How many times have you read a blog post from some social media marketing consultant about how the industry has become overrun with false prophets and phonies? How the current fast track to social media success is more about creating perception than producing results? How the path of the righteous social media man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men?
A few times, yes?
Now, how many times has said post actually named a particular person? Identified by name the object of their scorn and/or frustration?
Not too often.
This past week, I came across yet another such post titled “Is it time to embrace the social media faker?” by Matt Ridings, a popular internet marketing consultant. In the post, he calls out the authenticity of “this guy” (and “others like him”) in the social media business scene whose garnered quite the online reputation but, in the opinion of Mr. Ridings, “tweets nothing unique”, “writes nothing original” and seems “more concerned about image than reality”. Fighting words for sure.
Unfortunately, at least for me, this nefarious person’s name is never mentioned in the post. Why?
Now, I don’t know Mr. Ridings personally but I’ll hazard a guess that he didn’t want to shit where he sleeps; divide the so-called “leadership” of the social media world and have people choose sides. Perhaps, he’s concerned that he’ll be excommunicated from the social media fraternity; cast out like the leper. Maybe he just feels it ain’t nice to call people out publicly.
Then why write the post?
Sure it’ll get you plenty of, “I totally agree with you!” comments but is it really effective in creating change? If there’s this level of frustration in the social media space with who’s a real expert, a perceived expert, or a poseur (and it has existed for quite some time now), how the heck is anything supposed to change if these frustrated people don’t start not only identifying those who frustrate them but, more importantly, explaining why?
Without the name, it’s merely sound and fury signifying nothing. Barking without the bite. Blog fodder.
It’s really not a matter of whether Mr. Ridings is right or wrong in his observations about “this guy” but at least it presents an opposing viewpoint; another perspective for folks to consider. I mean, a large percentage of people on the social media space are just sheep and/or stupid; you just have to show up with 100,000+ twitter followers and many of them will follow you like the rats enchanted by the sweet melody of the Pied Piper.
Most of them won’t bother checking your past history, real work experience or credentials anyway. Heck, if you’ve got that many twitter followers, you’ve gotta be pretty dang smart!
One-eyed Jacks is what they are – why not show the sheep the other side of the card?
We have no problem publicly expressing our views and engaging in healthy (and heated) debates on politics, religion, gun control, immigration, etc – but when it comes to social media, it appears it’s better to stay shut and keep your social media club membership than to speak out against the practices of an industry whose credibility has fallen just short of used car sales. And guess what? It’s the fault of its own “leadership” that it has become so.
Again, it ain’t about who’s right and who’s wrong – it’s about giving people something else to consider.
Maybe one of the sheep will say, “Gee, I never thought of that” or “Wow, why didn’t that guy ever disclose that?” or “Boy, I’m glad Mr. Ridings pointed that out about how that guy handles his business – I’m gonna go find someone else to follow and this time, I’m gonna do my homework!”
“Whether he is a sinner or not, I don’t know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!” John 9:25
Ridings, when asked in the comments section of his post why he didn’t name a name, defended the point of his post as merely “that internal struggle with my dislike for something I find distasteful with the objective point of view that perhaps it can sometimes drive positive change.”
You wanna really drive positive change? Start naming names. It may make for an awkward situation if you and the person you call out are both attending the same social media conference but if you’re gonna take issue with how a person handles their business then give them a smile and a bro-hug at SXSW or Blogworld, then you’re a just a hypocrite anyway, right? Why not just draw a line in the sand and choose your side?
{But Dan, many of these social media “A-listers” are used to having their egos stroked by their following – they’re a bunch of thin-skinned cry-babies who take the slightest disagreement with their ideology as a personal attack and sic their zombies on you, call you a “hater”, say that you’re just “jealous”, “trying to make a name for yourself”, mock you to their followers (Guy Kawasaki, anyone?) or even ban you from ever commenting on their blog again!}
So what?
If these people are gonna proclaim themselves as experts by merely regurgitating the words of Dale Carnegie, Jim Rohn, and Stephen Covey; label themselves as “thought leaders” by introducing fantastic ideologies that are totally disconnected from reality, and write “How To” business books despite never having held an executive position in any company AND PUT IT OUT THERE FOR THE WHOLE DANG WORLD TO SEE – shouldn’t we be able to challenge its validity? Yes. Yes we should.
If not, then keep silent and simply repeat to yourself over and over again the words of Hyman Roth to Michael Corleone in “The Godfather II”, “This is the business we’ve chosen” – and then go write a post about Klout or something.
People love those, too.
Now, where’s my “Serpico” dvd?
[Photographs by George Christakis]
40 comments
I do see the sense of what you’re saying but the problem with naming names is that people tend to think you have a personal vendetta against the named person. Thus, your message is lost anyway because readers disregard you as just another petty, vindictive whiner who has a bone to pick with said person – which you obviously do – but you just don’t say it.
Otherwise, instead of discussing the issue being raised in the post, comments are usually carefully worded attacks on the writer/blogger’s intelligence among other things.
I guess this ties in with the whole being “authentic” thing that’s become so popular. For many people, authentic means trying to sound nice, polite, and turning the other cheek – even if you really are not that kind of a person, that’s what people want to see. Thus, you don’t name and shame – that would mean you have no manners. 😉
That’s a great point, but one I’d counter with the reason people are “afraid” to name names is because the folks getting called out send their troll brigade after you; or you’re labelled a hater by these folks, and when enough sheep hear the “shepherd”, they’ll believe anything except the possibility their hero isn’t all that.
If we wish for open discussion, then the people being questioned need to grow some balls and respond honestly and not take the “haters gonna hate” route.
Agree with you, Danny. But instead of taking this as countering my point, I’d say it’s an addition to my point as another reason why people don’t name names.
“the people being questioned need to grow some balls and respond honestly” True, but will they ever do that? Until they do, most bloggers are going to keep taking blind shots.
True – better choice of word needed. 🙂
You’ve been there, yes?
“Haters gonna hate” is really another way of saying “Dang, I really wasn’t prepared for someone to challenge my ideology so I really don’t have an appropriate retort!” That’s where it gets ugly.
If people really understood the shit they’re shoveling at the social media masses, we’d have far healthier debates because both sides would be prepared. Shame it ain’t like that…
Cheers, mate 🙂
Excellent point. That’s how it works in the social space. It’s unfortunate that people aren’t more inclined to just agree to disagree and move on – everyone the better for it.
Oh, and how “authentic” are you when you smile and shake hands at Blogworld with someone whose social practices make your stomach turn? Not too much.
Always a pleasure when you visit 🙂
I’ll bro hug you. I do dig the perspective here Dan and like the quotes added in from some sources that you would not normally see in a blog post on digital type marketing.
While some might say this is sour-grapes, I appreciate the alternate view and also be who you are and care about only that.
As a filmmaker you can make people stars or show alternate visions of said truth, but at the end realism is what wins.
And dig the forced self-reflection here as well. #messagenotlostintranslation
Maybe it’s the documentary filmmaker in me that feels you got to ruffle a few feathers to make your point – many of the great documentary films do just that. They’re the little voices crying out to be heard in this loud stupid world. It’s so welcome when the little guy battles the big guy in film but not so much in the social space.
Be nice if there were more of that, yes?
Always nice to see you here, homie 🙂
Good point…maybe documentaries show reality while…
Nice work Dan.
I have said it MANY times, social media people get stuck on the “pretty, shinny shit” and never take a min to look into the so called expert.
Look at their blog, if they can do what they say they can do then they should have some proof of that on their blog, if they don’t, then don’t take their advice.. ever.
I also agree with Danny.. Don’t mess with the pop kids.
the SM space is kinda like being in high school, it’s not the best that get noticed, it’s the most popular haha
Most people are stupid – if social media doesn’t prove that, what else does?
Nice to see you here 🙂
haha I couldn’t agree more man. They get caught up with the sparkles lol
I think it is not socially acceptable to name names. Before social, you would likely not walk up to a huckster and say “you’re full of it” even though you and countless others believe it to be true. Gossip usually outed these people.
You make valid points about people without any experience or demonstrated achievements rocking the SoMe world. 100,000+ followers based on tweeting quotes. Yes you have a large following but can you make a difference in someone else’s business? I’ve also seen what the digg elite did years ago. They mutually supported each other’s diggs to the point where I believe 1% determined what made it to the top. There is no integrity in that. Scary if you end up hiring that person.
It all boils down to results. At least in the “real world” it does. In social? You can talk a good game but for how long?
Thanks for the comment 🙂
At last a voice that seems to be grounded in reality.
I am in favor of doing just that … calling them out publicly or asking people to think critically[ at the very least have having a discussion about the value proposition these people offer.
I think that complaining about these so called social media experts is a little bit like complaining about the government, the weather …its dismissed as “sour grapes” or worse yet more attention is drawn to the object or objects of discussion and that’s often way too much to be accorded to them.
I appreciated your post, Dan.
But it’s also like complaining about American politics but never ever voting. If you’re gonna say something about a situation that is affecting the business you’re trying to make a living in – make it count.
Glad to see you here 🙂
It’s OK to criticize but it must be constructive. I can’t stand whiners. If you think things have to change then tell me what you’re gonna do to make it better. It’s not about naming names, its about leading instead of whining. Stop bitching and be a role model. That’s what brings about real change.
“Criticism” might be a little strong of a word – I prefer “introducing another perspective”. Either way you present it, it appears people aren’t very good at receiving it. There lies the problem.
Thanks for stopping by 🙂
In a lot of ways, social media is a weird hybrid between marketing, public relations and journalism.
In journalism, you would call the person out, maybe even give them an opportunity to respond before your piece ran or at least in the comments section or if not that, they have the chance to respond on their own blog.
As long as you’re writing the truth or at least the truth in the way you see it (not talking about libel), you can get away with it, even if it does ruffle some feathers.
In PR or marketing, you would almost never call anybody out in a negative way. You would never want to ruffle some feathers.
In SM, you do it in a way where it’s not so personal, hoping that the person you are writing about will get the message while also hoping that many other people feel the same about other people in their respective SM circles.
If you make it too personal by naming names, you take a chance of distancing some people, which is the last thing a PR or marketing person wants to do.
But if you keep it vague, then you understand there is a good chance other people might relate because they are probably feeling the same sentiments about other people.
In short, you end up with a post that everybody agrees with, even the same people who might have inspired the post.
This is rather strange to me coming from someone as brazen and outspoken as you 😉
Sometimes feathers need to get ruffled for any real change in the industry to take place – especially if you’re gonna complain about it in a blog post. Being too vague also might not bring about change either.
Keep quiet and deal with it – that may be the safest way to go. Thanks for the comment 🙂
I think if you read the whole post, and the comments, it’s pretty clear why there’s no need to name the person because it isn’t *about* the person. We all have ‘that person’ in our lives (I have many actually), since when is it not ok to use an unnamed character that is recognizable to each of us in our own lives as an example in a post to make a point?
First off, I don’t do social media marketing. I work in organizational change. And the post was about *me* trying to come to grips with the fact that while I personally don’t like this persons methods, maybe there’s actually some validity to what he’s doing. Maybe it shouldn’t bother me so much. It’s about a company and their PR strategy to be seen as a ‘social business’, not a person that just happens to be their mouthpiece.
Sorry I didn’t satisfy your need for a public cat fight.
It isn’t about the person but it really is about the person (and others like him). You can shy away from it all you want but these people are making a joke out of your industry. It’s akin to those people who go out and buy a $800 DSLR and call themselves “video producers”. They drag down the industry with their low ball prices and poor productions. Fortunately for the rest of us, their screw-ups make consumers more educated. Moreover, my industry is one where you have to show what you do and who you do it for to make the bigger bucks – that’s where I benefit and, to some degree, I’m sure those who know their social media business also benefit.
Unfortunately, for the online strategists, what you do and how well you do it isn’t as easy as watching one’s video portfolio. That said, hype and klout and followers and all that other silliness come into play, creating smoke and mirrors and maybe that guy who really knows how to help a company loses out. That’s what “this guy” is doing to your industry.
I’ve read very similar posts by Amber in the past as well. So where does it end? How does change come about? Just blogging about it isn’t gonna make it get any better until you identify who and why.
Thanks for taking the time to drop by 🙂
The funny thing is Dan, it may seem there are tons of seemingly loud voices out there that are ‘making a joke of your industry’…but reality is that it’s only within the fishbowl itself that that’s the case. There isn’t this massive base of clients being taken down the river by the social media snake oil salesmen. There just isn’t. At least not financially. Hearing a lot of bad free advice? I suppose that’s a possibility, but that’s the case everywhere. But you’ll just have to trust me when I say that the ‘social media elite’ are not typically living high on the hog anywhere outside of the fishbowl’s perceptions. You have two groups of people who give out social media advice. Those that are being heard, and those who believe they should be heard instead. Both groups contain smart folks just trying to do good work, and both groups contain idiots and con men. Both have their justifiable frustrations with the other.
As for me? Blogging isn’t always about change. It’s about expression. Sometimes you want that expression to bring about change, and sometimes, as is the case here, you’re just expressing your own failings and challenges.
Trust me, you don’t have to sell me on the fact that many of these social media pretenders aren’t living on their own private island off the coast of Belize – that’s why their egos being stroked by the sheep is so important to them and why they sic the dogs an anyone who tries to shatter the illusion they created.
I’ll take your word for what the reality is outside the fishbowl as I would have no idea. I would hope that those who know their stuff get the bulk of the work.
Thanks for being a good sport. Wasn’t picking on you – I had just read a few “anti social media” posts this past week. Yours was the last one I read and had it been written by anybody else, I would have still written my post. I took great care to not make it seem like I was attacking you as much as the idea. I think I accomplished that.
Cheers 🙂
This s**t is becoming more and more like a religion. Bet you a good percentage of the zombiollowers don’t even know how qualified and/or effective their big kahuna is in a real world setting, yet they believe in gospels.
Let’s call names, by all means, and hope the callee has the chops to come out and engage in meaningful conversation instead of dropping the divine hammer on the outspoken.
Rats following the Pied Piper, yes? As for meaningful conversations – that would sure be nice but human beings just aren’t programmed that way.
Always nice to see you here, hermano 🙂
There’s a guy in the social media SaaS space whose Facebook content I used to look forward to.
One day, he began flaming on a guy who had a large following and was making a great income sharing his expertise on marketing with social media. He said it was his duty to “call people out on their bullshit” and make it known “for the good of the industry” who the hucksters were.
A lot of people joined in on the conversation – many people cheered him on. A few called him a hater, likely loyal supporters of the guy being targeted. Other internet/social media marketing experts were targeted in other posts.
While I see the value in knowing the difference between truth and fiction, the whole thing caused me to ultimately unsubscribe from his updates.
Though not his intent, it was creating drama – drama that I honestly did find myself drawn into, but, after waking up and seeing I wasn’t getting any real value from it, I completely cut myself off from it and haven’t really looked back since.
I think it’s well enough that you warn people *how* to spot the charlatans and best to focus on creating and curating the best value you can provide for your audience.
I like your point about warning people “how” to spot the charlatans – it’s probably the next best thing (or maybe the best thing?) to calling out the charlatans.
Well said 🙂
There are gonna be consequences when you speak up against someone. In some places you can get a beat down or even shot/killed. It should never get to that point when two people are debating social media best practices. It just ain’t that important.
Thanks for the comment…
I really like the concept Dan.
But I’ll tell you that in my own experiences? People aren’t so thrilled when you tell them that their guru-of-choice isn’t exactly as s/he perceived them. There’s rather a “kill the messenger” mentality that goes with cognitive dissonance. If someone has spent a lot of money or invested a lot of personal capital (time/efforts/reputation) in a “thought leader” and you expose the fact that the emperor has no clothes?
Well, let’s just say that no one who has invested is going to thank you for it. First, because it makes them look like a fool who was conned. Secondly, because it’s easier to shun the small voice than the big one. Lastly? If you have already put your money in the pot, you are better off supporting your horse than jumping off.
Honestly, I think it would be cool to live in a world where people weren’t afraid to name names — but I certainly do not have the courage to do it myself at this point. Even hinting that maybe someone might be less than “all that” tends to bring down the Internet Flying Monkeys.
Better (for me at least) to do what I do and caveat emptor.
Everything you say here is correct. It is pretty sad. I had commented on a hip-hop blog a year ago how DJ Kool Herc (look him up) was overrated as a hip-hop pioneer and I had people threatening me with bodily harm(!).
Maybe, like Matt Ridings said in his comment here, the so-called social media “elite” only have “juice” in the social media fishbowl. Maybe we should feel sorry for them and just leave them be?
Yeah, that 🙂
Whenever I’d get that “emperor has no clothes” feeling, I always just assumed I was not expert enough to understand exactly what they weren’t saying. Glad to know it’s not just me!!
Your intelligence is far better off not understanding exactly what they were saying 🙂
Thanks for stopping by…
I don’t see too much of a problem naming names, as long as the criticism is constructive and rises above the personal. Troll brigades or otherwise, an original post that is well argued and not an individual attack will stand on its own merit to anyone with their own mind. The others? Well they weren’t going to be convinced anyway and the only question that remains is whether the critic has a skin thick enough to weather the storm, which needs to be considered before they hit ‘Publish’.
Taking your point a step further, I have a general feeling that the critics themselves are becoming a trend in social media blogging, some writing only to ironically ride the coat tails of those they set in their target finder. That said, no names spring to mind in the moment here, so this comment is fair game for your own critical eye, Dan. Perhaps I’ll stick to music… 😉
The problem is that you’ll get the dogs sicced on you. The question is if you can deal with it, yes? Thick skin in the social space, especially for the so-called “elite” is so rare. You know I’ve butted heads with a few of these “elite” and they (and they’re followers) have come back at me pretty hard. Nothing I can’t handle and I could really care less because social media isn’t how I make a buck BUT I always feel that maybe, just maybe, I got somebody to see things differently. You’re living proof of that, no? 😉
I try to keep away from social media blogs as they tend to bring out my disagreeable side but sometimes I just can’t help myself.
Always nice to see you here, mate 🙂
Wait, I thought you were *my* proof that we can make people see things differently? At least you’ve come along to acknowledging that there are people doing solid work in the social media space… my project shall continue… 😉
I think Matt’s response further up is actually pretty salient, in that much of this false reverie is happening only to this established “elite” from wannabe elite folks inside the bubble. Outside, the people paying cold hard cash for services are generally savvy enough to tie investment to the results they expect from, as is the case with any other service provider. Any business being duped has wider problems in their decision making and could be throwing good money after bad in any number of areas, to my mind.
Agree. I think he made a good point there. I’ve never believed that many of the people who push themselves as a social media marketing consultant despite having no credible experience make much of a living. Most corporations aren’t gonna hire you based on your klout score.
Chalk one up for the “real world”?
Now go, and sin no more.
The only problem with naming names (which I have done in the past) is the inevitable “you’re just using me as linkbait.” I didn’t even know what linkbait meant until I was accused of it a few times and finally looked it up. That and they then send their billion “friends” to go ballistic on your in your comments. But if I don’t feel like naming a name, I just don’t write the post–I, too, am totally tired of wasting brain cells trying to figure out who they’re talking about when people write these mysterious “I”m not naming names but…” posts.
After reading all these comments, I’m feeling like maybe it just doesn’t matter. You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t, right? So who cares? Let them have at each other – it’s their sorry industry after all.
But then, how would I amuse myself? 🙂
Thanks for stopping by, my dear…
I have binders full of sheep..does that make me a sheppard? 🙂