's of groups lots of noise but only a time consuming distraction if you let yourself be distracted. For the rest a great way to share information but ON MY OWN TERMS WITHIN MY OWN PURPOSE(S).
Where things go wrong is where people start thinking for themselves and let technology decide where their lives are being taken. If you are so sick of having to join all these networks, than use the concepts of Michael to streamline your activities. But most of all answer the question: why am I here, is it bringing what I thought I would get out of it, do I need to make changes to realize that or can I just skip it.
Your delete button is probably the most important one if you feel overwhelmed by choices, with the off button as the next best thing. Pressing the "on" button on your computer does not necessarily mean you have to connect to the internet. Having a mobile phone doesn't mean it has to be on 24/7 or that you have to pick it up whenever it rings. We all have a leave a message option, use it. And for those of you who are in doubt about that: just give it a try for some time.
Some months ago I got a nervous call from a colleagues wife. The internet connection fell out and now she couldn't connect could I maybe help her ask her husband who was on a trip what the id and password were again. Sure I would help but why did she not just go out and enjoy the beautiful weather and have fun with the kids?
Before I could contact the husband, she already called back. Never mind that id and password, she had the best day in a long time. And guess what: she still has great memories over that day, and it did not mean the end of her business. Well, what do you know?
So the bottom line of my point here: it is neither a tipping point or a burnout, it is a lack of purpose and people thinking for themselves, unclarity about purpose and means and a lack of understanding the role of technology in life and business. Technology is a means and not a purpose, social networks and social media likewise.
I guess that is what we can learn from the kids online that are just out there having fun.
THE STUFF IS THERE FOR YOU YOU ARE NOT THERE FOR THE STUFF. Technology is a means not a purpose. Technology should enable you and not the other way around.
Re: Feeding the Free Factors
|
|
|
Monday, 22 October 07 - 02:04 PM (GMT +12:00) By John Dierckx in Social & Business Networking Online |
| ||
I tend to follow the writings of Jay Deragon.
He is blogging relentlessly on what he defines as the relationship economy and I can but say I admire the man for his energy and flow. Recently he wrote two what seemed to me interrelated posts: "The Free Business Factors" and "Feeding the Free Factors".
Below my responses to these two great posts that I would like to share with you.
Hi Jay,
You are bringing up an important issue here in my view. I am curious though, where do you stop giving and where do you monetize and what is more important: what is the actual purpose of giving away the freebies?
I have seen on more than one occasion that people are working with the idea of giving and I see many promoting the idea of "giving to get" (it has been the slogan of for instance the SICU group).
I will share some of the thoughts I put out on my blog in respect of giving. Please be advised that I am not suggesting anything, it's just that I am seeing the "give to get" slogan turn up so often and I think that my thoughts on this subject could be complimentary.
The initial thoughts I formulated in the a blog post with the title "Do we Give or do we Give to Get" with a follow up in an article "Giving to Get Revisted".
I seein your post that you are like many defining your giving away to at least some extent in ROI terms:
- "Is the freebie a value added idea, insight or knowledge desired by
a community? There is no power in the gift unless it is crucial to your
business. Have you thought beyond the “free” and how it will or could
become a commercial product or service in The Relationship Economy? - What virtuous circle will this freebie circulate in? Is it the loop
you most need to amplify? What segment of community do you aim to
serve? - In the long run, the unbounded support of a customer is more
valuable than a fixed amount of their money. How will you eventually
capture the support of customers if there is initially no flow of
money?"
To me but that is personal it poses the question of purpose of your "gift". Is it still a gift or has the gift become a "means to get" what you are after? This is not a strange thought at all, it is part of who we are as humans and the way in which we are socialized especially when it comes to defining succes.
Due to our 'Western' terms of success is is in my view that we more than once don't recognize the
fantastic returns we are getting because they might not be translated
to financial and generally accepted notions of success. More
importantly we are at all times conditioned to think in terms of ROI.
What I claimed in those blogs is that the way forward is just to give, virtually
unconditionally and only limited by your possibilities and within terms
of reason (although I recognize that is a relative notion that can mean
different things to different people). The giving does not have to be
in any specific form, it can be in anything and for any need, with or
without a specific request for assistance: a blog, helping someone
cross a busy street, ringing someones door bell to tell them they left
the lights of their car on instead of just walking on, exceeding
clients expectations and looking for ways to give that little bit extra
they could use but did not pay for, helping out people in need that are
not paying clients just because they need it and perhaps even when they
do not have the funds to pay for professional help, creating a link to
someone's website or blog, anything.
My second claim is that this does bring return on investment, however from a business point of view: the turns are not as controlled, which is of course because the investments are less controlled and hung up to a very generic purpose: love and compassion.
Although not always explicit, this model appears to work in agrarian communities here in New Zealand. It is normal and part of the social norm you help out your community. In turn the community is there for you when you need the assistance. No one seems to keep score, there is no set plan, just ring the bell when you need assistance. They just do it.
But now translate that to a business model: I see farmers here succeed whilst at the same time they are helping out their community which is basically made up of the competition and for all to florish. They are not even aware of the success formula, it's just part of the cultural heritage.
I a sense that is the type of model I appreciate or at least am learning from where it comes to any return on investment. Others would talk in terms of karma.
I guess what I am trying to say is that there is always a return on investment. Personally I have seen this work for me in moist incredible ways. Perhaps the best example is my ongoing relationship with Michael Pokocky. Many years ago we came into contact and both of us decided to simply bring the best of ourselves to the table in every single communication covering any imaginable subject. As a result, I ended up going beyond myself ( I can not speak for Michael) and have been in a position to develop and grow in ways never imagined before: as a human and professionally.
This has created room for new approaches to life and business. Maintaining the 'lifestyle' and 'philosophy' of living a life that serves humanity on a macro, meso and micro scale by just relentlessly give out of love, ended up bringing me all the advantages you are discussing. It was however never planned and even in (sometimes very hard times) I stuck to it if only because it is so liberating to not be bothered by hidden agendas and the stress that comes with them.
In my view therefore things start with the giving and the economy will evolve from that, perhaps not in the way we can control or plan it, but for now I would say, it can only get better.
Thanks again my friend. I truly enjoy the conversations and appreciate all the work you are so relentlessly bringing to the table for further exploration.
For those of you with an interest in the subject by all means go visit Jay's blog or perhaps think about visiting Link To Your World and of course don't forget to visit Michael Pokocky's website and the wealth of written material.
... More items are available in my News Archive
