My colleague Kelly Feller posted on Conversations Matter regarding “chips to cheese ratio” when managing a corporate community.  I liked the analogy.  Probably because I had something to do with it, but also interesting to me is a growing list of these colorful new social media terms being floated out there.  Here’s a very short list of some of them.  If you have more please comment and forward.

Chip to cheese ratio:  Nacho cheese analogy that refers to balance in in a corporate community by managing the recipe of chips to cheese to have a tasty site.  Chips being community content and cheese being the subject matter experts from the industry.  When you get too much of a message from the industry the experience is too cheesy, and it drowns the chips.  Not enough cheese and you are lacking rich flavor and context.  Really comes down to active listening.  You need to listen and be responsive to know if you have too little or too much cheese.

Mullet Technology:  This comes from a quote that I believe is sourced from Malcolm in the Middle which describes a mullet as “All business upfront and a party in the back”.  This relates to managing user generated content in a corporate community.  If you worried that user generated content will not compliment your site and might distract from your brand while at the same time you want to embrace the community dialogue, you can deploy “mullet technology”.  This is a technique that will have you expose your corporate blogs and base line community content on your site’s home page,  while you expose the user content including full posts, comments and uploaded photos deeper in the site.

The Enterprise Octopus:  From Sam Lawrence of Jive the Enterprise Octopus is a way to look at collaboration for the enterprise.  The head of the octopus being where people in the organization gather and create community, and the arms of the octopus are the arms that go out and get variety of information the organization needs.  Sam says many companies are headless.  They’ve focused on arms but no central place for people to gather and build equity in their conversations that build a strong community of collaboration.  But just cause you have a place to organize does not mean you have what you need.  You need to tools and resources to get to the information that will feed the company.

Social networks are becoming increasingly popular…many of which are not indexed by search.  Lot’s and lots of new activity happening on the web that either isn’t showing up or has lost context in Google.  

Alexa Global Internet Traffic Rankings
2005	2007
yahoo.com	yahoo.com
msn.com	google.com
google.com	Live.com
ebay.com	youtube.com
amazon.com	msn.com
microsoft.com	myspace.com
myspace.com	facebook.com
google.co.uk	wikipedia.org
aol.com	hi5.com
go.com	orkut.com

 
I had a conversation with a colleague regarding the emphasis of search.. in this instance it was regarding research of Enterprise 2.0 solutions, which had a strong requirement on “Search”.  I admit finding things on my company’s intranet is tough and a better search function would be cool.  But I wonder if we have already moved beyond that?

Not sure about the rest of you but the best stuff I find on the web comes to me. I do use Google a lot but I use it less and less.  The relevant stuff comes in a Twitter or shows up on my Facebook home page or even is sent to me in email.   Imagine that kind of functionality in the enterprise.  I’d be able to see the latest governance document from Web Marketing, the latest conversation between Privacy, PR and Legal on transparency, or the most recommended video assets from my colleagues.  All that stuff would be at my finger tips and little search needed.

So my question is, are we starting to see the decline and possibly obsolescence of search as we know it?  By establishing better collaboration tools and linking that content with social networks I can tune into what is relevant to me much easier and it clears up a big part of what I would typically used search for.

The NYTimes has picked up on this per political stories, claiming that people are using traditional media less and less to get their info, but instead using social tools to get their news and pass it on.   And for full disclosure I did not search for this post it was shared with me via a comment in company blog post.

Now I can’t say Search is going away…admittedly there is the occasional argument with my wife on how old celebrity actually is.  And then Google on my iPhone comes to the rescue.  Possibly that is overly stated, but I do believe the use of Search as we know it is declining. 

So as I look at this chart and my own behavior I’m seeing an evolution toward a greater dependence on social tools and less dependency on Search.  I postulate that either Search becomes less relevant or Search will change. 

My bet is on the latter.  There’s evidence Google is all over this.  Open Social will give them hooks to content across multiple social networks. Google indeed may be that thread stitching together all content between you and your friends across the web.

I’m wrestling with this question.  On one side if you organize your community it is clean neat and easy to navigate and you have manageable areas for community managers to focus time and resources,  But on the other if you determine silos for content and restrict topics to what you believe are the most critical for your core audiences, might you be missing a big part of the conversation?

Lately I’ve been thinking a community site needs modest organization, with some free form and organic evolutions driven by the community.  One thing that social media does really well is cater to the long tail of the market.  So as much as you try to organize the site by how you think your audience will want content categorized, you may not be able to  predict exactly who will come and how they will find value in the community site.

Nike has created a terrific community for its Nike Plus product.  They first went about creating a site mostly to allow customers to upload a jogging log.  As a valued added service they loosely organized a modest number of forum topics for this site.  They surprisingly noticed a forum topic on runner challenges far exceeding traffic over the others.  That one topic has now become the focus of the community site.  They could not have predicted this. 

So I wonder how much order and structure should be given to a community site?   How do you balance provide enough structure to manage content and resources to sustain a rich experience of the community while at the same time providing the flexibility to allow the community to shape the weight of not only the conversations and topics but the community itself?  

About a month ago Shel Isreal wrote a post Two Social Media Camps in the Enterprise, that described 2 social media camps, one focused on marketing ends and other wanting to keep social media more pure and not polluted by marketing interests.  On that post I commented that I am between both camps but I did not consider what really put me there. I later realized that I’m noticing that the marketing camp is actually made of 2 camps itself.

On the pro marketing side you have one camp made of social media conversationalists who are working to foster on-line conversations to build affinity in the products and brands they represent.  And on the other side of the pro marketing camp is one looking at social media as an audience to target. This camp is leveraging smart semantic tools to target content in banners and sponsored spaces at the dialogue.

I put myself in the marketing camp that is focused in and on the conversation, rather than the one that is focused on promoting content at the conversation.  Now don’t get me wrong.  I don’t think one is right or should exist over the other.  By being in one camp I believe you can appreciate or understand the other camp.  Having a Bachelors degree in advertising I have a great appreciation for the value and the importance of targeting controlled messages to a key demographic.  It does serve a purpose, but I just don’t think it’s social media.

Again, nothing wrong with it. I believe it is smart media.  I believe it is leveraging social media techniques… but bottom line it is still a broadcast message and not a conversation, so don’t confuse it with social media.

Now I’m sure the social media purist and the on-line media guys might both argue, there’s little difference. Arguably it may seem that responding to a comment that promotes your marketing interest, vs. a smart placement of content in a banner ad near the conversation are virtually the same thing.   But the key difference is one is a conversation and one isn’t.   When in the conversation, the community can respond to the comment which adds to the dialogue.  While a smart media positioned at or near the conversation is left sitting there hoping for click throughs. 

Now I’m sure we will see this line blurred.  We are already seeing banner ads and sponsored content that you can respond to.  We are seeing tag clouds appear in sponsored areas and commercial content that takes you to a blog or forum or chat.  And with that I believe we do have social media.  So I don’t think it is necessarily one camp vs another, or marketing or vs purist social media.  It’s more of a how you define social media.  If your efforts enable active listening and responses between multiple parties, regardless of intent , then I think that is the social media and good for the on-line community.

Hi all, Bob Duffy here.  Based on the title you will have figured this is a new blog site for me.  I intend to mostly discuss what interests me professionally but in a style that is very personal.  Expect to see posts that examine things I am seeing in social media, sometimes in an irreverent way.

For full disclosure.  I work at Intel managing social media strategies and operations.  I help plan social media marketing programs and absolutely none of this or anything I post on this site is or will be endosed by Intel or part of a marketing program… it is all me.

Probably good to know I rarely think there are 2 sides to an issue.  Obviously there’s my side, but beyond that I tend to think see sides to an issue are more like a polyhedron and I discover each side one at time… often very, very slowly.  This is the way I write, draw & paint, code and over learn and communicate.   Often I express what sides I’m able to see hoping others can add turn a new side into my view. 

So expect I will contradict myself over time, while I adjust my perspective as things come into view.  I hope that is cool, because I have to think if any of us are willing to grow and learn we have to admit that often where we start is not the right place in the end.

If you want to connect with me outside of this site here how to find me.

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Intel’s Open Port IT Community