The Truth is 140 Characters

By Michael Leis

With each wave of Twitter or FriendFeed or Facebook activity around a brand, show, or political topic, I can’t help but think about Jean-Luc Godard.

Don’t worry if you haven’t heard of him, you didn’t have to suffer through film school. But as one of the fathers of modern cinema, if you have any interest or involvement in social media, you should think about one of his most well-known phrases:

Photography is truth. The cinema is truth 24 times per second.

So what is the truth?

There are a lot of ways to interpret that statement, that’s what I love about it. What I love most is the crystallization that everything about films, television, radio, writing is fiction. The only truth is the technical means by which it is created. The photograph itself is the only truth.

This is why I believe Social Media is taking off at rates unseen by any other form of media: it’s the people you know, fictionalized.

These are people, stories, who are only as interesting as what they represent that you find interesting about yourself. A more vibrant reverberation of the boring everyday everyone.

There is no authenticity

There are a lot of people out there writing about the strategy and tactics of companies entering social media as difficult because they feel as though companies need to be “authentic,” “real,” or “transparent.” This is a great idea, and I hope it comes true. But it is dangerous to trust or expect.

Why? Because you don’t necessarily need any of these to succeed at social networks. What you need is to listen to your audience, learn about what they like, and then reflect those perceptions back through the platform. There is a certain honesty in this approach, as many companies don’t even practice these basic concepts.

As a person, a consumer and/or participant, it’s important to separate these values as qualifiers of why you are involved on social media platforms.

I cringe as I write this because I hold my social networks dearly, and feel as though I participate in them honestly. As much as I enjoy social networking, I also understand that it is not reality. It is only I choose to like best about reality. And people will be creating for social media just like people today write and direct and design sets for movies.

Just now as I’m working this idea out, I’m being challenged on Twitter for this idea, one person saying they’ve met all kinds of incredible people through Twitter. This is true for me, too. I have met more people who I share deeply held beliefs in -- both personally and professionally -- than I would have through any other way. But a big reason why I had the confidence to meet all these great people was because I was able to fashion a perception of someone I thought I liked first, before ever having really met them. It already felt like we were friends of a sort.

The “Welcome Back Kotter” Phenomena

One of the things we all do is friend people we knew in High School on Facebook, which is an extension of the popularity classmates.com has enjoyed for years. These new, old friends vary from people I was very close with to folks who I generally harbor no ill will towards.

The reality is, for better or worse, we are different people as adults: different lives, different cities; with very few exceptions, there are reasons why we never stayed in touch. So why are we friends on Facebook? Why did you seek me out, and then take the action of friending me?

The proof on this question is in the pudding. Outside of a few game invitations, and a couple of in-network emails, these friends are really about what they post: status updates and pictures, and to remind me of life when I was in High School.

While of course they are real people in real life, as far as my interaction with them goes, they are only serving as entertainment. Neither one of us wants to be real friends again. We just want to enjoy the entertainment value of the friendship. Would I be more likely to try a product if one of these friends suggested it, or posted it to my Facebook mini-feed? Probably.

Who is that writing your Twitter account?

A few times now, friends on twitter have had their account sneakily co-opted by children or significant others. A few tweets in, I had the feeling something was up, I knew these people in real life, and could identify their change in voice. No harm, no foul. All for fun.

But what happens when a friend on Twitter who I don’t know as well signs up for a service that automatically Tweets updates from a favorite Website RSS feed? Or a service like twittad, where you can rent your twitter background to advertisers?

Where’s the line between conversing honestly, originally, as it happens, and acting as a micro-communications clearinghouse for brands you approve of? What if there never was a line? Only one that I had incorrectly inferred.

We are all MadMen

For one last trinket of thought, go ahead and search Twitter for “MadMen” or “don_draper” and see how many people talk with accounts they know are people acting as fictional characters -- as though they are real. Or check out what an excerpt of the graduate script looks like in a Twitter timeline.

The truth is 140 characters. Everything else is our own private Idaho.

________

Michael Leis is currently the VP of Strategy for Emerge Digital. He works with executives at blue-chip brands, helping them find creative, interactive ways to activate audiences. He also writes more articles like this one at New Media Buzz. Feel free to tweet him anytime @mleis.

Comments

[Lara, The Data Digger]

"We just want to enjoy the entertainment value of the friendship."

Because if I engage in the serious friendship I have to be vulnerable. I have to open myself up to be hurt, again.

Relationships are difficult and require a lot of investment. Isn't it nice to have an outlet to just enjoy connecting with people for the pure sake of connecting?

[Michael Leis]

Well, Laura I agree and disagree. I think part of the waryness around the rapid expansion of social media is just that: you're letting your guard down to some extent every time to befriend people.

And yes, I agree that the fun of it all is the discovery and being discovered; the connections you can easily make and explore that you would have never found another way.

Thanks for the comment!

[Adam Singer]

Definitely alot of truth to that “Welcome Back Kotter” Phenomena you speak of.

Notice it as well

[Michael Leis]

Adam: I'm still waiting for Boom-Boom Washington to friend me. Maybe someday he will.

[Carolyn Ann]

What is truth?

And if we only connect with friends for their entertainment, are they really friends? Are "we" really friends? Are such friends, the shallow, the avoid the depth in case I get hurt sort, worth having?

Oddly enough, I was just writing about this - I have just rejected some friendships because I felt I was the "entertainment". I wrote about it, and it was a painful letter to write.

Re Twitter: Twitter doesn't define who we are, but I've noticed that so many allow themselves to be defined by it. They always seem to say it's liberating, while they limit themselves more and more, mistaking ethereal choice for "freedom".

But as far friends go, I'd rather the be the loneliest person on the planet than have to put up with fair weather "friends" and those who shy from genuine friendship. What is a friend, if they are simply there for entertainment? Certainly not a friend; a performer, a player, perhaps, in a game they may not know exists. And if they are playing the same game: well, all such players truly deserve the loneliness that will result.

Harsh? Perhaps.

Carolyn Ann

[Laura]

Perhaps folks are only connecting for the entertainment, but in bringing us together, these connections leave paths open for a lot more valuable serendipity to "jump the arc." You may not become best friends again with someone you lost touch with years ago, but who is to say you won't end up helping each other in business or in life?

Also interesting, you point out how easy it is to discern the change in voice, even though we're talking about a handful of 140 character tweets. I think it *can* be perceived, and I think if it gets co-opted it could go two ways: 1) it gets annoying, and you unfollow or 2) although no longer the voice of that connection, it continues to be a valid contributing voice that provides its own value, and so you continue.

That ability to "subscribe" and depart is part of what's making this stuff uniquely powerful.

Great post Mike.

[Michael Leis]

I love it when questions lead to more questions!

@Carolyn

Really interesting points, and I think part of the fascinating dynamics and differences between what we used to call friends, and understanding what friendship means now in the context of a digital interface.

Why link being fair-whether and entertainment? Isn't there a value in the entire range of emotions? As you're pointing out, all the world's a stage (to borrow another well-worn phrase).

I'm curious: how do you know if someone's defining themselves via Twitter?

@Laura

Right off the bat, it's funny that all the comments I've gotten here and on Twitter, and in blog reaction, a lot seem to pivot from this "friend as entertainment" idea. I used the word entertainment twice in the post, about 3/4 of the way through, but this is what is eliciting the most visceral reaction.

I guess first I would ask if these people really are friends. You haven't known them for years. Just because the service you use categorizes them as friends, are they? Maybe entertainment is as bad a choice of words. But then who are these people? Are they people at all? Do they need to be? Does it matter?

I like to think it matters, that I'm interested in the lives and pictures and status updates of all these friends of mine. But that's just the perception of the technology that I'm bringing to the table. I also like to think up "who knows" types of scenarios when friending folks. But isn't that like a social version of playing the lottery? I may buy 10,000 lottery tickets in my lifetime and never win once, but is that really important? Was it more important to have a daily fantasy about what might happen if one of those tickets won? If one of those online friends became something more than an avatar and a wall post?

On the change in voice, I can only discern that if it's someone I know offline, and even then, not well. And if you checked out the link I put in on the graduate, you can evoke a lot with 140 characters. Enough to create some serious flow state.

And you're also hitting on a few neat concepts that could be whole articles unto themselves. Do people become channels in social media? And the follower/friend dynamics of Twitter and asymmetrical communication.

Like how you tweeted me that you liked this article, but then did not follow me via the platform. What does that mean? Anything?

Then I checked your profile, realized I don't follow you, and clicked to follow. Now there's a new aspect to our relationship. Although calling this exchange between blog, Twitter, following, not following -- are these the components that make a relationship? Are they at all relevant to a relationship?

What I'm most taken by lately is the way people slip in and out of triangular dynamics on Twitter.

Thanks for all the great comments and points! You got me going!

[Carolyn Ann]

I'm not sure if it's really possible, but I'd guess that if someone is addicted to Twitter - then they have surely defined themselves by their addiction?

I should note that we all define ourselves in many ways, and any one description will always be insufficient to fully describe, or define, yourself.

Why link fair-weather friends and entertainment? Because in my experience, that's what fair-weather friends treat the other person as. Besides, their supposed friendship vanishes, along with them, when any commitment, any need, is required of them.

I didn't respond just to that point, however. I did ask "what is truth?" It has so many relative meanings that actually figuring out a reasonable, coherent and comprehensible meaning took Simon Blackburn an entire book. (See "Truth: A Guide", Simon Blackburn, Penguin Jan 07)

On another point, surely there's something to be said for not asking people what they want, but discerning it through their behaviors, or simply by anticipating it? If you ask someone what they want, you will nearly, if not always, get an answer that's framed in the context of their experience. You are not likely to get a truthful answer to your question. If we stick to giving people what they ask for, we needlessly limit ourselves.

And I really disagree that anything profound can be said in 140 characters. On occasion, maybe. Trivial statements and a distinct abuse of "traditional" grammar can be had in 140 characters. No one can define "truth" in 140 characters or less, for instance. :-)

Carolyn Ann

[Annie Heckenberger]

Michael:

I don't understand what you are saying. If you are saying that all social media is fiction, existentially, because how well can you ever really "know" another person, then I understand. If you are suggesting we all go to hell in a handbasket because we can never really KNOW anyone else - so let's just fictionalize it all - then it's an ethical question you are asking.

I personally believe/ask that companies I support and buy from as a consumer be ethical and transparent when establishing an official presence on social networks. That means, don't "stealth" market me by "playing" as consumers playing as Mad Men characters playing on twitter and orchestrate a corp cease-and-desist for those fictional consumers playing fictional characters and spin a PR campaign around this alleged grassroots movement that is actually astroturfing - because it's manipulative and dishonest. (if that is what happened there - we still don't know)

But if you are saying that since nothing can ever truly be nonfiction unless presented by a completely unassociated third party, that everything is fiction and therefore, nothing is authentic so why bother trying anyway, then I strongly disagree with you.

Wish you had been at Rachel & my podcamp session - this is exactly what we spoke about!

[Michael Leis]

@Annie

Thanks for chiming in. I'm agreeing with the first half of most every point you're making, but not the second half.

I'm saying that there's a degree of fiction to all of it, and that's ok. No one's going anywhere that they weren't before. Well, that's not true. It's gotten me out to meet a lot of really cool people that I have a lot in common with. The fiction is part of the draw, what makes the timeline a narrative that competes with any other mass media in terms of captivation... I could go on.

And I completely agree with you that companies entering the space can't astroturf it, but I think that the flow the platform creates also lowers our typical ad defenses. Social Media is almost a product placement platform in that sense which we all need to be more aware of and take care of.

And I wish I could have made it to podcamp too. Did someone record it?

[slum_goddess]

'suffer through film school'? surely you jest – i loved every minute of it.

ps, dig the article muchly, TY!

[Ari Herzog]

Intriguing thesis, Michael. Taking your own medicine, are you now removing your Facebook friendships to everyone you went to school with but know you'll never be locker room buddies with again? Or are you refusing to friend any new names from the past who seek you out?

[Michael Leis]

@slum_godess

Who doesn't love college? I'm really lucky that the concepts we talked about there I can bring to the table here. If you read my blog, you'll see that I think there's a lot of TV and Film concepts that are valuable in creating meaningful interactive experiences. But I know that one man's La Jetee is another man's Terminator.

@Ari

Absolutely not! I love seeing the pictures of people and their kids, their status updates, and thinking back on the time we spent together. I'm not suggesting anyone do any unfriending, just to step back and look at who these friends are and what they represent through the lens of the social media interface.

[Ari Herzog]

I like hearing that, Michael, and I presume you will agree with me that if you are friends with people you don't know, respect, or trust, you might as well separate yourself from that friendship.

That's how it works in typical friendship circles, where terms like reciprocity come into play. But online, when people can befriend hundreds or thousands of people on a single social network, what does that say about the social fabric?

[Carolyn Ann]

The fundamental problem with online conversations is their inherent one-way, transactional nature. They're not so much "time-displaced" conversations, as question and answer sessions, where one party or the other gets to pick and choose what they respond to or not.

Ari raises an important point: and it's one that is ignored by way too many, but is highlighted by Mr Leis: the people [we] "befriend" (apologies for the differentiation) are entertainment; they are not "friends" per se. A true friend is there when they are needed; online friends simply skip to the next topic or inane status report. (I've seen true online friendship only once, recently, when someone's husband died, and her online friends got together to collect some money toward his funeral.)

Mr Leis, you fail to answer the fundamental question you raise: What is friendship, when it's so disposable? (Not to mention, you requested I justify a prior post, and then failed to acknowledge the effort, or the points I made. Am I mere entertainment? If so, who is not?)

Carolyn Ann

[davidcushman]

Hi Michael. I guess twitter is one of the multiple facets of id we create for ourselves in the digital world. Old notions of identity are going to be challenges just as much as old notions of ownership. I am part of a community therefore I am?

[Michael Leis]

@Ari -

I guess I would ask back, what is typical friendship or reciprocity? What is the social fabric you talk about made of? Would I be friends, offline or on with people I don't know? Sure. Are respect or trust requirements? I don't know. It all depends on the context. Which was really the question I was hoping to prompt with the article. How does the meaning of relationships change when it's processed through a layer of technology?

I think it affects society fundamentally, because location becomes less and less of a factor, and perception of meaning, perception of commonality gains more importance. Or maybe these ideas are really completely irrelevant, and it's all just so powerful as entertainment it is difficult to discern right now what is real and what is perceived.

A century ago, if a train was coming towards the screen in a movie, people would run out of the theater screaming because it seemed so real. Today, we see 3-D making a comeback because society is so inured to film.

@Carolyn Ann

What is truth? What is a friend? These are all concepts we define for ourselves and then shape as we come in contact with society in different ways: talking with people, watching TV shows, interacting with social media, listening to the radio, reading a book. You apply your own meaning to what has been communicated, apply it to what you already know or hold as important, and decide whether it's worth integrating.

Is death the ultimate test or meaning of friendship? Not to me. Is replying to your comment out of linear order appropriate? Can I reply to your earlier comment now, or have you changed the meaning of that comment by adding another? Are we friends now? Adversaries? Mild acquaintances? What if this blog required you to friend me before you could reply. Would that make us friends?

I think you've brought up a whole bunch of excellent points that I didn't even consider when writing the post, and that is freaking awesome. I thought they were so well made, and really so subjective, I wanted them to stand on their own. More than comments, it was really your own blog post within the comments section of this one.

Having not communicated that via the blog until this point, you put your own meaning to that non-communication and responded to it. You implied a relationship with me, evaluated that relationship, and commented on it in your second post. If I was evaluating your second response like a poem, I'd say that you equated my lack of response to your friend's husband's death. Sheesh that's heavy! But that's just me.

And that is my fundamental point. I think the only truth is the technology that presents the information. I bring a message to the technology, the technology reinterprets it, puts it in a context, a design, and presents it to you. Then you define it according to your own perspective, which takes place in a different time and place and experience than the one I presented it in. And that's awesome. It's highly emotional and reactive and I love every moment of it.

But the technology is important and persuasive and can't be overlooked. Why are we even talking about the dynamics of friendship at all? Is it because social media has settled on "Friend" as a labeling convention? Why hasn't this discussion become about labeling conventions? Why haven't we talked more about the French New Wave movement in cinema? People like Jean-Luc Godard have shaped our societal discourse tremendously by inspiring people like George Lucas to explore father-son metaphors in the Star Wars series. Is that a type of social media relationship?

Maybe my fundamental point was that just as Jean-Luc used storytelling techniques in film to manipulate perceptions and meanings, and to a certain extent our society, so have social media designers on their platforms. Maybe I just didn't make that point well. Or maybe that wasn't my intention at all. Does it make a difference now that so many thoughtful comments have created a more circular narrative around my original article? If I step back and look at all this writing as a whole, it says something different today than it did on Monday or Tuesday.

Lastly, why is it important that I answer questions? My goal was to get the readers of this post to ask new, different questions about what is real in social media and what is perceived: that as users of social media we are building narratives that start with ourselves and our experiences (alone and shared), but they become something else, something akin to entertainment. Have I achieved that goal? That all depends on what you make of it.

[Carolyn Ann]

It's not important, Michael. I just thought that "conversation" implied something akin to its meaning.

I was not equating your lack of response to my friend's situation; that was simply an anecdote. However, I can't interpret for you, so you have to make your own meaning from my words.

And thank you for responding. :-)

Carolyn Ann