Tonight I have committed a gross, some might even say indecent act of modern communications heresy: I have deactivated my Facebook account. It was an impulsive move and one that had to be made with a sharp intake of breath, eyes shut tight with immutable dam buster spirit. Like jumping into a plunge pool of ice water, best not to think too long about it before reason prevails and forces a re-think.

In the two hours since, I have vacillated between feelings of great liberation and a gnawing doubt that I may have consigned myself somewhat rashly to the community of laggards who either fear, reject or simply cannot get to grips with emerging and evolving technology. Will I be doomed to social - and familial - obscurity? Should I even be confessing my sin to a broader, professional public who may consider my move an indictment of my proclaimed aptitude in online reputation management? By shutting down such a pioneering dialogue channel, am I in fact kicking my own professional credibility and reputation into the long grass?

In the hot forge of my decision this evening, I am writing this blog because I need to capture the raw intuition behind my decision making along with something that, I believe, passes for a rationale.

In an earlier blog, "Time to Write Off Twitter?", I was very clear about the role Facebook plays in my own social/networking mix. Unlike Linked In and Twitter, to which I remain absolutely committed on a professional level, Facebook for me was always a 'closed community' deal. One that had strict admittance criteria for close friends and family only; a forum for domestic and trivial news share that I was always very comfortable to segregate from the more academic business exchanges I've contributed to, and profited from, through my Linked In and Twitter accounts.

Facebook is an amazingly colourful, engaging tool that I have a lot of warmth for. I know I shall miss it deeply. The applications are ingenious to bring laughter, insight and collaboration into one's personal relationships. Yet, ironically, my growing sense has been that the quality of those relationships may actually be falling victim to that ingenuity.

It just seems that the more time spent with family and friends on Facebook is less time spent on human - yes, dare I say, telephone - conversation. For this is the added brilliance of Facebook. The instant text messaging facility is just so easy! And compelling. Though not confining you to a mere 140 characters, it does mean your real-time "conversations" are so much more to the point; text messaging forces conciseness. By its clinical nature, it cuts down the more fallible nature of human discourse: emotion, innuendo, political sniping. It lends a more objective, less risk-laden and therefore, I suppose, innocuous form of discussion. It's an ideal channel for those wishing to avoid the intricacies of complex humanity and family ties.

The visit today of a close friend, whom I have not seen for a long while, threw into stark relief the sense of how much I value human interaction; of how much of it was moving away as our collective addiction to Facebook text-chatter intensifies. I'm reminded, in my brutal decision this evening, that I will never escape my nature. I'm a humanist, a communicator. Words, expression, nuance have always been the make-up of my character as well as the tools of my trade - whether I've been aware of this fact up until this point, or not.

I have always been interested in human 'presence' and reaction and know from experience that reading faces, listening to tone beyond words and pure, personal chemistry form the most powerful basis for collaborative and gratifying relationships. Tonight I realized these cannot be sustained by Facebook alone.

Labels: Facebook, Linked In, PR, reputation, social media, Twitter

How Twitter compares to Facebook and Linked In and whether it's a simple, passing fad are questions that persist in the blogosphere. Just last night I found myself issuing a rapid response to that very question posted by an industry peer.

Remarkably, I've already formed a firm perspective on this since former Kodak Digital boss (virtual-world mentor, friend and demonic early-adopter, Pierre Schaeffer) persuaded me to join the site just last week. Initially sceptical, I'm now in danger of becoming hooked - with good professional reason.

In my view, Twitter is more 'spiky' in its opinion base than Facebook (generally a closed social/familial community) or Linked In (a more professional networking outlet). It is also a more virulent and unashamed social recruitment tool, allowing complete strangers to comfortably 'follow' one another around given discussion topics or themes. As such, its potential is huge in allowing individuals or corporate entities (represented in impressive scale) to galvanise and shape public opinion ; and is equally huge in leading them unwittingly to the sharp, pointy end of it - with all its consequential impact to reputation.

You may only have one or two isolated people 'following' your company's Twitter postings ('tweets') but, behind them, pay close attention to how many 'followers' they have tracking their tweets. What may seem like a passing discourse about product/service dissatisfaction between two seemingly innocuous and unrelated individuals could ignite a viral outburst of fevered debate as their disciples chime in with similar experiences, initiating their followers in turn to mobilise against the company concerned. Examples of this are well documented in David Meerman Scott's book 'The New Rules of Marketing & PR'.

This is the beauty of Twitter. Forget the trivial updates about what Maureen's dog ate for dinner. With that pyramid principle and, yes, with the characteristic Twitter profile of cross-demographic, everyday people who consume products, evaluate brands, companies and individuals on rational and often irrational grounds, we ignore Twitter at our peril as the home of potential activism.

With Twitter in particular as a social network, the Trojan horse is not in raw visitor numbers (around 235 million for Facebook (1) versus a reported 7-10 million currently for Twitter), but in the way individuals and groups - often strangers - appear to coalesce so readily around issues and conversations. 140 restricted text characters can generate a lot of vocal - and insightful - thrust!

In my opinion, it is that facility for social mobilisation that sets it miles apart from both Facebook and Linked In and that will constitute, I believe, a key differentiator as it moves into a future world where instant, opinion-based news and grass-roots activism is likely to increase rather than diminish. Here, the genie's already out of the bottle.

Whether Twitter will ultimately escape the clutches of a larger bird of prey - turning collective 'tweets' into resounding 'squawks' - remains to be seen. Site analytics company, Compete, just released 33 percent, past-month growth figures for Twitter in the U.S and revealed 965 percent year-on-year growth. Reports talk of Twitter membership exploding to 50 million visitors by the end of this year in that market alone.

Surely, it was the story of David and Goliath that taught us, never, to write off the little guy.


(1) CNet

Labels: activism, David Meerman Scott, Facebook, Linked In, online PR, online reputation, Pierre Schaeffer, social networking, Twitter