Nearly a decade ago, I sent a very angry e-mail to a group of colleagues at the startup company I was working for at the time. It was rancorous, it was self-righteous, above all… I was right, goldarnit.
Shortly after I sent the missive, my boss – the CEO of the 80-person-strong startup I was at – called me. It was strange that he used the phone rather than replying to the email. It was stranger that he didn’t just walk the three doors that separated our offices; but no… he called me.
“Do you have a minute?” he asked. “Can you come see me in my office?”
I was suddenly nervous and wondered if it had to do with the email I’d just sent out. I was pretty sure my job was safe, but… one never knows.
When I arrived at his office moments later, his back was to the door while my email was splayed (in very large text) across his screen.
“Adam,” he began timidly, slowly turning in his chair Bond-villain-style. “I know you’ve been a consultant for a long time, and aren’t yet accustomed to working in a group setting. That’s why this is a really important thing for you to know now… before it becomes a problem.”
I was ashen. OK – I was ashen-er than I usually appear. I had really screwed up – big. Lecture from the CEO big. Then he made one statement to me – a question, really… almost rhetorical, but somehow pointed. A dull sort of sharp, like the edge of a letter-opener.
“Before you send an email like this, ask yourself: Would you say this aloud – in person – to the people you’re sending it to?”
I rethought the email in my mind and realized that no… I most certainly wouldn’t ‘have the [guts]‘ (as he would later say to me) to say this in person to any of the recipients of the email.
I think this same rule applies, perhaps more-so, to social media vehicles like Twitter, Facebook and even comments on blogs and YouTube. All the time, it seems, I see short barbs carried across the tubes that would have no place in casual conversation with a group where there are contrary views, or even intimate chat between two individuals who are at odds. People have no problem, for instance, twittering about politician X’s latest misstep, whereas they would have no ability to speak their displeasure in the presence of that party.
Far too frequently I see Tweets or Facebook Fan Page posts flung indiscriminately as bait that is clearly designed to entice a contrarian response (as with Mr. Clement’s most recent Twitter spars with those for and against the census issue). Much of the time, the subject of such attacks are derided for “not getting the two-way” of social media when, in fact, such a comment wouldn’t merit a response in TRL.
In one particular circumstance, a Social Media aficionado declared that (paraphrasing) they were going to ‘unfollow’ a particular local politician because they were too one-way: Highlighting the notion that this politician was using social media to broadcast their achievements but bemoaning the fact that they weren’t listening to the other people in the social media space. To this I say the following:
I would do exactly the same… as the politician.
Social media is not a private conversation; indeed, on the contrary, it’s a super public, archived forum. I wouldn’t expect a politician to candidly go on record regarding a hot topic in a private conversation with me, and were I a political advisor, I wouldn’t suggest that anyone, ever, express an opinion on a hot issue in < 140 chars that hadn’t been carefully crafted and considered by about 20 politically-minded copywriters (and if you think that Obama is actually writing even 1/140th of any Tweet, well… I’ve got ocean-front property in in Calgary to sell you).
If you take issue with a politician – especially a local one – or even if you take issue with a politician’s party’s policy… make an appointment and go see them. If you’re a constituent, it’s almost unheard of for them to refuse you an audience. It may take a week (or five), but they will see you, and they will listen, and they will respond.
If you want more out of a brand… write a letter, or speak to a manager, or stop doing business with them. Heck, I’ve been seriously guilty of slapping a brand via Twitter (http://twitter.com/adamcaplan/status/18934536560), and I’ve even considered “Liking” an Anti-[Insert hated company here] page on Facebook, but it’s rare that I do something about it (other than boycott Bell and McDonalds – my favourite brand hate-ons), so I’m certainly guilty of using my online persona as a passive-aggressive shield as well…
The argument I often hear back is “These companies/politicians/public figures should communicate with me the way I want to be communicated with”, to which I reply “Horsepucky” (to borrow a phrase from M*A*S*H). Organizations of any size have finite resources, and can’t respond to every single social media meme that starts getting press. E-Mail, snail-mail and phone support still work – as does walking into a store or an office and making one’s case. Just because you send 2000 tweets a day and @yourleastlikedbiz has a Twitter handle doesn’t make them fair game.
And that’s the point. If you want a two-way conversation – especially one that’s controvercial with ANYONE, politician, your favourite brand, or band, or (again) anyone — don’t hide behind an avatar (even if it is a reasonably well-represented likeness) ask yourself if you’d have the [guts] to say it to their face… the same litmus test you’d use with e-mail.
If you have a problem with this post, give me a call, and we’ll discuss it over a beer or a coffee. I’ll even buy it for you.
5 Comments
Good post — and good rule to follow. I’ll remember it. Especially when you’ve never met the person. It’s amazing how much I’ve found my attitude changes once I see someone face-to-face.
I think brands are fair game though. Then it’s more about signaling to our friends than actually communicating to the brand. I’ve been on the receiving end and individual messages don’t really get through regardless of medium. The person handling it probably saw a dozen of the same that day and isn’t putting much thought into the response. It’s all stats — unless you’re legitimately making a specific request and want a result.
Politicians are kind of in between though. I haven’t figured out exactly what I think yet but this helped…
@Brian_Frank, I’m not saying that one shouldn’t air their views, I’m calling on netizens to consider their words before they click ‘post’ and not to expect that everyone wants to engage in a dialogue on every issue via Social Media.
I do, think, upon reflection, that were I faced with the CEO of Rogers, for example, I would mention my experience, but likely in a context that he would understand and using a language that was both respectful and constructive. It I approach it with the rancor I often see online, he would do what any human would do — fold his arms across his chest and dismiss my rant, or at least be unreceptive to it… It’s not the message I’m delivering, rather it’s the container (Insert appropriate McLuhan quote here).
I’ve long struggled with the right and wrong of being negative on twitter. When I first started, I was told NEVER be negative but then I started to see negativity creep in breaking this once “golden rule”. Negativity seemed to be selectively applied and only at those individuals that weren’t actively participating.
I think your “litmus test” is the correct one – with one caveat – you may be fine saying it to their face, but if they aren’t participating in the medium, I still consider this on par to you saying it behind their back.
Thanks Adam, I really enjoyed this post. I do agree with many of your points. I sometimes feel that the ability to instantly share opinions allows us all to be experts. Not everything is black and white, and 140 characters might not do justice to the grey areas. That’s not necessarily a bad thing if it sparks good conversation and creates interest, but I think you should be open to listening to other opinions if you throw the first stone. And you are correct, that conversation is sometimes better had in person, by telephone, or email.
While social media has an undeniable value, there is an entire world out there of people who aren’t immersed in it. Their opinions and beliefs are just as important, even if they aren’t as widely heard. If we make it “us and them”, we are surely missing out.
Great blog post. I totally agree with you Adam. This is actually the reason no one can find @CityThink anymore. I grew tired of taking unpopulist but realistic positions – based on my experience as a municipal political consultant. The minute I tweeted, I knew I’d be into a 3-hr debate with people I don’t actually know and probably wouldn’t want to know, that would simply result in my own stress levels increasing and me wondering if the insults bore any truth. Who needs it when all you’re doing is, for instance stating the facts about property rights and the Ontario Planning Act? Not I.
One Trackback
[...] inclusion in this weekly roundup? Let me know! Character development isn’t just for children Don’t let social media… Family game night Halfway to a year My new eco tax Open data in London, Ontario Rainy day money [...]