Media Guerrilla responds to the question, "How do you know when to talk back?" The answer to the question in regards to blogs seems tricky to me. Media Guerrilla seems to do a good job of creating a three pronged test, so to speak.
When the answer to the prongs are "no" it takes careful consideration on a case by case basis of what to do next. In another post, Media Guerrilla says the best way to direct your consideration is to maintain focused on what types of conversations suit your goals best. He says,
"Listening is important, no doubt, but when it comes to response and engagement, you really need to pick and choose which conversation will have the best returns and outcomes - i.e., which conversation will serve your purpose best."
I agree with this, but by no means should this be applied as a cut and dried approach. I don't think Media Guerrilla intended it to be either. Engagement is all about connecting on a personal level. You don't just do it because it benefits you. I understand you need to prioritize your resources, but social media is ideally about the two-way benefits-- not just converting trust into dollars.
Chris Schroeder relates Media Guerrilla's approach to the saying, "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer." Again, I think this may be a superficial way of looking at social media. Call me unrealistic, but why not strive to minimize your enemies by giving your audience a reason to trust you.
- "Is the post factually accurate?
- Is the post a fair expression of opinion?
- Is a relationship with the author important?"
"If yes, then you have to go one step further and ask yourself if talking back
via comments or the back channel will augment and extend the relationship. Only
you can answer that question.
If no, then you still have to go one step
further and ask whether or not the blog post itself can impact and influence
people's perceptions. In most cases, if a relationship with the blog author
isn't a priority, neither is the blog's readership, and therefor there's no need
to talkback. Case closed."
When the answer to the prongs are "no" it takes careful consideration on a case by case basis of what to do next. In another post, Media Guerrilla says the best way to direct your consideration is to maintain focused on what types of conversations suit your goals best. He says,
"Listening is important, no doubt, but when it comes to response and engagement, you really need to pick and choose which conversation will have the best returns and outcomes - i.e., which conversation will serve your purpose best."
I agree with this, but by no means should this be applied as a cut and dried approach. I don't think Media Guerrilla intended it to be either. Engagement is all about connecting on a personal level. You don't just do it because it benefits you. I understand you need to prioritize your resources, but social media is ideally about the two-way benefits-- not just converting trust into dollars.
Chris Schroeder relates Media Guerrilla's approach to the saying, "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer." Again, I think this may be a superficial way of looking at social media. Call me unrealistic, but why not strive to minimize your enemies by giving your audience a reason to trust you.
*Photo from People.com at http://tinyurl.com/2h2a42
No comments:
Post a Comment