We noticed the same thing. I didn’t expect to go to a panel about Social Media Metrics and hear about how I should convince my CEO to listen to the conversation. We bought into that long ago. We built our company on that (and other principles, of course). I’m curious if this is a reflection of the attendees or an underestimation by the panelists.

Almost every day I deal with similar issues, albeit from a slightly different perspective. Semantics and terminology have a huge impact on programming and can make maintenance and feature additions fluid, or extremely aggravating.

My coworkers will tell you that sometimes I take it much to seriously, however I do think it is very important. It seems that for the social interaction model it is very important to relate to other humans using empathy – just like normal face-to-face relationships. In the programming world it is important to imply the nuances of what is going on by picking a technically accurate term.

Thanks for the great post!

I think that people have a tendency to get too caught up in the vocabulary…the reality is that words like “customer” and “prospect” serve a purpose. Yes this is all about conversations and relationships, but it’s still about BUSINESS relationships and we need the vocabulary to describe the different variants/stages of a business relationships. How is describing someone as a prospect antithetical to treating them as a person? It’s just a way of describing your relationship with them without having to say “human being who could potentially purchase one of our products.” We need this vocabulary because we need to note the different variants/stages of a business relationship (otherwise we end up having the wrong conversations with people…i.e., people need different info as a customer, prospect, etc.) . There’s nothing about words like prospect (i.e., prospective customer) or customer that suggests that you don’t intend to engage in open, authentic conversations with them or that you don’t view them as someone deserving of respect.

I’ve always seen Web 2.0 as a Cluetrain enabler/catalyst. And I find it pretty odd as to why the connection between the two isn’t being made more often.

And speaking of SXSW, the Zuckerberg/Lacy incident is a pretty good demonstration of Cluelessness. Lacy clearly didn’t understand that the audience is smarter, more informed, and more organized. Lobbing softball questions at Zuckerberg was simply insulting their intelligence.

First of all, the Social Design Strategies panel was in the top three of all panels here. It was terrific.
Second, you’re not making TOO subtle a point to assert that, because we think in language, the language we use matters.

Great article, I’m gonna pass it around my orbit. And great panel, dude. Good to have met you.

@Geoff – I agree with you that language matters, which is why we have the vocabulary to begin with. The names provide needed context…this idea that referring to someone as anything other than “humans” or “people” is against the tenets of the Cluetrain is absurd. We describe people as prospects or customers because those names have meaning that provide value to ALL parties involved in the relationship (thus leading to better conversations).

This meme seems to pop up every few months and it rarely seems to have much connection to how business actually should/can get done. Too many people treat Cluetrain as some sort of religious text that must be followed to the letter. The underlying meanings and directions that the Cluetrain was meant to provide are fantastic, but it seems to me that they’re getting lost in the dogma.

I remember going to SXSW in 2000 — and you know what the hot topic was that year? The Cluetrain Manifesto. Your point is well taken. Why have we not moved forward in a more significant way? I think it has a lot to do with where many of our clients (those of use who work with clients) are at. Believe it or not, while they understand that “social” is here and now, they still often don’t fully understand the concepts of why it matters and how to do it. That said, you’re right, SXSW is for us geeks and we should be leading the conversation. it’s just a tough line sometimes. Maybe next year we’ll do better. Definitely food for thought as we develop and choose panels for 09.

The higher up the food chain (corporate or entrepreneurial) that harder it is to hear the real conversation with people. The loud screaming of money seems to drowned them out.

@Paul – just curious…have you read the book?

Hi Josh – It was great to meet you in Austin, albeit too quickly and in an environment where yelling was required to be heard over the music. The interview we did with you and Mike is still in the works, but I hope to have it up by Friday. In the meantime, you can check out the first five we did that night by clicking on my name above.

You cover a lot in your post, but I just want to comment on vocabulary in social media. I’m the first one to bristle when someone says they’re speaking “to” people vs “with” them and there isn’t a big enough bucket to hold all the words I’d like to see stricken from business-speak (let’s start with consumer, lead, body, etc.). But at the same time it’s important to not alienate, but educate the masses if we’re to move this whole business forward. I try to be more inclusive with my language to shift existing mental models from pre-web or web 1.0 thinking to the world of web 2.0. My use of the word “channels” is meant to help bridge that gap in many conversations, but I may have mis-spoken given the context of your comment (and the time of the evening). But now I’m interested… how would you describe the various ways (I say channels) one can use to communicate with a person (i.e. face-to-face, phone, synchronous online, asynchronous online, other) using Cluetrain-speak?

When I was fresh out of college, I worked at Bread and Circus (now Whole Foods Market)for a few years. Organic food was just gaining momentum (it was long time ago – I’m an old man) and we had a lot of people coming in who had no idea what organic (and vegan) was all about. There was a period of education (and transition) where we spent a lot of time helping people along that really weren’t on the “organic cluetrain.” Sure, it was uncomfortable for purists (many of them thought we were going to hell for popularizing organic), but look where we/they are today. I think it’s fair to draw some parallels between that time and where we are today in SM.

It’s pretty clear we’re in a period of growing interest in social media and bringing people along at their speed (and in their language) is in all of our best interests.

I read Cluetrain a while ago, but will pick it up again at your suggestion. Thanks Josh – great post!

Jim

Good article, Josh.

You’re not making a semantic point. You’re making the fundamental point. Marketers are trained to think “channels”. A lot of being successful in this is unlearning some marketing rules and relearning some human ones.

Well done. Sorry I missed your panel.

~Jim

“I replied that they’re already having a conversation with their customers, even if it’s a broken one and even if it’s offline.”

Businesses are not very reflective — they’re always looking outward for the ‘next new thing’ (a sad marketing behavior, ungrounded as a primary focus). “Economic” innovation (courtesy of Schopenhauer) is seeing existing things in new ways. The most valuable relationship (agree with Paul) are the ones already in place.

As such have never been able to understand how CRM got so focused on the ‘next customer’ and does very little to do anything to improve existing relationships.

Always test the behavior against the likelihood for success with your own ’significant other’.

Great post, I agree, just about everything was ’social’ and the tide certainly shifted to the audience.

Awesome post! I’m sorry I missed your panel. Is there a podcast somewhere I can listen too?

Josh – yes, read it and liked it a lot, but I don’t take it all at face value and I think it’s misused on a regular basis. To me, what’s most interesting about Cluetrain is that it recognized very early on that the web and social technologies were going to provide much better ways to interact with people (more conversational, more direct, more one-on-one, etc.). Where I think people get it wrong is that they think that “conversational” means that things like customer, prospect, pitching, messaging, etc. no longer have a place. Given that they had a place in the original marketplaces that Searls describes in his chapter, why wouldn’t they have a place today.? Take a look at the description of the marketplace in Cluetrain — “Feel this knife. See how it fits in your palm…” Don’t you think that merchant is viewing the person he’s talking to as a potential customer? Wouldn’t any reasonable person describe his spiel as a pitch?

@Marla – I did see people making an audio recording the panel (and other panels as well). I’m sure it’s available. I checked i-Tunes, but no podcast there on it. Anyone have other ideas? I’d like to hear it again.

thanks this blog very nice.