Just recently I encountered someone on Social Media Today who appeared to fall into this category of persistent negativity. In the comments of a piece I wrote asking why the word social seems to be so difficult for companies to understand, he had a pop at someone else for being “intolerant” and “a fanatic” for apparently no reason. It wasn’t what he said that I found distasteful (everyone’s entitled to an opinion, after all), but the tone he used. It was overly aggressive and bordering on abusive.
Morbid curiosity got the better of me and I tracked down his blog. What I discovered was more ironic than rain on your wedding day, a free ride when you’ve already paid, the good advice that you just didn’t take or any other Alanis Morissette-inspired (poor) examples of the word. Here was a guy using social media (in the form of a blog, Twitter and LinkedIn) to put down social media and the people who use it. Um...hello?
But aside from the irony, there’s a paradox here. The actual thought behind the blog, and the author’s comments, are intelligent and challenging. It’s thought-provoking and it goes against the grain, questioning where the proof is that social media marketing is valid, which I love. I find people disagreeing with widely-believed theory interesting and worth listening to; where would we be if the likes of Einstein or Newton had accepted the status quo? I myself have written some negative and, hopefully, challenging stuff in my time too; Is Social Media Killing Our Kids? wasn’t the most uplifting piece, and Are PRs Really Up To The Social Media Task? was a call for people working in comms to wake up! So I have a lot of respect for the author for his content ideas.
However, what I strongly dislike and disagree with is the negative tone the author uses. In one post, he says that “labelling people who disagree with you is a) offensive and arrogant and b) a poor way to teach them alternative ways of thinking”, and yet in his response he aggressively ‘labels’ the initial respondent. He’s repeatedly offensive and arrogant throughout his blog, in fact. In other posts he calls people on social networks “selfish”, “spammers”, “simple-minded” and “ignorant”. Passion is one thing; being offensive and abusive is another entirely. Does someone need a hug?! And perhaps more to the point, I feel it significantly detracts from what could be a great message, to the point where I’m inclined not to read it even though I should be his biggest fan.
These last two blog posts have cited just two examples, but the web is packed with such negativity in terms of both content and in tone, and social media is, unfortunately, its voice. I don’t know why otherwise intelligent people feel the need to be aggressive, offensive and negative when they’re perfectly capable of presenting well thought-out, rationale arguments and, as per the course for me, I don’t know what the answer is and I’m leaving more questions than when I started! What really remains, for me, is the title of these posts: is everything fair in social media? Are people entitled to say what they like, when they like? We don’t have to read it, after all. And are negative social media marketing tactics ethical? Please join the debate...
(And Robert, I welcome your comments.)
Like This Post? Subscribe to Tribal Boogie
Great conclusion to the post Paul, and a very relevant question. I'll try and give my answer to it as simply as possible:
ReplyDeleteIn essence social media (SM) is simply a set of communication channels and subject to no more or less regulation than that defined by the individual platforms' T&Cs. As you know, most, if not all, SM sites and services have in-built methods to report on overly abusive, prejudicial or illicit usage and there have been numerous examples of their effectiveness in the past (particularly ill-conceived Facebook groups).
However, your post considers altogether more subtle forms of using SM negatively and in a way that doesn't necessarily violate T&Cs and here's where I think that the wider SM community has a degree of self-regulation.
Negative SM usage will inevitably be flagged up and discussed by SM users if and when the individual publisher gains enough coverage. When this happens SM consumers may look to other publishers to discuss and dissect the behaviour objectively and comment on the process. This is the community self-regulating itself and I believe it is important.
And will the 'good guys' (that is, good from SM's point of view) always triumph? It seems naive to say yes, but is it?
People respond to positivity and excitement, we share optimisim and we find humour infectious (how many times have you ever received a chain email about some sad, depressing story? What about a "lolcat" (or equivalent)? See what I mean!) and therefore it is not unreasonable to suggest that blog posts and discussions emphasising the positive side of SM usage will be more widely shared than those of a negative outlook meaning that the 'good guys' may indeed 'win' every time!
Therefore I believe that any individual negative user can only realistically be looking at two possible long-term outcomes. Either they will never achieve a widespread following or support in which case it is immaterial how they are acting or what they are saying. Or they will actually grow enough support and enough of a following that their behaviour and output is noted by, discussed, dissected, commented on and ultimately shown in a negative light itself by the wider SM community in their niche.
And this commentary on their behaviour is different from their own negative output. After all, to take an extreme example, it is completely morally repugnant to express the hate of someone due to the colour of their skin, but calling somebody a racist for doing so is much less evil.
Well, this is a much longer comment than I intended so let me sum it up:
Yes, you can say what you like when using social media (subject to the T&Cs of the platforms who have allowed you to do so). But be prepared that others can say what they want about you back. And as the vast, vast majority of them are here voluntarily and have a positive outlook on the whole process, when your negative tactics (whether it is marketing or anything else) are noted and discussed, few of those discussions are likely to go your way.
Excellent comment, Hywel, and thanks very much for taking the time on this post and the previous one.
ReplyDeleteA lot of what you say here makes complete sense. In the long term, I think I agree that positivity will always win. In the example cited in this post, I'm now at the point of unsubscribing from the blog not because I don't find it useful and interesting (as stated, it's actually one of the most challenging and thought-provoking blogs I've read in a very long time) but purely because I don't want to read such a continuously negative viewpoint or to be abused! Why would I?! And that's a REAL shame.
When it comes to negative comments on forums/blogs/online reviews which appear to be wholly unjustified (the subject of my first post), it's a different kettle of fish. As long as they don't contravene house rules, people can say what they like, whether or not it's true/justified and whether or not it's accurate/exaggerated or even malicious. There's really no way to police that.
Your point about this being a commentary on behaviour rather than simply negative output of its own is also, I hope, clearly understood. I was very aware writing this that I could be accused of hypocrisy. But what I'm not trying to do is to offend anyone or be overly negative for effect. I'm pleased you raised that.
Thanks again
Paul
An area you touch on but could develop, is tone. It is often very difficult to pick up on tone in online communication. What you think is a funny pastiche could be taken seriously by others.
ReplyDeleteI find myself irritated by individuals who respond to questions on forums in a patronising and simplistic way, but they probably think they are being incredibly helpful.
So while its easy to spot a troll sometimes tone is misinterpreted.
That's a fair point, Lucy. One of my bugbears is tone in any form of electronic comms, whether it be email, text, status update. Very easy to misinterpret if you don't know the person or, especially, the context of the conversation. And sometimes even if you do!
ReplyDeleteGreat article, Paul, and I like the comments. I'm presuming Paul is talking about me here, which is fine. There's so much here to discuss, so I'll try to present some short related ideas and comments.
ReplyDelete1) We really can't have a conversation about "negativity" in any intelligent way without defining it operationally -- what specific behaviors and phrases are exemplars of bad negativity and what are examplars of useful criticism.
2)My use of social media platforms to criticize both the platforms and the people using them is not odd at all. As Jaron Lanier says "Criticism of the digital world should not be left to Luddites". (You Are Not A Gadget) I don't like spending much time on telephones but it doesn't stop my friend and I from criticizing their weaker points on the phone. Likewise, I don't like the pollution from autos, but we still have critical discussions of same as we drive down the highway in a vehicle.
3) When I use the word ignorant, I understand why people don't like it, but it simply means not knowing. We are all ignorant about many things. No biggie. I think we should face that. All of us.
4) Who is potentially more valuable, the person who retweets the same quotes about social media or customer service or e-learning and says exactly, often word for word, what others say, or someone who says: "Whoa up. We need to think here". I'm the latter. No problem if you want the former, since God made so many of them on social media.
5) When social media fanatics tell "us" (businesses) what we HAVE to do, that's arrogance. My view, that's the best word. Worse this stuff comes from people with minimal track records in anything, particularly running businesses.
6) Can anyone say what they want? Sure, provided they are willing to take the consequences. Unfortunately, there is no useful self-regulation for many contexts, and since anonymity exists and one can be whoever one wants to be, there's room for much damage. I'm in favor of accountability, which is why I don't make anonymous comments, and I'm easy to find. I pay a price, no doubt both personally and financially.
Anyway Paul, that's a start for more convo. If I can add, those interested in seeing the errr..."negativity" can do so WITHIN CONTEXT and I believe that's important at:
http://socialmediabust.com
http://customerservicezone.com/wp/
http://thetrainingzone.com/wp/
PS. This will probably sound defensive, but what the heck. The reason context is important is that the "negativity" that Paul talks about is such a small part of my body of work and contributions over the last 20 years, so it's important to have that context to understand me as a person, and what I do. I only add this because several tweeters have commented about what MY contributions are. One only has to look and read.
Thanks Robert. Totally respect you for taking time to comment so thoroughly here.
ReplyDeleteNegativity, as you rightly say, is difficult to define. I guess what I’ve been talking about is something that’s intangible – a feeling, an emotion that’s stirred up. Take the comments on review sites or tweets I spoke about in part one of this article; some of them are nothing but destructive and hyper-critical. I just don’t understand how anyone can feel that strongly about something that doesn’t directly impact on them. Which is another reason it may be a premeditated attack. They stir up a mixture of anger, frustration, sorrow...it’s complicated. And in my view, totally unnecessary.
I agree (partly) with regard to your point 3 above. I love Buddhist psychology, and if you know anything about Buddhism you’ll know it’s based entirely around us being ‘ignorant’ and needing enlightenment. However, ‘ignorant’ as a word in our society, as well as ‘selfish’, ‘simple-minded’ and some of the others you’ve used ARE offensive. I don’t think there’s any getting away from that.
With regard to your final remark, I would certainly not ever question what you’ve written about previously or have done in your professional life. I don’t even know you. If, as you’ve stated on the blog, people have been trying to ‘shut you down’, that’s ridiculous. If they don’t like it, don’t read it, and you certainly are accountable and visible, to your credit.
And finally, I also agree with your point about the value of people who question. No debate from me on that one, and that’s why I love the general content of your blog. I also love that you’re passionate about it. But my problem lies in the tone that’s used in some posts, full of such venom and vitriol. I think you have a valuable message to impart – why detract from it by choice of language?