What about me. Twitter can be a great communications tool. It’s been great for me personally and professionally. Caveat: knowing that everyone’s not using Twitter. Knowing who’s using a tool is equally as important as knowing who’s not. Don’t forget who isn’t here to contribute to the conversation – they may have something amazing to contribute, but are voiceless.

And it’s not just Twitter. There are plenty of platforms and tools where folks are missing. For instance, Facebook, yes, there are millions upon millions of users, but who’s missing. For example, me. I don’t have a Facebook account (…really, I don’t). I might have something valuable to say.

Aligning audience and means of communication. Are there voices being left out of the conversation that could add exponential value to your organization, goal or community? Twitter can be used in the execution of a portfolio of communication means to tap into a range of audiences, but that should only happen once audiences have been identified. Have you taken a moment to determine who your audience is – and where they are?

Who’s making the decision. What happens when you don’t take the time to identify where your audience plays, well, you miss an opportunity. Someone misses the message, the chance to be engaged or an invitation to participate (either physically or virtually). Case and point, my ten year high school reunion, the reunion invitation was only sent via Facebook. As I said earlier, I’m not on Facebook. Meaning, I found out about the reunion only after it took place. The point isn’t that I missed the reunion, it’s that I never got a chance to decide for myself if I wanted to attend or not. The means of communication decided for me.

Take the time, do the work. Don’t let voices go unheard or leave communities ignored just because you missed the mark. Take time to understand your audience and then communicate to them in the space where they play. Why should they come to you? If they are that important, then you should go to them. In time, that may reverse, but you have to reach out and cultivate the relationship first.

Tools are going to change, audiences will change too – and where they intersect is going to change. What shouldn’t change is critical thinking around how best to link the two.

Remember, 80% of Twitter accounts are inactive. That’s whole a lot of people not paying attention to those thoughtful, value-filled, community building tweets you’re spending hours crafting. Make sure your audience is where you’re focusing your attention, before you start trying to get the attention of an audience that may not even be there in the first place.

[Image: The empty playground #1 courtesy of soulholder, Flickr]

• What Web 2.0 applications do you use? Use the most?
• What do you see as the benefits (personal, professional) of using Web 2.0?
• What are the challenges. restrictions, downsides to Web 2.0?
• Where do you think Web 2.0 is headed?
• How would you recommend a business make use of Web 2.0?

The exercise of responding was cathartic. It was reminiscent of one of those “What the 4th of July Means to Me” essays that were so popular in fifth grade. Oh you know the ones – with complimentary drawing that used a haphazard mix of crayon colors [usually whatever hadn’t yet been snatched up] to depict stick figure families, hot dogs and fireworks.

The point being that everyone drew the same picture – they all wrote the same thing.

They created what was expected – what they thought they were supposed to draw. To me, it sounds all too familiar. Web 2.0 or social media [whichever is your preferred term] is being depicted in a similar fashion. By now, most folks are working diligently to create what looks like the same picture perfect social media strategy. Facebook fan pages, check, Twitter, check, digital video, check, …

Too much thought is going into what appears to represent a “good” social media strategy. It’s not coming back to the audience. Yes, I’ll be the first to tell you that you should not ignore social media, but it can’t be hastily implemented in a disconnected, tool centric fashion.

Get social. Get messy. Don’t give them what you think they want or expect from you. Listen. Wait. Participate. Then give them what they ask for – in innovative new ways. If there was ever an opportunity to color outside the lines this is it.

Heck, break out the finger paints!

Create your own way. Definitions, frameworks and rules aside. Remain mindful of the fundamentals, but be creative and innovative. Time is precious – for both the creator and the audience. It should be fun. As a creator you want to be challenged to provide value in new, unique ways. As part of the audience, we want our attention grabbed. We don’t want the same templated execution, but rather something that doesn’t fit the model – provide bright excitement and raw honesty.

What Social Media Means to Me – by Vanessa Rhinesmith
Please note: this is raw and unedited [grammatical savvy is out with this one]

What Web 2.0 applications do you use? Use the most?
Right now, Twitter, my blog [WordPress] and I’m a HUGE fan of Delicious [social bookmarking is far from dead for me]

What do you see as the benefits (personal, professional) of using Web 2.0?
This is a loaded question. It depends on the company and/or the person. Either way it can be a great way to connect and collaborate with others – remember it’s about collaboration.

What are the challenges. restrictions, downsides to Web 2.0?
The challenges and restrictions are human centric – not everyone wants to listen or participate in the conversation – nor do folks have the means. Remember that not everyone has a computer or access to the internet. The additional downside, is too much hype around Web 2.0 – people aren’t thinking it through they are too wrapped up in the buzz word…[I'll get off my soapbox now].

Where do you think Web 2.0 is headed?
It will become Web3.0, Web4.0…until it’s replaced with a new word. Seriously though, Web3.0 – it’s going mobile and don’t think that virtual is dead. It’s not, oh, and cloud computing.

How would you recommend a business make use of Web 2.0?
First ask, are they ready to LISTEN to their customers and/or employees. Secondly, are they ready to JOIN the conversation in a transparent and collaborative way? Can’t even bring in the tools if you don’t know the actions.

Box of crayons photo courtesy of turbojoe via flickr

Pure and simple is something that I not only crave on daily basis, but strive to achieve. Am I always successful? Of course not. I work full-time, attend graduate school part-time, am a devoted wife, daughter, sister, and friend. I’m an advocate for digital literacy, a seeker of infinite information, a lover of art and music (oh, and let’s not forget food and wine). However, the day does not simply allow for mindful, intentional implementation of all of the above. It’s hard enough to squeeze it all into a month.

The internet, the web, social media, technology, new technology, web 2.0, whatever you call it, is the conduit for my true passion: communication, collaboration, access to information and an ability to share stories, experiences and knowledge on a global scale. That’s truly what I love about the internet.

I’m finding it all becoming way to intermixed – my personal, professional and academic lives, my purchasing behavior and my constant knowledge consumption. To some, this is the point and opportunity within the context of the web. I don’t want to be an opportunity. I want to present opportunities to others, be attentive to those around me, the missions I hold dear and the stories I wish to share – perhaps all in the altruistic hope of changing the world.

To do this, I’m setting boundaries – digital ones.

Facebook will be for my personal relationships of fairly direct connection. Twitter, that’s still to be determined. LinkedIn, is the place to continue to connect with me as is my blog. My blog was the space that first spoke to me and this is where I return. The increasing constraint of character restrictions is not me. Anyone who knows me knows this and knows the my thoughts are far too verbose.

The question that lies is my profession and career aspirations involve the web and it’s infinite platforms. Am I less knowledgeable of the web, social media or technology, because I’m no longer juggling 100+ social networks at a time. No, in fact, it’s just the opposite. Expect more from me, so much more, because that’s the point of establishing boundaries. There will be more of me, my true self, to go around. I’m carving out a space to breathe, think about it, when’s the last time to carved out space of your own to reassess, re-energize and to simply be.

deborah909 Thanks for following me on Twitter! You’re also welcome to visit my blog: www.cyber-yenta.org 9:49 AM yesterday

Thumbs down: Pandora commercials. Ugh! Could this be the end of Pandora? It will be interesting to observe since Pandora could be walking a fine line – and I’m eager to witness user response. In regards to my own threshhold, I can stand the one commercial every five or ten songs, but it definetly interfers with my listening enjoyment – and deviates from the whole reason why I use Pandora (i.e. uninterrupted, commercial-free music).

The definition, and our associated opinions, no doubt vary widely, based on our own experiences, knowledge and prejudices:

Specifically what kind of literacy is being measured? Let’s see the effect on SAT reading and writing scores. Let’s see book sales data demographically.

On the one hand, I believe distractions were always an issue, and the internet has shifted, rather than created them. But on the other, to say it is a benefit, well let’s just see who the sponsors of this study were. It may be a little bit like the medical studies spouting the benefits of chocolate that were found to be funded by Hershey’s and the like.

— Dennis L, New York City (courtesy of NYT community comments)

There is a major disconnect occurring between those who understand the value of the web, media literacy and the future of technology; and those who don’t. This is clearly depicted by the comments made in response to the recent NYT article, Teenagers’ Internet Socializing Not a Bad Thing.

For those of us who are informed, we have a responsibility to aid in the guidance of youth as they navigate the array of skills they are accumulating, but who’s going  to guide the adults?

And better yet, how? Media literacy curriculum for parents is dramatically different then media literacy for kids, and education for scholars and corporations are other potentially independent categories. In order to cultivate understanding we must encourage this ever-increasing group of digital natives to think critically and participate mindfully, but that only gets us halfway there; we need to equally allocate literacy among a much broader, and feasibly more challenging, group of constituents.

For more of the community comments, click here.

Take Facebook, in some ways it is very easy to control how I navigate within this space – I control who I friend, which requests I accept and the options that are selected for the account. However, I am aware of my responsibility as a participant and am mindful of how I want to be perceived within the space. Though it should be noted that I am slightly more aware of my online rights and responsibilities then most.

Like the physical divvying of space, the virtual definition of space should ultimately be left in the hands of the participant, but this is not always the case, as certain sites predefine or default these decisions. Ultimately the question that remains is, how do you make the case for, and  enhance, digital literacy to ensure folks are not only educated, but empowered to control their virtual participation with the same thoughtfulness that they impart on their physical  lives each and everyday?

Though it is within this space between the black and white that the accounting for social media occurs. As more and more companies look towards social media as a valid form of branding, marketing and development the question of ROI for such activities is being asked. So how do companies make the financial case for social media when so much of social media cannot be financially accounted for.

Beth Kanter has a great post entitled, Should You Quantify Love? Redux 2, that addresses a layer of this unique challenge.

I am just back from Legal Services Corporation and a keynote on ROI and Nonprofits. Stephen Downes pointed to a post by Jay Cross called “The Income Statement It Isn’t”

Jay Cross is exactly right. “It never ceases to amaze me how many people assess the cost and benefit of projects with accounting approaches developed in Venice in the five hundred years ago.” And, of course, such metrics are useless. “Organizations that make decisions based solely on things that are sufficiently tangible to be counted might as well consult a Ouija board to set their goals.”

In my keynote, I spoke about the importance of intangibles for a couple of reasons.

1.) Intangibles often come in the form of stories or anecdotes about the technology value and if used along with numbers can help make the case.

2.) The discussion around trying to quantify it – can lead to productive conversation about why the technology is important to mission. If the conversations focuses on the results, not the measurement unit.

I tried to make the point by raising the question, “Can you quantify the intangible?” Of course you can’t. But intangibles are important to note and often inform decisions.

The notion of intangibles in accounting seems almost contradictory, but as Beth states “intangibles are important to note and often inform decisions.” It’s critical to assess all the moving pieces, determine the risk associated with each and assemble a strategy that takes everything into account – not just the numbers, but intangibles and their impact on solidifying the desired outcome.

So then the other question is how does one begins to determine what activities would be valuable to the strategic picture – and therefore be leveraged to make a compelling case for resources, support and implementation. Nick Stamoulis’s post entitled, Social Networking: Are You Measuring ROI?, offers some valuable insight.

When it comes to social networking, there are a myriad of activities that involve time. Some of those activities may translate into additional business for your company, but many do not. For instance, finding and approving friends could lead to earned income if one of those friends becomes a customer, but how often does that happen?

One of the many challenges for full adoption of social media into corporations and other institutions is going to be this ambiguity of financial return. Companies are striving to attain their desired bottom-line and decisions are based on the numbers. This isn’t a new concept and has been driven into me throughout my academic and professional life.

But social media offers creative, sustainable solutions that live beyond such stringent monetary boundaries. Social media is valuable. That much has been established, but what makes it a compelling strategic direction is that the impact is not only on an organization’s bottom-line, but rather cultivates strength via relationships, confidence and loyalty – establishing a presence within a global context with an infinite reach.

“Network(s)” (i.e. social networks) refer to ones own immediate social group. A network of people who are not strangers, but known individuals brought together via a collective purpose – a cause, organization or some other form of relation. “Networking” (i.e. social networking) is much more reflective of interactions and relationships with unknown individuals. As danah boyd mentioned that this can be inclusive of dating sites, chat rooms, bulletin boards, etc.

In writing Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship, Nicole Ellison and I wrote many iterations of the definition of the term “social network sites” and why we chose to use this instead of “social networking sites.” For a good 20 versions, we had included this statement:

“Because the term ‘networking’ emphasizes relationship initiation, often with strangers, it can and has been expanded to refer to any site that allows people to communicate with people that they do not know, including dating sites, chatrooms, community sites, and bulletin boards.

danah’s definition is a great reminder of the basic foundation that social networks are built upon – relationships. I’ve been gone most of the month due to an exhaustive and humbling job hunt, which led me to many interesting conversations regarding social media in its many incarnations. The most exhilarating and recent discuss simply revolved around how to define social networking to an audience of individuals unfamiliar with its purpose and unable to define it free from the associated technological clutter.

Furthermore, danah’s definition articulates everything that I am unable to convey, but I am also a rather visual person – and have found that a visual reference point has been useful when trying to define something that has so many opinionated definitions. What I’ve come to is that social networks are wonderfully analogues with Tinker Toys.

You know those wooden toys that consist of primarily wooden circles and sticks that enable you to build interconnected spokes thus resulting in one large web of spokes that overlap and interact. Sound familiar? It’s a somewhat elementary depiction, but it does offer a visual reference point that highlights the nuts and bolts. A skeleton of sorts. Its strips away the glitz, glamor and applications that dilute the heart and soul of its purpose. Plus it’s enables me to explain social networking to both my nephew (4) and my mother (47) all in the same sitting.