Imagine you are outside with a rake–or a broom or a snow shovel or a hammer or a paint brush or any other workbench tool–and during your task, you strike up a conversation with a passer-by. Sally, the woman walking by, admired your front lawn flowers or architectural style of your porch–or she asked you for the time. Maybe she commented to nobody in particular about the sunny weather and you heard her.
It matters not what she said or why she said it. Fact is, she said something, you stopped holding your tool and doing your task, and remarked a response back.
Once you have that scene set in your mind, imagine that the rake is a social networking site. It could be Facebook or Digg or Trip Advisor. You write a message on that site (like raking leaves in your yard), someone sees it (like Sally walking by) and engages you in conversation.
Depending on the nature of the site, you might be able to be like Twitter or Delicious and follow each other to converse in private messages. You might be able to be like IRC or AOL Chat and freely talk in a private room. You might be able to be like E-Mail and exchange messages and files to your heart’s content.
As the minutes progress into hours, and the hours into days, you slowly realize that what began as an innocent conversation with Sally has transformed into a relationship with her. Sally now comes around to talk to you three times a week, when she walks around the neighborhood. You’ve become tennis partners with her husband. Your kids swim at the local Y with their kids.
Your relationship with Sally began with a rake but has progressed into something more, something special beyond the simple garden tool.
Why should it be different online? If you and I met on one social networking tool and have progressed from one tool-based conversation to many conversations around a dynamic workbench, isn’t it safe–days or weeks or months later–to not be tied to the rake? There is a reason we call this thing social media. There is a reason we don’t suggest people embrace a singular social medium, right?
If you and Sally have moved your relationship beyond the singular and into the plural, why focus your relationship on the rake?
Related posts:
Comments:
Ari Herzog is an online media strategist and Newburyport City Councilor-Elect.
978-558-0008
ConvoTrack
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
Or there’s the other scenario. Sally becomes your friend. You get to know each other away from the rake. But then you decide that the rake has had its day and you want a leaf blower. So you let go of the rake and everyone associated with it, because you don’t deem rake users worthy.
You may not mean that as the intention, but that’s how it comes across.
Think about it – rakes are for pulling things toward you, leaf blowers are for pushing them away. I know what tool I’d rather use for relationships…
New from Danny Brown: The Economy of Trust
You lost me there, Danny. If you know Sally beyond the rake, and remove the rake, you still know her.
But you’re taking away the way that Sally might want to converse with you, Ari. Using your analogy, you’re meeting her husband for tennis and your kids may be mingling – that’s you connecting with people on Facebook and Friendfeed and LinkedIn.
But for Sally, the only way she connects with you is bypassing your garden with the rake – Twitter. By unfollowing everyone on Twitter (again) and starting over (again) you’re putting Sally out of reach of you (again). Now she has to make the extra effort to chat with you (since DM is now out of the question).
Is that a way to keep relationships alive?
New from Danny Brown: The Economy of Trust
No no no! My relationship with Sally has progressed beyond the rake and into the use of other workbench tools. Hence my final sentence about progressing beyond the singular and into the plural, beyond one social medium and into many social media.
If I remove the rake or any other tool, we still have the other tools. How is it extra effort?
As I say, Sally prefers the rake (Twitter). She doesn’t like the leaf blower, or the tennis club, and can’t swim. So to her, the rake and the garden is her only real place to chat with you.
And by deserting the rake, you deserted her (or that’s how it feels).
New from Danny Brown: The Economy of Trust
Interesting dialogue. At the heart of it I think we each have to use social media in our own way, so I don’t think there’s anything wrong with your efforts to keep fine-tuning your Twitter usage to suit your goals.
But what’s intriguing about this article, and the comments, is how it touches on 2 of the ways we are using social media to communicate. As we get to know people online we form friendships that continue outside the public dialogue. You and I can chat about things in Gmail that we couldn’t fit into a Tweet and that might not be relevant to our other followers. That’s similar to real life. Sometimes we all gather at a party, sometimes we have smaller conversations.
In the online world the party is running 24/7. Each of us drops in on it, in the various spaces from Twitter to LinkedIn as the moment strikes. I think we gain different things from the public and private spaces. While my core connections overlap across platforms, for the most part my Facebook audience is different than my Twitter audience, is different from LinkedIn, etc. To that end I do customize some of what I send out. I don’t post my Facebook statuses to Twitter and I don’t post my Tweets to Facebook. I do post my Google Reader shares to Facebook, LinkedIn and a page on my site and I share my Delicious saves on Facebook. In turn I look to the different spaces to read different posts and participate in different conversations. I personally pay much more attention to Tweets than to Facebook updates, but that’s my world.
For me though I like seeing what people have to say in different channels. I can follow the hubbub related to this post by following you on Twitter and have more in-depth discussions through other means. That combination works well for me, but each of us is different and must find the social media combo that serves our own individual needs. (And of course if I tried to use the Twitter Web interface instead of Tweetdeck, I’d have to take a machete to my following list too!)
New from Heidi Cool: seo – keywords do the darndest things
So, I see CJ’s RT “Raking for Relationships” and I stop raking and look up. I click the link in the tweet and look at Ari’s profile. I read the article. Read the comments and decide to comment. Before commenting, I re-read Ari’s profile. Online guy. OK. Political aspirations. Oh, well. Haven’t connected on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn yet. I have subscribed to the comments on this post. We’ll see. What’s next? Don’t know. Where will it end? Don’t know. Can you turn Virtual into Real? http://bit.ly/74iWa
New from Rick Roberge: Can You Refer Anybody?
I’m not sure the rake had anything to do with her sparking a conversation with you, you just happened to be standing outside. Your relationship began because you were there. The relationship doesn’t need the rake in order for it to end either.
I think what you’re saying is that YOU don’t need one of the social networking tools (the rake) that you have used in the past. That you have grown beyond that. And that’s fine. If that is the case, then walk away. don’t use it. But don’t bash others for their usage of it. Don’t bash others because they are using it in a way that doesn’t meet your needs or your expectations. You know better than that Ari.
Again if that is the case. Assuming that the rake is what sparked the conversation. Don’t sell or promote rakes as a way to “talk” with you anymore if you’re not using them, or if they have outlived their shelf life, or if you’re just jaded by the whole experience. It might seem disingenuous at best.
New from Marc Meyer: When the social media relationship ends…
This post makes me think about when I was young and all of the neighbors interacted, kids would constantly play outside all day, and people were friendly in person and not just on the internet. Great correlation here in your post between personal relationships and social relationships