How did a company go from designing cheap websites to building the technology of giants? Aren Grimshaw tells a story that spans 4 years from being a consultant to an agent of change, and making the vital decisions that helped a small company make a big change.

Link to the original source on Like Minds - http://wearelikeminds.com/videos/aren-grimshaw-how-a-small-company-made-a-big-change

In his post, Mark answers this question with the answer – “There isn’t going to be one”. He goes on to justify this position by stating…

“…switching away from Facebook may be a more difficult decision than choosing a new home! In fact, most current users will probably never change to another social networking platform because the psychological and emotional investment in Facebook is so high. That’s where they have their circle of online friends. That’s where they go to check on the Farmville crops. That’s where they go to see the daily pictures of the new grandchild. And that is where they are going to stay.

The psychological commitment and emotional investment in Facebook is enormous, and it’s growing every day as the company adds functionality and embraces third-party applications that add to the fun and the amount of time people spend on the site.

Why won’t there be a “next” Facebook? Facebook is no longer a website. It’s a lifestyle. And changing your lifestyle carries very, very heavy switching costs.”

Opening up the debate on my Twitter timeline this morning, there were those that pointed out that the science of social capital and networking demonstrates that this is not the case. Others argued that the trust and privacy issues will be the service’s downfall. In a series of comments Ann Holman, a Devon based social architect and strategist, went on to state:

My last point on this is that FB has ceased to be a social networking site, its a marketing channel! We have blindly walked into a modern day newspaper!

This is a position I don’t agree with. I think as marketers that’s how WE tend to see it, but there are plenty of consumers out there who don’t. For them they have put the service to use for their own ends, often ignoring or resisting any attempts by marketers to encroach on their social networking activity.

The problem is as marketers we use the services as such, we look at it with our marketing hats on and see how the quality of conversation with companies is poor at best. We watch as our relationships appear to get shallower and shallower. We see our status stream fill up with meaningless updates from faceless corporations who have outsourced their community activity to a small team based in another office, and mistakenly think its like that for everyone.

Marketers need to get real!

Facebook users didn’t come to Facebook to be marketed to, but there is a marketing opportunity in them doing so. That opportunity doesn’t lie in broadcasting messages, in fact it seldom even involves a Facebook page. What it is about, for me at least, is relationships. Facebook provides us with the opportunity as businesses or individuals to build, maintain and extend relationships with other users, users who may be friends, colleagues, clients or future business.

I took the debate out to my local Starbucks this morning. I regularly use Starbucks as a remote office and have become friends with many of the other regulars, who represent an interesting cross-section of my local community. One lady, Julie, I have known for a couple of years and we have been speaking throughout her time on Facebook.

Julie is a mature user, that is, she is not one of the net generation or millenials. Julie has been using Facebook for about two years. Julie works as a life-coach and nutritionist. In her spare time she helps out with the local scout and girl guide groups. Her network on Facebook consists of friends (old and new), family (close and distant), leaders and participants in the local scout / guide community, clients, and the people she plays her game with. Her network includes those she hasn’t ever met, people she hasn’t seen in years and people she sees every day.

I asked her what she thought about changing to another service. I asked her how she used Facebook and whether companies were ruining her experience.

She couldn’t imagine using another service, not because Facebook was remarkable, in fact the site was an irrelevance, but because of the relationships she had built there. She saw that another service could come along and offer more but she was also realistic that it wouldn’t make a lot of difference to her. Facebook gave her so much, so much that was missing before, that she didn’t see what anyone could give her.

She told me how the birthday wishes had given her support during a difficult time. How her game had connected her with people all over the world. How she kept up with her family all over the world, filling the gaps between their calls. How the minutes from her recent scout meeting has been delivered on Facebook when email failed and how plans were already afoot to use the group function for future planning. How she had reignited relationships with her friends from primary school.

Now I know that Ann said this morning, “people said the same when other TV channels emerged to rival BBC!”; however, I would argue there is a big difference. Viewers invested nothing into that process, they just sat back and watched. When offered more choice they took up the option and voted with their viewing time, hardly surprising, it’s a lot easier to turn the channel than it is to rebuild your network, transfer all your content across and learn a new system.

The return we get from the social network is equal to the investment we have put into it. If I have taken time to build relationships with those in my network, to share my experiences, and to take part in theirs, I won’t want that to end, the returns are beyond what I can put a value on.

The problem is too many marketers have connected to other marketers, other marketers who fill their stream with recycled viewpoints and commercial messages. They think that their experience is the same as every consumer, it isn’t! Marketers need to get real, go and ask the people who really use Facebook what they think. Facebook isn’t a marketing channel, it’s a social network and the real problem is you can’t see how to use that fact to your advantage.

(Read the original post from Mark Shaefer at http://www.businessesgrow.com/2010/11/29/why-facebook-is-more-important-than-your-house/)

The first question I ask is “What was your reason for selecting Facebook over any other site?” closely followed by “…and what do you hope to achieve by using it?” More often than not the answer received relates to what the competition is doing, or an expectation they feel placed on them by all the hype and coverage surrounding social networks. It is seldom related back to achieving specific objectives for the business.

This is not confined to my one to one dealings with clients either. In my presentations to businesses I am often asked why I do not spend more time on the practical elements of using Twitter or Facebook. Why do I spend so much time on the theory, the ideas, rather than specific guidance on using particular services?

When it comes down to it, it’s all a matter of strategy.

Now a strategy all sounds very ‘blue-sky’, but in reality it’s just a name given to the process of assessing a market opportunity and putting forward a clear roadmap for delivering on a set of organisational objectives, using the resources available. It takes into consideration aspects such as the competition, the organisation’s market position and any existing relationship with consumers and wider stakeholders.

There are those who say you don’t need a strategy to use social media for your business, they’re of course right. You only need a strategy if you would like to achieve a specified set of organisational objectives through the use of social media services. Using them is relatively easy, getting the results you want can be a different matter.

The process I follow with clients builds upon the Forrester POST method, widely accepted as the industry standard, and takes a customer through the various stages necessary to develop a comprehensive set of actions for implementation. At the very end of this process is any decision to use Facebook, Twitter, or indeed any other social media service.

The decision to use one platform over another follows consideration of all the different factors: community, aims and objectives and resources. Prior to selecting the specific platforms a general approach is defined. Once these elements are in place the decision to use Facebook or Twitter is a relatively simple one. More importantly, the impetus for a client to allocate resources to their upkeep is a simple one.

On the other hand, those who start with the technology up-front, often find themselves dedicating a lot of time and energy to their Facebook or Twitter accounts in the early stages, only to find the results disappointing. This leads them to question whether their customers are really using these sites, whether there is any business to be done and whether dedicating time and energy into this activity is really worth it.

So before you rush to setup your Twitter, Facebook or other account, think: What would you like to achieve? What is the value of achieving that aim for your business? What resources are you willing to dedicate to achieving it? Define your approach first, add the technology later.

Do you agree or disagree, let me know by posting a comment in the box below. If you would like help in developing your own social media strategy please get in touch.