As I’ve started browsing the Web again, exploring new things, different interests, or just ‘clicking around’ as I once used to do long, long ago, I’m re-discovering some realities.
People in ‘niches’ behave online in the same way as those in other ‘niches’… they get ‘caught in the niche’.
I refuse to believe intelligent, expressive, insightful people like some of the top class folks I’ve been following lately are so mono-maniacally obsessed with one facet of their existence to the exclusion of others.
Yet, from their online persona, it would appear so.
For years, I’ve been involved in observing and participating in the ‘make money online’ (MMO-IM) niche of Internet marketing. And lately, it became ‘boring’ - by repetition. No new ideas or memes - just tweaks and twists on the same old, same old… and after being around the block a few times, it was easier to get cynical.
So, I decided to try another niche - social media and networking.
Now, this was NOT from the perspective of having an immersive experience as a participant in social networks so much as OBSERVING how experts ABOUT the concept and space were thinking and behaving. The plan was to learn about social networks from people who had far more experience than myself.
And already, it has started getting repetitive and, yes, ‘boring’.
One person questions the value of one social network over another, and the passionate fans of each throw their hat into the ring - just as in the ‘MMO-IM’ niche we have passionate proponents of their favorite profit generating systems.
Then, one person stated he was exiting some of the bigger social networks because they were no longer a productive use of his time, and others pitched in to either condemn or defend such a stance.
But here’s what surprised me… the discussions, for a few days at least, remained stuck on those NARROWLY DEFINED subjects of social media - and it was the same across the MULTIPLE channels these folks use to build and brand their Web persona.
(To be fair, I didn’t explore their blogs or websites deeply into the past, just the last month or two of posts - so maybe this is their ‘new passion’ and therefore obsessively omnipresent, but still…)
Even the discussions about ‘personal branding’ like this nice one by Jeff Pulver or this one by Johan Myrberger or this one by Connie Bensen deal with the issues of (non-) anonymity and consistency, scratch the surface of ‘niche behavior’ and branding pretty superficially, but skirt the core issues of revealing ‘the complete person‘.
So am I to understand that Mr.X or Ms.Y is so uni-dimensional that ’social networks’ are all they are about?
No, I seriously doubt that’s true, just as the biggest online entrepreneurs and MMO-IM players have complete lives (interests, passions, hobbies and families/social networks) OUTSIDE of their MMO-IM existence.
Why then do we ‘nicheify’ ourselves online so narrowly?
Why do we then ’stick’ to those narrow limits?
Why don’t we ‘reveal’ the more holistic ‘ME’?
Why do you think we behave this way?
If you know anyone who may enjoy this too, please invite them to register for updates to Money.Power.Wisdom at http://MoneyPowerWisdom.com And please download "The SMILENAIRE Way" and read all about the 3 critical mistakes most business owners make - and how to avoid them! Click here.
5 Comments Received
October 6th, 2007 @4:59 pm
Condemning and defending, yes - not much support.
Makes me wonder why “reaching out and connecting” with people via social networks, such as the three which I dropped out of, can be so meaningful to others.
Is life for them so shallow or boring that having a bunch of people listed in their profile means that much to them?
I’m all for conversing with people, online and offline - meeting someone online is great, but without the personal bonding elements, it’s not very meaningful to me.
Others have said or eluded to the fact they have a strategy, which to me means that their cultivating relationships merely to advance their career — there is enough dishonesty in the world today, and now it looks like advances in technology are only going to proliferate sch behavior.
October 6th, 2007 @5:38 pm
That’s a very interesting comment, Michael, because when you meet people offline, provided there’s enough time to interact, a lot more gets exchanged than purely ‘niche’ information.
You may meet me a medical conference, but we won’t just talk shop. We might talk about your new tie, or my trendy jacket, or the quality of my visiting cards, or the pretty lady at the reception desk, or our last meeting in Europe, or any one of a thousand things OUTSIDE our niche that get mentioned in passing.
Which is difficult in online social networking - UNLESS each side is aware of what interests the other person.
Hence my curiosity of why most people (not only in this niche, but any other) tend to limit their online persona to one (or few) dimensions of interest, instead of being more ‘exposed’ - which in turn would foster that ‘personal’ bond you aptly point out as lacking in this medium.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts
All success
Dr.Mani
October 6th, 2007 @8:50 pm
Hello,
Nice choice of blog theme - we share that.
I’m trying to understand how you view my blog post as ’skirting the issue of the core person’? In my post I reveal a lot about myself:
- the position that I held until two weeks ago as a public librarian/community leader
- transfering that personsa online & being consistent
- WHY I choose to wear red reveals a LOT about me. Why isn’t your site purple if that’s your statement? Did you read my post?
- And at the end I comment about friends (revealing that my online ones are important to me).
Authenticity is arrived at thru consistent branding (or honest representation of yourself if you will). If you browse my blog you will hear about my family, my hobbies, my work, etc and more will come. We (myself, Jeff Pulver and many others) are very transparent - that’s what makes social networking relevant to us & our friends.
Connie
October 7th, 2007 @1:52 am
Thanks for dropping by, Connie, I too noticed we used the same WP theme!
I did say “To be fair, I didn’t explore their blogs or websites deeply into the past”.
And you’ll see that I did appreciate the fact you and Jeff and the others I know are active in social networks stress on transparency and non-anonymity - which contrasts against those who ‘game’ the networks for traffic or other benefits (you must keep in mind that I’ve spent 10 years in the MMO-IM niche, which is rampant with such behavior and know quite a few ‘tricks’ folks resort to).
Yet, there’s a broader, deeper dimension - multiple facets of one’s personality, indeed - that remain unrevealed across the multiple social networks an individual participates in… which was the point of my post.
The BREADTH of topics/interests covered across a network of social media STILL is a small fraction of the person. Why? And how does an equally diverse other person relate to the narrowly defined individual revealed through these social networks?
In that sense, I can even make a case for keeping ‘anonymity’ while revealing a richer, variegated personality. FORTUNE magazine had a column from the 1990’s by Stanley Bing (he’s authored some nice books since) which did not reveal the identity of the author beyond the info that he was working in/for a corporation.
Yet through his column readers got a VERY good, deep feeling for the PERSON - his interests, dreams, frustrations, likes and dislikes, almost to the point I related to him as well as I might have if we knew each other personally.
That’s what I see lacking in the limited exposure to social networking research I’ve done over the last 2 or 3 weeks. And wonder why.
Oh, and my other blogs ARE purple -
http://www.ezinemarketingcenter.com/blog/
http://www.ezinemarketingcenter.com/drmani-says/
This one is new - it isn’t yet ‘purple’ (remarkable)!
All success
Dr.Mani
October 7th, 2007 @1:25 pm
As I often like to do, I share my initial thoughts about things - so, in that light, consider my next statement one where I admittingly do not have 100% of the back-story.
When I read Connie’s statement of “Authenticity is arrived at thru consistent branding ” my thought was, “Hmm, I don’t see how that is possible, since we are rather dynamic beings - in fact, if over time, I see that someones opinion never changes, even though new information is being presented, then their “consistency” actually makes me think that they just don’t get it, and that they are somehow out-of-touch with reality.”
Statements such as those also make me leery - as if the person or company thinks of me in terms that I am a lemming, and will blindly follow along simply because their message never changes.
Connie, this is in no way directed “at” you, but your statement did ignite this thought stream in my mind, and in keeping with the general premise of the open-web, I am sharing it here.(p.s., I read your Oct 6th blog entry - I wish you all the luck in the world in figuring out how to disconnect yourself more and rejoin your family and friends - I started that project myself just a few months ago.)
Leave A Reply