I don't have the link to the podcast this came from, does it pack a punch, though.
Can you imagine all this talk about democratization, of ability to express yourself with social media tools and in social networks being a gigantic illusion?
Here's why. The quote made me think about some examples from direct and indirect experiences.
Desperately seeking links
The public relations pitch that demonstrates the person making it didn't read your blog. In a couple of situations, a simple search of the blog, would have resulted in finding a post already written about the very topic they were pitching.
That is not the most embarassing moment, though.
How about when you respond to a vague email offering and "expert" for opinion that you're not a journalist seeking commentary (yeah, we must have an over supply of those as I get about 5-7 per day), and they respond with this kind of note?
I'm sorry, we thought you were an influencer in the marketing sector who might like a connection to one of the nation's top marketing research firms. Obviously we were way off the mark.
Would you enjoy being on the receiving end of such a note? How would you like to be the executive who is being pitched and is unaware of what is going on while his name and that of his firm are being taken hostage in the process?
There are plenty of stories more egregious than these. Just run a search, and bring your hard hat.
Casting a wide net in a small pond
This is a classic among so many job hunteres I've talked with over the years. The recruiter who asks for all kinds of information and questions and then either over or under sells you, or not at all. And you never hear back.
In fact, in the best scenarios there's never a follow up except to add you to their email list that announces they got a candidate -- a fabulous one -- placed; one that is not you, of course.
In the worst case, you hear from all the others they are talking with about that very same position and who are referring you as the best candidate. Isn't eveyone connected to each other by less than five degrees?
Word gets around fast. Yes, people learn about the details even in competitive bids for talent, offer amounts, etc. Assume everyone hears about the numbers and percentages sooner rather than later. Honesty is often just one search or call away.
Bidding for influence
I've been staying out of the more recent discussions on "online influence", because I believe that eventually things have a way of working out for the best. Smart businesses do see through gimmicks, especially those that come back to haunt them.
An expression I use in quotes as it is a placeholder for a much more complex set of considerations. I barely scratched the surface in my series on influence.
There are two recent posts worth reading about Klout: scoring social: the rise and fall of Klout and five questions klout can't answer. Both allude to scoring users and profiles automatically, and the score indicating popularity, which would mean the game being played in an entirely different one.
I opted out of Klout recently. I had added my @ConversationAge Twitter profile (and no other network) to see how it was working, and I never added my @valeriamaltoni Twitter account, which nonetheless had been opted in the system, so I had to sign on Klout with it in order to opt out. A simple @ reply should suffice.
The moving line of trust/privacy and it effect on promises is already having an effect on the promises of businesses that agree to use these third party platforms and their brands.
These businesses and brands will need to understand the assets they're creating as well as those they did not intend to create.
The quote at the beginning of this post, and the scenarios above prompt me to conclude the week with the question: Are we treating people as commodities?
If so, is it any wonder that there is no trust?