The state of social media
An interview with Euan Semple on how organizations should implement social media tools and the future of social media
I’m talking to Euan Semple, a public speaker, writer and consultant. He introduced BBC to social media and worked for organizations such as BP, The World Bank and NATO to help them try to do the same. Euan is the author of a great book called “Organizations don’t tweet,people do” (Amazon Link).
Dawid Pacha: What was it like to introduce an organization like BBC to the social media sphere? What was the most important lesson you learned?
Euan Semple: When I did there wasn’t a “social media sphere” to introduce them to! Bulletin boards and blogs weren’t even labelled social in those days. This probably made things easier. We just introduced the tools, began using them and growing their use, didn’t make too much of a fuss, and began to make a difference. I think this is probably the most important lesson. If you don’t make a difference with these tools then their use won’t grow or last.
DP: What’s the difference between introducing a broadcasting company from the mass media industry to the world of social media and a more traditional company like BP or public organizations like NATO or World Bank?
ES: There is less difference than most people would like to think. Yes, there might have been a playfulness in an organisation like the BBC that made tinkering easier, but we still faced challenges that most organisations face. People are reticent about saying what they think in writing and many feel that they are too busy to waste time using social. Given that I believe that social media happens one person at a time and for their reasons and not yours, then the trick is to find some way in which they will make people’s lives better or easier and the reasons will be different not only for each organisation but each person.
DP: All your experience lead you to write a book called “Organizations don’t tweet, people do”. In this book you write that it could be titled “Organizations don’t think, people do”. Why do you think most organizations don’t really use the brainpower of people working for them?
ES: Perhaps in the days when most organisations were built round routine administrative or manufacturing processes it was inefficient if everyone expected to think. It was easier for all concerned just to do what you were told and not think too much. If that was ever the case it is less so nowadays. Life is more complicated, things change more frequently, people’s expectations of work are changing, and technology is allowing us to be productive in ways we never before imagined. In this context you need people to think!
DP: Why do people call you “an organizational anarchist” and why you are proud of it?
ES: It was actually someone in the BBC who first described me as that. I am proud of it because if you look at the origins of anarchism it was meant to be the ultimate in democracy. Not unattractive self-seeking behaviour like libertarianism, but people taking responsibility for themselves, their actions, and their impact on those around them. This, I believe, is what we are able to do thanks to the Internet and the web.
DP: We are on the verge of a yet another technological revolution, the digital one. Why do you claim all in all it’s not about technology itself, as it is about cultural changes?
ES: Is it a revolution? Or is it just rapid evolution? And isn’t it a set of changes that are as much about changing expectations and assumptions about work and society as it is about the tools that we are using? Clearly technology is having some impact, but I would argue that its impact is to speed up and amplify changes that were ready to happen anyway.
DP: Now, I would like to ask you some practical questions regarding the issue of how to deploy the social media tools. Brands is Poland are still focused on Facebook. Why do you think choosing one platform is a bad idea?
ES: I don’t know if the saying “Don’t put all your eggs in one basket” is used in Poland but it means that it is risky to have too much invested in one particular activity or outcome. The social web is evolving very rapidly, and changing frequently. In the 12 years that I have been involved I have been a member of dozens of social platforms many of them very similar to Facebook. Clearly Facebook got some things right and wouldn’t have achieved the scale that they have without providing value. But it is a closed, proprietary system. It is not being run for ours, or companies’, benefit. It is being run for Facebook’s benefit. If I was a commercial interest I would be very wary of placing too much importance on such a precarious set of circumstances.
DP: From what I’ve learned you don’t advice companies to use a long time oriented strategy. “Don’t have a clear idea where you are heading, follow the energy, be tactical” [opposed to strategical], these are some quotes from your book. Why organizations shouldn’t plan ahead in terms of social media?
ES: I don’t think I ever said not to have a long-term strategy but rather not to be detailed or fixed about it. Few strategies ever turn out to be true anyway. But particularly in such a fast-moving and unpredictable environment it is better to adhere to the principle expressed in the book “keep moving, stay in touch, and head for the high ground.”
DP: In recent years many organizations have experienced crises due to the disobedience of people policing them using social media. These lead not only PR disasters (NIKON), but financial ones (Canal+, N Platform). Even the Polish Government fears people on Facebook (ACTA protests) and changes its decision under the influence of the social media opinion. Where does it lead us? Is these extraordinary events going to happen on a daily basics in the future?
ES: It is going to become harder and harder to maintain control over what your staff or customers say about you on the Internet. Yes, theoretically, it would be possible to introduce draconian measures to control behaviours but even doing that relies on people having a clear idea of what “wrong” is. One of the best ways of maintaining control is to use social tools to explain the right way of doing things to as many people as possible. In terms of customers the only way to ensure that people don’t damage your brand is to provide excellent products and services. If you do this, and someone decides to be critical of you, then your existing happy customers will manage the situation for you and attempt to silence critics. If the critics have good reason to find fault with you then it is those fundamental problems you need to deal with, not trying to silence social media.
DP: When you attend any of the social media related big conferences in Poland, you could get the impression that despite the examples I mentioned before, social media is treated like yet another channel (like TV, Radio, Email, Display) to monetize and use as a cheap way to get to consumers. There is even a trend for performance oriented advertising campaigns in social media focused on acquiring fans, generating leads and sales. What would you say to those organization? Could the right approach to social media serve different needs to them?
ES: You are describing what I call “the industrialisation of social media”. Social media began with people connecting and sharing ideas, building trust, and using platforms to get things done. This is still its essence and what I believe is in the long run it greatest benefit. Those stuck in channel thinking are part of an old world of “mass audiences” in which you shouted ideas at unwilling recipients. Simply transplanting these attitudes into an online world doesn’t work in the long run. We already resent commercial interests coming into platforms like Facebook and shouting at us about product that we are not interested in while we are trying to have conversations with friends. Our tolerance of this is going to decrease over time. On the other hand having informed conversations with real people in real companies about real products is going to become increasingly important. Those who get good at this quickly will have a significant business advantage.
DP: From what I observe, UK has always been a little bit ahead in terms of social media adoption, so from your perspective what’s next for us? Is there a place for a dominant player like another Facebook or should we expect of a very dispersed social media landscape with multiple services addressing niche needs?
ES: I think that in the long run Facebook is going to be like AOL. We will look back, some nostalgically, at an early incarnation of something that will have become more sophisticated and, yes probably fragmented. I sometimes worry that we will split into ever smaller and more factional groups online but so long as standards persist that allow us to connect across systems then we should be able to avoid this.
DP: Are you a fan of social media as a private person or do you use it for business purposes only?
ES: As a freelancer there is little difference between me as a person and my business. Also, given the title of my book, I obviously see organisations as collections of individuals. Those individuals are increasingly working out the join between their personal lives their work lives and even their work lives will become more dependent on them operating as autonomous individuals. When more people realise that having opinions and being willing to express them is part of being effective at work the question goes away.
If you want to know more about Euan, visit his Page.
Euan will be the guest at the “Czwartek Social Media” (Social Media Thursday), which is happening on the 9th of May, 2013 in Warsaw (visit event page).
