Use of social media for various purposes is opening an ever-growing taxonomy of risk unexpected yet emerging as a new dynamic previously unknown. How will these risk be managed?
Risk management practices are designed for controlling, transferring or mitigating risk using different approaches to a variety of organizational risk. When new risk emerge management of related issues may need new approaches not contained in the traditional risk management playbook.
A risk is any possible situation that is not planned for but that, if it occurs, is likely to negatively impact results.
The aim of Risk Management is to predict risks, assess their likelihood and impact, and to actively plan what should be done ahead of time to best deal with situations when they occur. We are all familiar with the results of not planning for potential risk, BP’s oil spill.
The risk management process usually occurs in five distinct steps, risk management planning, risk identification, risk analysis, risk response planning, and risk monitoring and control. The central point of risk identification and assessment in risk management is understanding the risk. However when a new risk appears, which is not clearly understood, it becomes difficult to plan, measure or control the risk.
Emerging Social Media Risk
Everyday we are beginning to see typical approaches to emerging risk, trying to control them through legal remedy. Consider:
Can your boss read your text messages on a pager or phone the company pays for? According to a California Supreme Court ruling the answer is, yes. The high court ruled that a California Police department had the right to read text messages sent on a work-sanctioned cell phone.
TEKsystems, a Maryland IT staffing firm, sued an ex-employee, charging the former employee violated the non-compete provision of her employment contract by soliciting her former co-workers on LinkedIn.
The doctor behind the Cookie Diet has sued celebrity Kim Kardashian for allegedly defaming him in on Twitter.
a 17-year old New York teen was sentenced for negligent homicide due to a Facebook posting. The sentence was six months in jail with five years probation.
Online writers and bloggers are not protected under the 1st Amendment rights extended to protect journalists working for newspapers and magazines. Thus citizen journalist, and entire organization, are exposed to lawsuits for defamation of character for posting derogatory information about anyone, anything and everything.
There are hundreds of other examples emerging every month which are indicative of risk not understood by organizations and people. However, use of social media has opened up legal issues in the areas of privacy, intellectual property, identity theft, defamation, and self-incrimination. Privacy has become an illusion because it is the cost of admission. Intellectual property is costly to protect and difficult to tract abuse. Identity theft is everywhere. Defamation and self-incrimination are results of a lack of knowledge and understanding. All of these issues create new risk and with risk comes additional cost if the risk aren’t managed appropriately.
The use and abuse of using social media is and will continue to create relevant risk for organizations and people. You can react to risk by using expensive legal remedies, sue them. You can try to control the risk by trying to dictate related behavior, dictating behavior doesn’t work. Transferring risk does not reduce them. Mitigating can only be accomplished through proper education. Education and knowledge provides the means for self-control to those interested in reducing their own risk. Advanced social risk management practices are about obtaining relevant knowledge and putting knowledge into proper action.
Expecting the market of humans enabled to say anything about anyone anywhere and anytime to not do stupid and risky things is like expecting the human race not to sin. Sin and stupidity are part of the human DNA.
Risk are caused by not only to what people do with social media but more are caused by how you respond to what people say and do. Consider your risk and respond by thinking first.
One is a social media culture enabled by the Internet to span the globe, cross all oceans, and reach nearly 20% of the population of the Earth. Wow.
The other is much older, much larger, and far more powerful. It is a social media culture that spans the neighborhood, unites communities, and organizes society. This one reaches 100 percent of the people on Earth. Now, this too is being enabled by the Internet. Super Wow.
Think globally act locally…or is it think locally and act globally?
Global Social and Local Social each have a different focus, different vetting mechanisms, different advantages and often disadvantages. Each has different rules of engagement, different social expectations, and different long term / short term memory standards. Each has a different cadence, stress valves, and damage control systems. The more you look at them, the more different they are. Social Arbitrage is the new game in town.
They will diverge, then converge.
Neither can be in focus at the same time – they can only be contrasted. Seeing the forest and the trees together effectively encrypts all data, causes misinterpretation of important features, and obscures causation. Ironically, clarity is most often achieved by old school face-to-face encounters. That’s never been a secret.
The risk of collision:
As Jeremiah Owyang demonstrates in this article, both parties and the medium take a hit when the clash occurs. Local concerns impact the global brand when the global brand impacts local concerns. We are only now seeing the leverage that local social delivers against Global Social – even when the local assault is driven by another Global entity! The knee jerk reaction is to pull away from the social grid. David Meerman Scott says to start the .ORG engine as soon as possible. Jeremiah further warns don’t get punk’d. It’s getting rough out there.
Money happens because people happen, not the other way around
The great opportunity for the all modes of transportation, tourism, recreation, entertainment, lodging, and every “experience enterprise” from conferences to arbitration and education is to provide the fabric for Global Social to integrate with Local Social. The “face-to-face” segment can and should be a huge value generation mechanism.
Value is stored, shared, and exchanged by people in close proximity to each other and therefore a great amount of value can be created through the facilitation of strategic face-to-face encounters. As simple as this may sound, nobody else is doing it because nobody else can.
In 2007 myself and three others collaborated to study the “factors” which were attracting people to this thing called “social media” and influencing behavior.
As a result of our study we released a book titled “The Emergence of the Relationship Economy” which was released in early 2008. Three years after the initial research and the book release many things have changed while many have remained the same.The “factors” have remained the same while the speed of “factor intersections” has accelerated.
We defined “factors” as elements which actively contribute to the production (inputs & outputs) of results from the intersection of technology and human behavior. We defined “Relationship” as connection or association; the condition of being related. Third the definition of “Matrix” as something within or from which something else originates, develops, or takes form.
The relationship matrix is used to determine one relationship factor to another and the subsequent value proposition aimed at producing a result. Desired results are defined by the individuals, institutions, organizations and governments collaborating on-line and off. Results are produced by the interaction of all factors collectively or individually. Our initial analysis identified the initial set of factors currently influencing the emergence of the relationship economy. Taken within a matrix the combined factors illustrate the potential of over 400 possible interactions which both define and impact end results.
Using the Matrix
The purpose of the matrix was to provide a basis of interacting “factors” which are fueling the relationship economy. The matrix can be used to define which factors provide the most influence to achievement of an end result. Using other management tools such as a prioritization matrix, affinity diagramming and systemic mapping, the organization of factors can be aligned strategically. Using these tools, the alignment of relationships and efforts to maximize opportunities can be done with clarity of purpose and in context to achievement of specific goals.
The dynamics of the current “social space” is filled with reactionary responses to the stimulus of opportunity fueled by both the hype and adoption of users to the new medium. In other words the “factor intersection” is currently chaotic.
The most influential factor for success is leveraging multiple factors within the matrix and doing so expediently.
The Community Factor
Traditionally a “community” has been defined as a group of interacting people living in a common location. The word is often used to refer to a group that is organized around common values and social cohesion within a shared geographical location, generally in social units larger than a household. The word can also refer to the national community or global community.
Since the advent of the Internet, the concept of community no longer has geographical limitations, as people can now virtually gather in an online community and share common interests regardless of physical location. What we are witnessing is the revelation of “factors” that are redefining the traditional definition of community. Instead of people “living in a common location” community is now people “collaborating around common objectives, values and affinities” both on-line and off. The “factors” of iteration still remain the same but the scale of productivity has changed.
If you notice the first factor in the matrix is “Revolutionary factors” refers to something that has a major, sudden impact on society or on some aspect of human endeavors. The term —both as a noun and adjective— is usually applied to the field of politics, and is occasionally used in the context of science, invention or art. Within the human network, a revolutionary is someone or something who supports abrupt, rapid, and drastic change.
Massive increases in productivity usually come from revolutionaries. Find out who and what propagates revolutionary ideas and you’ll find productivity on the fringes of change. Since writing the book we’ve witnessed many revolutionary changes fueled by the emergence of the relationship economy.
We connect and share with people from all around the world. We even buy things from merchants around the world. However, the biggest disruption from all things social will come from all things local.
Early we discussed the implications of Four Square as a logical step towards all things social locally. Post titled “A 4 Square Economy”. When you really think about the power of “social networks” that build real value it is the people you connect with on-line as well as off line. Off line is local where most all things truly social in our life evolve around.
Now consider what is happening around you locally. You work, play, shop and socialize. What if those activities were enhanced by being able to do such things more productivity and in association with people of common interest or knowledge. What would happen if you were able to discover that the knowledge you seek to solve business and personal problems was right around the corner? If you were able to access such associations productively you would enhance the local productivity and business exchanges. After all, it is a ground up rather than top down relationship economy.
Mobile adds to such schemes and when you consider the convergence of all things on-line to all things mobile then the logical conclusion is that all things are more than likely about to change yet again.
Apple’s Move to Local Mobile Social Networks
Antone Gonsalves writes in InformationWeek The service would be available to people with devices other than the iPhone. Although the service is not mentioned by name, Apple’s MobileMe service could be used to add mobile phones without GPS to a group.
Members’ calendars, address books, and other application could be used to provide additional information and services to the ad-hoc network, the patent application says. Apple also notes that a group could be targeted for location-based service from advertisers.
“Concert attendees in a group can be sent coupons to purchase music or other items related to the concert or invited to join a fan club of the performer, etc.,” the application says.
A patent application does not always lead to a new product or service. However, if Apple were to launch iGroups, it would not be the first company to offer applications to connect people in social events. Companies offering similar services today include Loopt and FourSquare.
Do you think Apple understands the value of all things social going local? I think so and others who do will win as well. Social media and networks are designed to naturally serve local interest. Have you noticed what Facebook, Google and others are doing? Focusing on fostering local affinity relations.
Nowyou may be thinking that local only applies to geographic location. The fact is that “local” applies to not only geographic but demographic as well as sociographic. Sociographic as in the branch of sociology that uses statistical data to describe social phenomena. Where is your sociographic? Try the people in your organization, neighborhood, church and oh yeah those people we call customers.
There is and always has been a social phenomena happening right in front of us but we’ve failed to recognize it until social technology has fueled its appearance. The people you seek and the affinity you have is just around the corner or within the same building you work. These are the people you work, play and socialize with every day. Connecting with them in more meaningful and productive ways is now easier than ever as is working together to make life and things better.
Local is and always will be the epicenter of the human network. Just look at the history of the human network. It starts and ends locally.
When you call someone a dope usually it creates an offense. When you do dopey things people assume you are a dope. So lets examine the dopey side of social and consider what one might call “dopey” or stupid.
Stupidity, or dumbness, is the property a person, action or belief instantiates by virtue of having or being indicative of low intelligence or poor learning abilities. Stupidity is distinct from irrationality because stupidity denotes an incapability or unwillingness to properly consider the relevant information. It is frequently used as a pejorative and consequently has a negative connotation.
There are plenty of dopey or stupid things people and organizations are doing with social media. Here are my top ten:
Limiting their thinking to “social media” as only a channel for marketing
Not “thinking” how their actions, words and deeds reflected in using social can hurt them
Posting “social job” descriptions which reflects their lack of understanding all things social
Using social to “collect” people to use for selfish purposes
Promoting their brand as “social” while their web site is anything but social
Not looking at their entire enterprise as a “social ecosystem”
Thinking that “corporate social media policies” will solve cultural and relational problems
Using social for public relations without putting the public into those relations
Being publicly arrogant and ignorant which go hand in hand
Trying to measure the rate of change without considering what is changing
The Opposite of Dopey
The opposite of dopey is wisdom, knowledge and doing smart things. Wisdom comes from experience and applied knowledge. Smart things reflect the use of wisdom and knowledge to do things that make other things better. So in order to determine who is using social media to do things that make other things better you have to look for people and organizations who are improving things by using social media. Finding people and organizations who are improving things by using social media goes way beyond looking at short term marketing results from many who are creating those results.
Creating short term marketing results does not reflect the use of social media that makes other things better accept maybe short term marketing results. Short term results can only create long term value if the things you do are systemically aimed and integrated at making other things better. So ask yourself the following questions and your answers will determine whether your intents are dopey or smart.
Are you using social only as an additional marketing channel?
Have you or do you intend to hire someone to “manage” all things social?
Have you identified what problems social will solve or create? Ask Nestle
Is your web presence designed, configured and enabled to be “social” based on the users definition? Ask every brand.
Is your definition of “Public Relations” the same as the “Public’s Relations“?
Have you mapped out your internal social ecosystem to the external social ecosystem? Do you know how?
There are plenty of others questions I could add but by now I hope you get the point. Unless you think and view “social” as a systemic dynamic and plan accordingly any and all results will be short term. However, some short term results can cost you dearly in the long term. Get it?
Users are growing in influence and power by voicing desired outcomes. Organizations think social media is the driving force to results. Cultural forces are hindering results.
Cultural forces represent current realities vs. desired outcomes. The “field” between driving forces and constraining forces is where either conflicts arise or opportunities are realized. Conflicts represent unmet expectations which are now transparent for the world to see. Opportunities are where the cap between current realities and desired outcomes can be closed. Problems not resolved represent issues that sooner or later get communicated into “the field” which is now this thing we call social media.
Will Social Media Change Business Cultures?
Brian Solis writes in a post titled:How Social Media is Changing Business Cultures: Moving away from the play on words, culture is something so powerful that consumers can invariably channel what we represent through their actions and words to assist in the expansion of reach and purpose. However, culture is usually something that is not as intentional as we might think. The exercise of identifying who we are and who we want to be is usually documented in a mission statement but not embodied in our daily interactions. But, as social networks are powered by people and emotions and interests are the ties that form bonds between them, our culture becomes the very thing that attracts affinity, and without it, the humanization of our brand is hindered.
Because influence is surmounting, it is now a requirement to foster a culture within that becomes the essence that cultivates collaboration inside and out, serving as the catalyst for inspired activity in our communities of interest and beyond.
Yes, our culture is something that is going to change as a result of social media, as it should. No brand is an island and if you think about engagement as that of a tourism bureau, it is our job to go to where people are discovering and sharing information now in order to attract them to our story, realizing that without culture, experience, community, and corresponding value, we will not earn the relationships nor advocates we seek
The Reality of Change
The current reality represents the experiences of the users, people, engaging with each other and businesses. The opposing forces are institutional methods and mindsets vs. people’s methods resulting from use of social media. This represents a field of forces and the forces can go against you or with you. Going against people’s desires brings consequences. Many behaviorists might call it the “imbalance of consequences.” Because of social media the balance of power and influence has shifted to the people vs. the institutions.
Why don’t business leaders apply thought leadership and simply close the gap between business wants and people desires? The reason is that current realities are dictated, controlled and influenced by organizational culture which is usually consumed with creating and controlling results.
With all the buzz about social media in the fields of advertising, marketing and PR the outcomes a rushing toward a cultural clash. The clash is being fueled by the public’s awareness of intents vs. the reality of corporate cultures.
Culture can be a beast that requires new knowledge to be applied to transform it into a social being. Advertising, marketing and PR is not the kind of knowledge needed to change organizational culture. Cultural change starts with the few at the top listening to the many at the bottom.
People and businesses wonder how productive all things social are or could be. Chasing results everyone is looking for measures of productivity that translate to income. The rate of change in social represents increased rates of interest. Interest on money is charged for use. Interest on social is relevant to the cost of productivity.
If social were money one must wonder at what rate of interest would use of social cost us. Think about it. using social stuff takes time and effort which cost money. The way to get a return on social is find ways to improve productivity with it. The irony is that using social for advertising and marketing doesn’t create interest thus using it this way actually reduces productivity. Thus using social for something that doesn’t improve productivity, derive interest or value is like borrowing money and not using it wisely. Doing so only creates debt and debt piles up because the interest on debt robs productivity. Make sense?
The Risk of Social is a Reduction in Productivity
Dan Robles writes: Money represents human productivity, but the interest on money represents risk. This means that the lender collects interest because that represents the risk that they assume in departing from their money. Meanwhile productivity fluctuates naturally and can be affected by a many external forces.
The problem is that risk can never be negative, therefore interest rates can never be negative - that is called “breaking he buck”. Risk is a measure of volatility, or, “deviations from what is considered normal”. While there is certainly good deviations and bad deviations, there can never be a “negative” deviation from normal – it is a mathematical impossibility, a glitch.
The result is that productivity must always be driven up and up and up – sometimes in unnatural ways, such as forcing consumption. Constant production is unacceptable – it must always increase. Vacations, free time, family time, and leisure are not acceptable. What if we had a currency that could accommodate a negative interest rate?
Given the rate of change being brought on by all things social few have the time or ability to keep up with what is on the horizon. Many cannot see the horizon because of the fog created by the proliferation of opinions, developments and meaningless chatter.
What the market needs are social media lighthouses to inform the marketplace of dangerous but unseen coastlines ahead. A lighthouse is a tower, building, or framework designed to emit light from a system of lamps and lenses used as an aid to navigation and to pilots at sea. Lighthouses are used to mark dangerous coastlines, hazardous shoals and reefs, and safe entries to harbors and can also assist in aerial navigation. Once widely used, the number of operational lighthouses has declined due to the expense of maintenance and replacement by modern electronic navigational aids.
Today’s modern electronic navigational aids rest with a few rather than the many. The few have keen insight and they can see through the fog of today’s meaningless chatter and aid to navigating seas of change to pilots of industry shaping a new future.
Points of Social Navigation
Organizations are pursuing enterprise 2.0. Suppliers areintegrating strategies with the supply chain and directly to buyers. Everyone is learning the power of communications given the nature of the social web.
Mobile devices and related applications are exploding with the aim of enhancing consumer connectivity and communications.
The marketplace is trying to reach their markets intent easily, at less cost and with new experiences. Buyers are being chased for their attention, their networks and the collective influence. Media is changing the behavior of markets both on-line and off line. Social technology is advancing rapidly which fuels further changes in how markets operate and the behavior of buyers with intent.
All of this advances innovation for those that can see and create it. Seeing and creating innovation means you have to see the horizon through the fog. There are lots of “popular” people who are leveraging the chaos of the moment by propagating their perspectives, their media and their profiles as “those that know”. The problem is many of the popular names know the moment at hand but not the moment in the future.
There are a few who are the “lighthouses of thought, vision and knowledge” and they see through the fog and subsequently become the “lighthouse” for others. A few wanting to create innovation that avoids meaningless moments in time are the lighthouses.
Those focused on measuring a moment in time are measuring and thinking the wrong things. Those who can create meaning from the moment and but things into future context are those who can see beyond the moment. Who has the power of thought and innovation to be a lighthouse? You decide.
The landscape of all things social is changing day by day and moment by moment. The marketplace shows signs of attention deficit, not knowing or able to put meaning into changes and dynamics that are rushing into our world. The battle for our attention is being fought by the BIG while individuals and organizations wonder where is all this going and what does it mean for me.
Google recent release of “Google Buzz” has the marketplace buzzing with opinion and analysis of what it will mean for our future. There are a lot of opinions and comparisons of “networks” and related value propositions but the bottom line is what does it all mean for our future.
Jeremiah Owyang writes: Signal In A Sea of Noise: There’s an incredible amount of media and blogger noise about social networks, yet there are few viewpoints that are looking at the networks objectively minus the “killer app” hype. My career mission? To cut the hype and help companies make sense of what to do. For those fraught with information overload, this definitive matrix will help. see his matrix here ( an excellent comparison.)
And The Noise Points to Where?
Noise is indeed a signal but the meaning of the noise points to something on the horizon. Noise tends to grab our attention for the moment but after the moment noise can mean something greater is happening which will manifest itself in the future. So one wonders what does all this noise mean in terms of the future rather than the moment?
Technology is fueling a different future. Just consider what is happening as a result of all the noise about Google, Facebook, Twitter and all things social. What is happening is that we the people are learning how to use all this noise to our benefit, some faster than others. The real benefits may not have totally revealed themselves but what seems obvious is that there is something big emerging underneath all the noise. That something big could represent a wave of disruption and change that few will be prepared for yet those that see it will capitalize on it and create economic value that spreads like a wildfire in California.
Hearing & Seeing Beyond the Noise
The fundamental value being created by all this noise lies in people enabled to connect, communicate and collaborate around anything and everything. The human network thrives in environments that enable learning, sharing, communicating and doing so with the aim of fulfilling intentions. The evidence of this is clear when you consider what, where, how, when and why so many people are using all things social. Google, Facebook and Twitter are just the utilities of the moment and while drawing people in the real value will be when the people will be able to fulfill their intentions without being contained in silo’s whose aim is an economic return using old models of production and commerce.
The new models of production and commerce will be enabled as technology advances and the people will be enabled to communicate, collaborate, learn, share and create commerce through a much easier and simplistic way of fulfilling intentions. The internet will evolve and become transparent when the current players tear down the walls that create waste, rework and reduced value for we the people simply looking to fulfill our individual intents.
When the walls of communications, collaborations and transactions with intent are removed the people will fuel productivity, commerce and the overall economy. Simple yet challenging for a world that thinks building silos and capturing people’s intent is a productive model for business. Give people freedom and you’ll be surprised what they will do with it. Just look at history.
Leveraging social media for business purposes is centric to building trust and confidence with the markets you aim to serve. If you haven’t noticed consumer confidence and trust in institutions, government and corporations has been failing for the last 35 years.
The word confidence reflects trust in the outcomes. The outcomes of buyers interacting with your organizations, on-line and off line, reflect whether the experience builds or tears down confidence.
Since the industrial revolution people have been considered “producers” of relevant activity that feeds a business objective. The business results have been the overriding objective regardless of consideration of confidence and trust from the people that help achieve the results. The people who help achieve a business result represent suppliers, employees and buyers. Confidence and trust must thread through all relations or results will be hampered, tampered with and temporary.
The days of managing by results are over and today unless you manage by building confidence and trust with people you will not reach optimum results.
The Social Factors
Most businesses jumping into use of social fail to consider the human factors that drive people’s interest, attention and behavior. Pushing out marketing messages without meaning, value or truths do not build confidence and trust with the market you aim to serve. Such tactics are doomed to fail because marketers primary objectives are to create business results. The whole argument about ROI from social media has people consumed with satisfying their bosses demand for results. Such demands reflect management lacks an intent to understand how to produce results over and over. When management tells their marketing people to get results from all this social stuff the reality is that the marketing staff tries everything they can to satisfy management demands. In other words play every trick in the book, measure anything that can point to a result and show how good we are at what we do.
“It is hard to ask anybody, especially business to invest in anything without some measure of ROI. I think the key is setting goals, creating a plan, and using common sense for what makes the most logical choice for the business and customers.”
“I’ve struggled with ROI and social media, the best I came up was it has to be fairly obvious it makes sense for your time and money.”
Another reader writes “Companies can write off social media expenses for now. But they want hard bottom line results. Shareholders and lenders will hold their feet to the fire on that.”
There are thousands of others writing post, papers, studies and creating tools that are being used to justify use of social media.Have we been brainwashedinto thinking that everything must show production of tangible resultsbecause of decades of thinking this way?This behavior reflects management methods that stem from the industrial era where “production” was the driver of results. We have become so obsessed with results that we’ve failed to understand what, besides production thinking, creates results.
The failure of social is centric to not comprehending the value of intangible things that create confidence and trust with the “people” who influence the “production” of things that create results. In a world of connected relations producing confidence and trust isn’t based on measuring a result. It is about “producing the right intents“, confidence and trust with people.
Use of social media for various purposes is opening an ever-growing taxonomy of risk unexpected yet emerging as a new dynamic previously unknown. How will these risk be managed?![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
The two forces among us.
