I had entirely too much fun trashing Twitter yesterday. But, I am now beginning to regret it, because I feel compelled to finish my thought by talking about this “Fear of Social Media” thing that has apparently been discussed to death in the Blogoclump. And I’d promised myself I’d stay out of it because there is nothing more boring than bloggers talking about blogging, which is essentially what this is.
But, here goes.
If your goal, for whatever reason, is to get more associations (or just YOUR association) to use social media, then the first thing to do is:
Quit talking about some fictional “Fear of Social Media” as if it were a bona fide cultural phenomenon. This is an old trick that always backfires. Defenders of something accuse their detractors of being “afraid” because “afraid” sounds irrational and easy to deal with.
But detractors know full well that they are not being irrational, which makes them suspect that the defenders are being either disingenuous or stupid, and this makes them more resolute in their opinion, not less. No satisfying resolution can be reached because the key to a real resolution is understanding what your opponent thinks about an issue and why — and in this case, both sides have decided to view their opponents’ perspective in a way that does not gibe with its reality.
Which means the winner in this discussion winds up being whichever one has the power to say, “Because I said so.”
According to the many conversations being held about this specific issue, the “defenders” of social media have the severe disadvantage in most organizations because it is the “detractors” who either sit in the corner office or have the ear of those who do. Specifically, the discussions have focused on “fear of legal ramifications.”
The problem is that the defenders are not actually listening to what the detractors are saying.
Just like any other business, associations do things every day that they might get sued for. Companies, and organizations, get sued every day; the only way to avoid legal problems altogether is to not operate at all.
Just like any other business, associations decide to do these things based on an assessment of risk and reward. We want to minimize the risk even though we know we can’t eliminate it, but we also want to maximize the reward — and this always requires risk.
If you want to get your association to engage in “social media” for whatever reason, and the response you hear is, “We are concerned about the legal ramifications,” then there are two things you can be sure of:
What they are ABSOLUTELY NOT SAYING is, “We love the idea, but are afraid we might get sued.”
What they are 100% DEFINITELY SAYING is, “So, the downside is we might get sued, and the upside is … absolutely nothing.”
Your goal, if you want “social media” (or just about anything else) done, is NOT to strategize on how to overcome fears of legal ramifications. It’s a pointless endeavor because you can always get sued over just about anything, and there are always ways to minimize those risks. No, your goal should be to figure out what, if anything, that upside is. Because if you don’t know what it is, and you can’t explain it in a really clear and compelling way, then you frankly don’t deserve to win the argument.
Compounding your problem is that many of the “detractors” you’re dealing with already have an opinion of “social media” — which is the real reason they are not particularly interested in your request — and if you want to know what that opinion is, read the last half of my last post on Twitter.
Your “upside” needs to be clear and compelling enough to overcome that.
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Thanks, Kevin.
Fear has nothing to do with web 2.0, any more than “reality TV’ shows have anything to do with reality. There’s little or nothing in association management to create fear. I’m trying to hold off writing a piece about what fear really is, and about learning to live and function with it.
Your point, trying to get some logic and rational thinking into the discussion about Web 2.0 is important. Why would anyone in a responsible position for an organization take risks when there are no visible tangible benefits? What are the organizational benefits from Web 2.0? Who has identified the beneficial results for associations that may be obtained from Web 2.0?
Web 2.0 advocates would do much better (and be more credible) by articulating the positive benefits and results from implementing Web 2.0 tools, than advancing arguments such as ‘you can’t hold technology back” or that association execs aren’t rushing to Web 2.0 because they are “fearful”. Get a grip.
I wrote a response a couple of months ago suggesting that much more positive change might be achieved by less finger pointing and judgemental comments, and by more rational due diligence. See http://www.getmejamienotter.com/getmejamienotter/2008/02/the-myth-of-c on.html#comments
Repeating myself: “If change (to implement Web 2.0) is really the desired outcome, how effective do we think this sort of (judgemenatal) language will be? Wouldn’t expanding the knowledge/experience base, dealing with risk and doing the necessary due diligence be more effective (and ultimately more fun)? We might even actually accomplish something tangible.”
I continue to think that change and new ideas–whether Web 2.0 or anything else–not only takes vision and daring, but it also takes old-fashioned stoop labor to identify the benefits, identify and manage the risks, and work diligently forward.
Change doesn’t happen by someone simply advocating it from the sidelines. Change doesn’t happen because it may be “cool” to someone. Do some reading on the research of successful change management. Change, including web 2.0, requires a lot of mature work, including team work.
Just a thought. Off my box. Appreciate your comments.
Virgil, thank you very much. Excellent points, as always. You’re right — change requires work, even if, in a political year, “change” makes a better mantra than plan. Thank you for your thoughts!
Kevin – please tell me you didn’t just say that the upside of social media was absolutely nothing.
I didn’t say that at all. I said that’s what the people who are saying “there are too many legal ramifications” are really saying. If your response is that legal issues can be overcome, you are actually answering the wrong question.
Amen Kevin. You hit the nail on the head, “Nothing more boring than blogging about blogging.” There’s alot of navel gazing going on in the association community.
What’s the upside? What are the benefits? Then there can be a substantive discussion.
I agree with you! And some of us are trying to do just that, demonstrate the value of social media, all the time. But many associations will continue to refuse to participate, and by the time their members are all gone it will be too late.
CJ: I have to agree with you, there is a lot of navel gazing going on, but having said that, let’s not forget that there’s also a lot of great stuff happening. It’s not all bloggers talking about blogging. Sometimes we all get a little carried away talking about the things we love or are passionate about, whether we are talking by the watercooler or emailing the listserve or posting to a blog. Since none of us are doing this blogging thing for money, perhaps that tendency is even more pronounced.
Maddie: I’m afraid saying things like “many associations will continue to refuse…and by the time their members are all gone it will be too late” doesn’t help your cause. I know exactly where you’re coming from, and I mean no offense, but it comes off as either powerfully naive or shrill.
History is also not on your side. Lots of national associations didn’t have websites in 1996 when the drum was being beaten by the early adopters (and lots and lots of consultants). Do you remember which ones? Did they go out of business? Saying “you must do this or technology will pass you by” is simply not going to work with a lot of organizations. As more and more organizations do it, the value will become more and more clear. But until it’s become prevalent, it’s up to internal champions (or, in some professions or industries, member champions) to figure out how to sell the value. (The great thing is, if it really is valuable for your organization, and you’re the one who sells it, you become the forward-thinking rock star, which is not a bad place to be.)
I feel like we’re arguing but we’re saying the same thing. Associations die all the time. How many associations don’t have websites today? For some, value will be created by jumping in now, for others, the best course to take will be to wait and see what happens. But everyone wants to know about these new technologies, and that’s not a bad thing.