How to Sway Drones, Kill the Queen Bee, & Take Over the Hive
The beginning of last week Carlos wrote about “How to Build a Community of Drones.”
Though some people called him Negative Nancy, he was right, and we see it more often than we care to admit. In the comments Monica asks two important questions, “How do people know when they’ve become drones in someone else’s community?” and “How do we take down those that use social media to do this to people?”
To answer her first question, I suspect the overwhelming majority doesn’t have a clue when they’ve become a drone. For their benefit, some symptoms of drone syndrome include, but aren’t limited to:
- Nodding along with everything you read, never challenging the author
- Reading something like “work harder than other people and you’ll succeed,” knowing it’s as generic as the advice from a Tarot card reader, but accepting it just because technically it isn’t false
- Re-tweeting their posts without reading it just because they’re your friend, you respect them, etc.
- Referring everyone to their work regardless of their actual need
Since the history of time the average person wants someone to stand up and say, “this is what we’re going to do, follow me.” Many of you that read this post probably don’t fall into this category often, but you sometimes do.
How many times have you just wanted you friend, your significant other, etc. to just pick a movie, place to eat, etc. It might not be EXACTLY what you wanted to watch or what you were hungry for, but if it isn’t completely blasphemous you’re down. Besides, it’s easier than continuing to argue/be indecisive, right?
That is kind of what I liken this current epidemic to, picking out a movie. If someone’s content is ‘good enough’ you’ll go along with it. Calling out their taste in movies doesn’t work, and choosing your own movie and watching it in the back bedroom probably isn’t a very good solution either.
So then how do we answer Monica’s second question?
We’ve already acknowledged people just want someone to lead, and maybe that’s the key here. Maybe you have to consistently craft content so great that at some point they get tired of watching Channing Tatum try to act and they realize that The Hurt Locker will blow their mind.
And it’s hard. If it wasn’t the drones would easily see the trap they’re falling into and they wouldn’t aimlessly agree with everything someone else writes as he/she steps on their head like a rung in ladder to the top of the blogosphere.
For most people calling them out only makes you seem jealous. Pointing fingers at the drone questions their intellect (and nobody is going to respond well to that).
The solution is to get out of the fishbowl, make it a competition, and find a way to win. Drones are notoriously nimble bandwagon fans and when they see you take the lead they’ll try to ride your coattails. When they do, don’t manipulate them. Demand they call you on your bullshit. Demand they challenge you, and push you to keep stay atop your game. Then deliver the goods, not re-packaged generic garbage.
Tweet This: How to Sway Drones, Kill the Queen Bee, & Take Over the Hive –> http://bit.ly/cI3OK4
If you enjoyed this post please consider subscribing to receive future updates or connecting with me via Twitter or LinkedIn
Popularity: 2% [?]
“Demand that they call you on your bullshit”? That would be a great advance in author-reader relationships. I’m not sure that most entry-level readers know what the bullshit IS yet, though, which puts the burden on those of us who (think we) do…
Justin Kownacki´s last blog ..5 Unorthodox Ways to Fix Social Media
[Reply]
Ryan Stephens Reply:
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:45 pm
Agreed. Most people don’t know the difference.
Of the ones that do I think there’s about 1% that will truly call you out. He likes to use puppets.
There are a handful of others like Monica and Rebecca who will disagree and frequently ask important questions. Though I don’t always agree with their perspective I appreciate the dissenting opinion and it often forces me to think more about what I’ve written, and typically enhances my learning process.
And then there’s those that aren’t drones, but that it’s just not their disposition to call someone out. There the people that read a terrible book and just won’t review it for fear that they’ll hurt the authors feelings. I wish these people would at least e-mail in private and give us their criticisms because they’re too smart to sit on the fact that they just read some weak lame-brained argument.
Thanks for helping inspire this post Justin!
[Reply]
Hello. My name is Bryan Cromlish and I am a drone.
Well not really, but I have done a lot of Re-tweeting posts even if I dont get a chance to read them because they’re my friend, respect them, etc.
I do this because I believe these people are constantly putting out good content. Besides RTing them adds a lot to what you can provide your readers.
I think it is a win-win. I own my inner drone.
As for the other points, there are people who agree with everything other people say? Im kidding, obviously there are… I think it is more a fear of getting burned by someone who they think is smarter than they are.
These people like to show they are listening but do not want to get too involved with the conversation. Its kind of like the Blog version of talking about the weather.
PS Hurt Locker = Epic Win
[Reply]
Carlos Miceli Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 10:16 am
A win-win? Only on the outside, and for you and him.
Forget about all the people that you are hurting by adding more noise, you by adding more mindless worshiping, and the writer who keeps writing mediocre stuff.
Carlos Miceli´s last blog ..The Human Equation Conflict
[Reply]
Ryan Stephens Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 11:39 am
I’ve been guilty of the RTing without reading before, but after re-evaluating I’ve stopped just because I think everyone writes a dud periodically.
I’m flattered quite a few people follow me and assuming a good 1/4 of those care what I Tweet/say I want to respect their time by only sharing what I think they’ll get the most value out of (most of the time anyway). If for some reason I shared garbage just because it had an intriguing title I’d have to spend time earning trust back.
I like your analogy with respect to people wanting to show they’re listening being similar to discussing the weather in real life. But what value is that adding?
What if they just did something as simple as… “I enjoyed (link to post) because …” Then their followers would have a better sense of whether that content would appeal to them, particularly if they know how their own views and values align with the person sending the tweet.
I guess getting burned is a legitimate fear, but it seems like an intelligent, self-aware person wouldn’t mind so long as they learned something valuable from the experience.
[Reply]
We should set up a business and call ourselves the Dronebusters. And we should ask Bill Murray to join, he still has it.
Carlos Miceli´s last blog ..The Human Equation Conflict
[Reply]
Ryan Stephens Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 11:40 am
Bill Murray got killed in ZombieLand, but I suspect Woody Harrelson could be a valid substitute, yes?
[Reply]
Matt Cheuvront Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 11:56 am
Thanks for ruining the ending in Zombieland! Sheesh! (kidding kidding, I already saw it and Bill Murray was great).
[Reply]
Ryan Stephens Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
I guess that was a bit insensitive of me.
For anyone who hasn’t seen it… Bill Murray may or may not be in the film. And if he’s in it he may or may not die. I usually don’t like “light” movies, but I thought it was awesome, and Emma Stone was HAWT.
Carlos, good stuff with Owl Sparks.
1. How do you know the stuff I chose to RT is mediocre? I only chose a select few to RT without question.
2. Id hardly consider what I publish as noise.
3. What isn’t important to you, does not mean that it is not important to others.
I’d like to argue that anyone following more than 100 people don’t really check their streams anyways (because of noise or no noise) so by adding this content I am not really disturbing anyone.
[Reply]
Ryan Stephens Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 11:48 am
1.) I think Carlos is right. There’s always a chance albeit a small one with some people that what they wrote could’ve been a dud that doesn’t add value.
2.) It probably doesn’t matter what you think, I think or Carlos thinks, but the sum of what your followers think. I suspect that, like me, most people think you add pretty solid value or they wouldn’t follow you.
3.) I think this is a valid argument here, and I think Carlos’ response stems more from the fact that he’s frustrated with the whole drone epidemic in general. You have to do your best to satisfy the needs of your followers, and that’s all you can control, but in our mind a big part of that responsibility is providing real, new, unique ideas and experiences instead of canned, generic, bullshit that these drones cling to. And I can’t speak for Carlos, but I think you do provide solid value.
You’re 100% right about the # of followers, and not coincidentally Carlos is someone who follows less than 100, and builds valued relationships with those he does follow hence a lot of the back and forth talk…And unless we’re following both those people we’ll never see those conversations so he’s actually one of the least “noisy” people on Twitter.
[Reply]
Thanks Bryan.
1. I don’t. But you don’t know either, since you don’t read it. And since you are the promoter, you should be sure that it’s not mediocre.
2. But the rest of us do.
3. I’m tired of this argument. This has nothing to do with it. It’s like parents told their children: if somebody ever calls you out on your crappy content, tell them that thy don’t “understand you.” Why bother in actually doing some introspection? It’s not about importance, it’s about quality.
And since most people think like you, noise will only build up. That’s why I follow less than a 100. I do check my stream. I do care about not having noise.
Carlos Miceli´s last blog ..The Human Equation Conflict
[Reply]
February 24th, 2010 at 11:20 amRyan, sorry that your comments are getting filled with this back and forth between Carlos and I. But I think my RTing has an actually marketing strategy to it, even if you both disagree.
1. I treat my Twitter and Google Reader separately — I read most of the content that makes it to my reader and of that, I only “drone” what is constantly good.
2. Being rude/sarcastic will only burn bridges but I can tell building relationships is not one of your main objectives with social media.
3. That is not what I was getting at at all. Its all about quality? So you actually think that if you continually put out good quality the masses will come? Good luck with that, you definitely need marketing.
I think many would agree that a RTd stream of “potentially” good articles is more valuable than one filled with only self promotion and personal conversations (especially about genitalia).
[Reply]
Ryan Stephens Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
@Bryan,
No need to apologize. I’m enjoying the discussion and I have a lot of respect for both you and Carlos. I respect and value both of your opinions and they’re helping me sort through my own thoughts on the issue at hand.
There’s definitely a marketing strategy to RTing quality content, I won’t argue with that.
I’m not convinced Carlos is trying to be rude/sarcastic. I just think it’s in his nature to stir the pot in hopes that the value will rise to the top. I genuinely wish more people approached the blogosphere like that rather than the “we’re all one big happy family approach.” (See Justin’s fishbowl post!)
Your third point is something I’ve thought about a lot. I think in theory Carlos is right. If you consistently put out great work someone will find it. If it’s truly great that someone will tell people who will read it and spread it… In reality, yes you’re right, there probably has to be some level of self promotion, getting your message out there, etc. At least for most of us that don’t yet have the skill/wealth of experience to always write mind blowing content.
I’m not sure a cursory glance at Carlos’ Twitter stream provides an accurate depiction of approach. He’s one of the few people I know who does value a handful of close relationships over a large following… And while most of us say we do (and we might) he actually practices it. Everyday.
[Reply]
Norcross Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
That really depends on what your goal with a service like Twitter is. Personally, I want nothing but personal conversations and information (with as little self-promotion as possible). If you went over my stream, you’d find a nice blend of swearing, pictures of my kid, and weird shit that I find funny. Not a megaphone for other people’s ideas.
[Reply]
Carlos Miceli Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
I’m sure we can all agree that Twitter is a tool. As such I’m no one to say how we should use it. For example, Ben Casnocha does not reply to anyone, because he wants his stream to be a list of random thoughts and musings. And that’s fine.
For me, Twitter is all about relationships and real friendships. I have skyped with most of my “tweeps” more than once, and we have a blast each time. I don’t know about you, but I do talk about genitalia with friends, like Ben in this case.
This does not mean that’s the only way, but I don’t think Ben’s approach, or a massive RT approach is about that, although people say all the time that it is. Not that there’s anything wrong with a different approach.
I can assure you I’m not trying to be rude. Like Ryan said (thanks man for all the nice words) it’s just to be direct and to stir up some interesting conversation.
Regarding the quality and the masses, yeah, I think they will come. The problem is everyone thinks thy are putting good quality out there, so when they don’t come, they blame the marketing. Also, we are very impatient for results and that’s why we THINK that word of mouth doesn’t work.
Carlos Miceli´s last blog ..The Human Equation Conflict
[Reply]
I’ve got to fall on Carlos’s side with this. I won’t even RT something I haven’t already read, regardless of source. And follower numbers here are irrelevant to the content / noise issue, since lists and Tweetdeck groups take care of that. And it’s clear we all use Twitter for different reasons. If someone wants to market with it, great. But if someone’s marketing something, then they aren’t really building a relationship with someone else in the real sense of the word. You’re looking for customers at that point. That’s fine, but don’t pretend it’s personal when it clearly is not.
There are people I follow for the relationship, and those I follow for content / information. Rarely do those two things ever mix.
[Reply]
February 24th, 2010 at 12:42 pmGreat response Ryan and Norcross. There is no doubt in my mind that everyone will take Carlos’ “side” on this one, heck I agree that there is so much crap on the internet.
I think there is a big difference between planned droning and spamming.
We could write an e-book on this subject (hahaha funny to me) but the fact of the matter is I feel like you guys are taking a 1 dimensional look at this. You are assuming all your readers have as much social media, marketing, overall knowledge as you.
The way I see it there are:
Opinion Leaders -> People Who Influence Me -> Me & Peers -> People I influence
You guys keep saying a Dud post… why is it a dud post? Likely because you have already read that information a couple times over. If it were the first time you were reading it, it might be amazing!
So my RTs may not be adding value to my own learning, or even that of my peers with a similar amount of knowledge — I think I am adding value by helping people who are new to social media catch up.
Have you thought of it like that? I believe a good source will always put out ‘good enough’ material for me to share. I have an understanding that a lot of my followers are new to twitter. 20-30 followers and I would like to help them succeed online.
That is also the tip of the iceburg why I dont believe in this following to follower relationship. You are just lying to yourself if you think you actually have any more influence by not following back. Following count doesnt matter like Norcross was hinting.
[Reply]
Bryan Cromlish Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Basically my content I publish on Twitter is tailored to a wider audience then many.
I build relationships through blog comments, twitter chats and being genuinely nice. If you think a tailored RT will make a big difference to the author, you might as well Comment on their blog — They would enjoy that more.
[Reply]
I rarely RT anything, but when I do (like Norcross’s post yesterday) it’s because…
A) something that takes the words right out of my mouth – something I wish I had written and could have written, but they beat me to it and said it beautifully
B) something I feel that those follow my blog and Twitter would enjoy reading – someone’s unique voice that sheds new light on an old topic, their insight with some inspiring and/or thought provoking words
C) both A and B
I’ll never RT anything I haven’t fully read myself. I’ll never RT anything just because they are my friend. And I certainly won’t RT anything simply because I like the flavor of Kool-Aid they are serving.
In fact, I’m LESS likely to RT anything from someone who is constantly whoring out their own links and endlessly patting themselves on the back about how awesome they feel they are. That’s just nauseating behavior and they need to realize that anyone with a half a brain sees right through the smoke and mirrors.
Sucks-ups and coattail riders are the worst!
David´s last blog ..Embellished Truth
[Reply]
Ryan Stephens Reply:
February 25th, 2010 at 10:30 am
@David – Always nice to see you around these parts. I think we have a very similar perspective on our approach to re-tweets. Why doesn’t that surprise me?
I think a great question to ask yourself prior to re-tweeting something is, “Will the majority of my followers find this valuable if they choose to click on the link and read the post?”
But for me, the question I find myself asking the most seems to be, “Do I wish that I wrote this?”
That’s probably the type of post I re-tweet most often.
[Reply]
This is a little off topic but could sprout another topic for Ryan or you Carlos. (I’ve stopped blogging for a bit in favor of another project)
Do you think if your favorite blogger, [insert name here], blogged under a fake name and told nobody that he/she created a default blogger themed blog — The masses would come in 6 months – 1year?
[Reply]
Ryan Stephens Reply:
February 25th, 2010 at 10:34 am
I think it can happen (as evidenced by Carlos’ example), but it’s definitely probably the exception to the norm. I think it would be an awesome experiment to try, but I also think that logistically it doesn’t make sense for most of the people capable of pulling it off so it’s unlikely we’ll get to witness happen unless it’s a scenario where it’s more of a no-name who makes a quick, unexpected splash.
But do I think that if Seth Godin started another blog on a generic theme or if someone like Malcolm Gladwell started randomly blogging on a default them under an alias people would find it and it’d become mainstream — yeah, I really do.
[Reply]
This is funny, but you are asking the wrong people.
May I Ryan?
http://roissy.wordpress.com/
Carlos Miceli´s last blog ..The Human Equation Conflict
[Reply]
February 24th, 2010 at 7:02 pmYay Ryan! Thank you for answering the questions I posed. I like your answers. And thank you for thinking that I am a challenger and not a drone.
I am considering what Brian has said about 100 followers. I truthfully don’t read my twitter stream that much, because somehow it has hit 500+ again. There are maybe 50 that I have real relationships with. Might be time to clean out.
Monica O’Brien´s last blog ..Next on the Digital Chopping Block: Cable Television
[Reply]
Ryan Stephens Reply:
February 25th, 2010 at 10:37 am
You’re obviously a challenger Monica or your questions wouldn’t have resulted in a post and ensuing high-level discussion from lots of smart people.
I used to follow everyone back, but the fact is that many of those people were following me in the hopes that I’d follow back, and they’d increase their follower account. We’d never personally talked.
My rule of thumb now is that IF that person and I have had more than one conversation on Twitter OR if they’re just so awesome I love their stream (there’s like 12 of these maybe) then I’ll add them to follow.
[Reply]
Like Bryan, I’ll admit that there are times I RT something without reading it. But, I never RT something without at least skimming it first. I may not have time to read it word for word, but I want to make sure that what I’m suggesting to my followers is something of value. Just like how I try not to write posts that people won’t get anything out of.
As for number of people we follow on Twitter, I think Carlos’ point is definitely a valid one. If we have more than a certain number of people we follow, things can easily get lost in the shuffle. But, I’ve found that Twitter lists and apps like HootSuite and TweetDeck help with this issue. Sometimes I’m looking for something from Gen Y, sometimes I need something industry related, so I separate them out that way.
There are certainly some drones out there, and I don’t think blindly following people and taking everything they say as gospel is right or wise. But, supporting others in our community and people we consider friends is not always a bad thing. There’s a middle road. For example, I may not be much of a “challenger,” but I’m certainly not a drone. Great perspective on these issues, Ryan!
[Reply]
Ryan Stephens Reply:
February 25th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
@Sam – In most instances online, I think skimming something is probably equivalent to reading it. The web is so saturated with noise at this point, that as long as you have a good sense of what you’re sharing I think it’s appropriate. The person’s name & the title of the most though do not provide sufficient enough data to make that assumption in my opinion.
I don’t think there are “some” drones, I think there are “MANY” drones, but that’s SAMantics… <– see what I did there?
There's NOTHING wrong with supporting friends or even weak ties, provided that it's for the right reasons and you're as intent on challenging them when necessary as you are about praising them when deserved.
[Reply]
I understand the “only follow a limited number of people” thing and get why a lot of folks keep that number down to eliminate the “noise” but on the other hand, why deny the opportunity to make a connection with someone, and then another, and then another?
A “tool” like Twitter is incredible at being able to be that first point of contact, that initial connection that can lead to blog discussion Skype conversations, phone calls, and in-person meetings. I meet new people every single day that are doing incredible things – I’ve seen the “rewards” of being open and willing to connect, as well as being proactive and reaching out to connect with others (both personally and professionally).
At the end of the day these online tools have no right or wrong use – we all have different goals and different approaches, and in my opinion, there’s nothing wrong with any of them.
Great conversation sparked here Ryan. Cheers for bringing together a varied group of perspectives.
[Reply]
Carlos Miceli Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
Because you are splitting your efforts. We only have 24 hours, so the connections are weaker. It becomes about the numbers.
Then again, some people don’t use Twitter for make real connections, and there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s a tool, not a religion.
Carlos Miceli´s last blog ..The Human Equation Conflict
[Reply]
Matt Cheuvront Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
I don’t disagree with you – but like you, I have MANY “real” (very close) friendships that have spawned from Social Media – but that doesn’t mean I’m going to hold myself back from making even more of those connections in the future.
There will always be those I am VERY close with – those relationships go far beyond the online world, as they should. Not to mention the “real life” (I hate that phrase but don’t know how else to put it) friendships and relationships I had with people before every getting involved in blogging and Social Media – family and friends come first. Always. I’m sure you agree.
[Reply]
Carlos Miceli Reply:
February 25th, 2010 at 2:45 am
More of those connections, means weakening previous ones. A friendship is not one skype call. A friendship is constant chats, listening to another person’s problems, and some flirting if she’s a girl.
So, the more connections you make, the weaker each previous one becomes, it’s just reality, it’s just time availability.
I didn’t invent this law (called 150 law, or something like that). I read it on The Tipping Point by M. Gladwell, and is pure logic.
Carlos Miceli´s last blog ..The Human Equation Conflict
Tim Jahn Reply:
February 25th, 2010 at 10:16 am
There’s no reply button available for Carlos’ comment, so I’m replying to Matt’s instead.
I think Carlos has a valid point here, as it does just come down to logical numbers when you think about it. There’s simply not enough time in a day to keep up true “friendships” with hundreds of people.
I talk with a LOT of people on Twitter. But how many of them know I have a wife named Beth? How many of them know that I grew up in the northwestern suburbs of Chicago?
Of the tons of people I interact with on Twitter, or LinkedIn, or whatever, a very small percentage are true friends (at the moment).
This isn’t anybody’s fault, it’s just what Carlos is describing. I think each person only has a capacity for maintaining so many connections. It’s like memories in a way – I think your brain can only maintain so many memories. Once a new one comes in, an old one will probably fade.
Tim Jahn´s last blog ..Fifth House Ensemble
Ryan Stephens Reply:
February 25th, 2010 at 10:26 am
I think this is where a lot of bloggers hope that by creating new weak connections they’ll acquire a bigger audience and more community. They hope that the hard work they’ve invested in the past (with old weak ties) will keep old connections coming back to devour their content. They can make a strategical play to invest more time into creating new connections and just occasionally ping the old weak ties in hopes that it will effectively sustain the relationship.
It’s inevitable that some of those weak ties say, “Man, Mr. X doesn’t acknowledge me as much as he used to, I think I’ll move along.” But there are plenty of others that will stick around provided that A.) they’re drones B.) they’ve been introduced to the content now & it’s valuable enough that they care less about the relationship and more about the content itself.
I don’t know how I feel about this phenomenon. It feels manipulative, but from a marketing standpoint I can see why for people out to build a business it might make sense.
Thoughts!?
Tim Jahn Reply:
February 25th, 2010 at 10:38 am
You’ve identified the problem right there, Ryan (which is completely subjective – to some it’s NOT a problem): This technique WORKS when it comes to marketing and building a community.
Look at Chris Brogan, for example. His entire business and community is dependent on the idea that he maintains a wide network of weaker ties with drones. Most of the comments on his posts consist of people praising his almighty amazingness and says he’s right.
Once in awhile there’s a meaty discussion there, but it’s rare.
So I agree with you – it’s manipulative and I’m not sure it’s my cup of tea. But I can see from a business standpoint why people do it.
Then again, I can see why Microsoft keeps supporting IE6 from a business standpoint but FUCK that.
Tim Jahn´s last blog ..Fifth House Ensemble
Monica O'Brien Reply:
February 25th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
Just wanted to say I agree with this line of thought and also have read the relationship/community capacity theory. Furthermore, I saw it firsthand as Brazen was going through it’s growing pains expanding from it’s 100-150 regular writers into a full-fledged social network. It is the reason the company created groups – because they realized that pockets of communities was the way to go.
Also, read Tribal Leadership. Amazing amazing book about how to build a tribe within a company, that can be applied to any community building.
Finally, I’ve probably said this before but yeah, it is lame to think you are close friends with someone after a Skype call. By being everyone’s best friend, you are really no one’s best friend.
Even lamer to do so just so you can have a bigger blog – and it’s not like people can’t see your motives! The drones are awakening.
Monica O’Brien´s last blog ..Next on the Digital Chopping Block: Cable Television
I’m pretty sure this is the best conversation I’ve read in the comments of a blog post ever. Yes, it is.
I’m with Ryan, Carlos, Monica and friends, which you all probably know if you chat with me at all. I question constantly and seek to learn and grow. And I basically agree with most of what’s been said here, so I won’t add any unnecessary fluff.
The problem I think exists is that the drones will never understand why they’re drones and the non-drones will never understand why the drones don’t now why they’re drones. (if you can follow that!)
It’s a never ending cycle of sorts, I suppose.
Tim Jahn´s last blog ..Fifth House Ensemble
[Reply]
Norcross Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
I think Tim’s hit the crux of the issue: drones don’t know it, and non-drones can’t understand who the others are sucked in. So what to do about it? Personally, I’ve made it a point to ‘trim the fat’ and cut out those queen bees from my social media landscape. They offer nothing of value anymore, and I feel any contribution I give is only perpetuating the problem.
[Reply]
David Reply:
February 24th, 2010 at 10:48 pm
“The problem I think exists is that the drones will never understand why they’re drones and the non-drones will never understand why the drones don’t now why they’re drones. (if you can follow that!) It’s a never ending cycle of sorts, I suppose.”
I followed all of that and you hit the nail on the head! It’s sort of like crazy people. Crazy people are always the last to realize they’re crazy…that’s what makes them so crazy to begin with!
Like you said, it’s a never ending cycle. And we can all bitch about it until we are blue in the face, but unfortunately I don’t think these people will ever get a clue and change their ways. They are caught up in their own little “Me World” and any attempt to call them out on their bullshit falls on deaf ears. They just simply can’t believe you are referring to them! Although when your head is up your own ass, it is hard to hear.
Bottom line – If it walks like a drone, talks like a drone, then it’s probably a drone.
David´s last blog ..Embellished Truth
[Reply]
Monica O'Brien Reply:
February 25th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Yes, Tim. Get the drones to question themselves and self-reflect without coming off like a jerk is the solution, I think.
Monica O’Brien´s last blog ..Next on the Digital Chopping Block: Cable Television
[Reply]
What if you were to write a post where you write down all the queen bees and drones out there? You would come off as some sort of hater and many other things. Powerful but ineffective, even you were 100% right.
It’s not that there’s no solution, it’s that nobody would walk through that fire.
Solution? You do it privately. And only with those that are worth saving, some drones add no value even if they see the light.
Carlos Miceli´s last blog ..The Human Equation Conflict
[Reply]
February 25th, 2010 at 2:40 am@Carlos – I see what you’re saying but it’s not always a “numbers game”. Making new connections and friends doesn’t always mean your weakening previous relationships. It would be a pretty isolated place if everyone stopped connecting with each other once they had “enough” friends. It doesn’t always have to be “this OR that”.
It is a time thing – it is about availability, but we all have those people in our life who are our friends, in the truest sense of the word, friendship that do not waiver regardless of how many new people we meet. And there’s always the opportunity to make new connections that are just as strong – I’ve seen it amongst many of us over the past 12 months…Good thoughts.
[Reply]
Carlos Miceli Reply:
February 25th, 2010 at 5:01 am
The only disagreement here is that you are calling weak ties “friendships.” You can have as many weak ties as you want, and they also serve a purpose, but a different one than friends do. For those friends to be your friends, you have to invest a lot of time in them, and one can’t do that if he keeps expanding weak ties.
Let’s put it this way: you can keep expanding your friendships, and I certainly do it, but there’s no way one can do it faster than 10, 20, 30 friends a year. If you have 300 people, those are weak ties, they are not friends.
Carlos Miceli´s last blog ..The Human Equation Conflict
[Reply]
Again, I don’t think we are in disagreement, we’re getting caught up in the semantics of the word “friendship” – which can and does have many different levels. We all have different levels of friendships – the “BFFs” or very close friends we go grab a beer and play pool with on the weekend, the one’s that will be standing beside me as groomsmen when I get married, etc – this is a very different and RARE type of friendship – one that is developed over many (many) years.
Agree with what your saying and we’re both clearly stating that there’s a difference between friendships and “connections” so to speak – each of which serve their purpose in both (or either) personal and professional fulfillment.
[Reply]
February 25th, 2010 at 5:09 amAt this point of the conversation, I would like to say Ryan, Carlos, Matt, Justin, David, Andrew, Monica, Sam, Tim, Me — Everyone, has a goal with social media. For many, (especially in North America) there is some element of monetary profit whether that be independent consulting work, landing yourself a great job or even scamming others. For everyone, a goal on Twitter is to share a message with the public (whether it is your own or someone else’s).
Carlos and Matt – you have been throwing the word friendship around, it is pretty hard to define what a friendship is to an individual. How about for arguments sake we use the term relationship or interpersonal tie. With the help from a sociology article by Mark S Granovetter ( written back in 1973), I’d like to prove that there is more value in a weak tie or “drones” than a strong one. [Granovetter, Mark S. The Strength of Weak Ties. Volume 78. American Journal of Sociology, Issue 6 (May, 1973).] http://www.stanford.edu/dept/soc/people/mgranovetter/documents/granstrengthweakties.pdf
In my mind, a study on social networks (connections of people, not tools like Twitter) back in the 70s is very interesting because whatever elements that are present both then and now have a strong influence on what I believe to be human nature, rather than a reflection of a current societal trends. If we don’t look at the past, you’ll have a hard time understanding what is going on in the present!
Before I jump into it, I want to define ‘The Strength of Ties’ very similar to how Granovetter does by assuming it to be a linear relation. Hopefully we can agree that strength is built with the combination of the “amount of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy [Carlos’ flirting
], and the reciprocal services which characterize the tie.” Using these guidelines we can use intuition to assess if a tie’s strong, weak or non-existent.
The strategy of that paper can easily be applied to Social Media 2010. Granovetter showed how the strength of an interpersonal tie relates to macro aspects like diffusion, social cohesion in general (and more). It is important to understand that small-scale interactions have a huge impact on larger scale patterns of communication and, in return, move back into small groups.
We’ll keep all peer groups small for arguments sake. Let’s say we have a peer group of strong ties between persons A,B,C & D and another group of E,F,G & H. You have said it yourself Carlos, one cannot create more than 10-30 strong ties per year so this model isn’t completely unrealistically small! Let’s also say there is a weak tie between A & E (for example), which connects the two strong networks. What I want you to understand is that removing the weak tie does more “damage” to transmission of information than would that of the average strong one.
We are all bloggers here. We’ll use blogging as an example to show that whatever you are trying to diffuse to the masses can reach a larger number of people, travelling a wider social distance, when passed through weak ties rather than strong. If someone tells about their blog post to close friends, and they do the same, many will hear about the post multiple times, this is because strong relationships tend to share friends. Once a week goes by and the motivation to spread the word about your epic “How to Sway Drones, Kill the Queen Bee, & Take Over the Hive” blog post lowers, the information spread is much more likely to be limited to a few cliques than that with many weak ties.
Statement: Those with many weak ties, are the best at diffusing information.
Like Tim hinted: Do you think Chris Brogan, Amber Naslund, Ben Casnocha, John Moore, Penelope Trunk, Mitch Joel, Brian Clark, Guy Kawasaki, Joseph Jaffe, Darren Rowse, Seth Godin, Jason Falls etc… all achieved their success on Twitter by only building and maintaining strong relationships? No.
These people got in social media early and made themselves innovators/opinion leaders, infact – anything they said was new and exciting! By maintaining weak ties and “droning” early adopters who would then pass it on to their strong ties, these people have achieved an amazing amount of success. This becomes a growing cycle where their views matter so much that they hardly even need to worry about making the effort to maintain weak relationships! All they have to do is respond to most of the people who casually tweet them and watch their message diffuse further.
Sure, some amazing bonds are created along the way and that is great because these people can support you emotionally, give you a trusted opinion, and inspire thought, etc – But I believe that it is possible to create too strong of a relationship. Eventually, something will happen where you cannot maintain communication with that person for a couple weeks for example and you will let them down because of some commitment IRL (In Real Life). This creates a chain reaction of slips in mutual support and takes the “us” out of “trust” [just made that up!]. Sporadic contact is easier to maintain.
Again… Here is the early model of the Twitter network when we got started:
V-Innovators –Christ Brogan & Friends
V-Early Adopters (Many Layers)– Drones of Chris Brogan & Friends (Weak Connections)
V-The Massess – All of Us
Over time we have grown through the early adopter levels, and we too want to provide the web with new/innovative ideas. Im sorry to tell you, but if you want your ideas out there – you are going to need to create many weak connections. It comes down to who influences you and who you influence. The people against this “droning” are putting themselves on a false pedestal by rarely sharing others messages. That is pretty selfish if you ask me. It seems people like Matt Chevy and I realize that we did not get into social media first, so there are many people with a stronger influence than us and we should listen. We have embraced the fact that we have a role as innovators AND early adopters at the same time.
Shift Model:
V-Innovators –Christ Brogan & Friends —— Us
V-Early Adopters (Many Layers)– Us —— Our Weak Connections
V-The Massess – Target Audience!
So… Even if you are annoyed by drones in your direct network, you rely on them in your secondary network assuming you want to share a message with the community. If you ask me, the people you all are calling drones are actually “nodes” on the information superhighway, the people who attempt to use a “formula” to sort what is good or bad are the drones. I really do not think that it is the “noise” on Twitter that is the problem, it is how YOU are using the tool.
It is not manipulative by any means because I genuinely want to help others (even if I don’t REALLY know them) and love it when people want to help me. For the most part, I do use Twitter for weak relationships – It is a tool that has a lot of ‘shaking hands and kissing babies’. If you want a tight knit exchange among “friends” maybe Facebook or Brazen Careerist is a much better tool for your discussions.
Success on social media takes – Strong critical thought, an open mind, respect, and your ego at the door.
*I found this article through Gavin’s blog http://servantofchaos.typepad.com/soc/2007/10/the-strength-of.html. Thank you.
[Reply]
Ryan Stephens Reply:
February 25th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Best Comment on this Blog. Ever. Seriously. Epic.
I’ll give others the opportunity to weigh in and see where this conversation goes organically before I collate some ideas together and bring up other notions and challenge some of the ones at play hear.
Again, thank you Bryan for being passionate enough to take the time to share such an elaborate and thoughtful response with this community. Though by your definition you may have “drone” qualities in other communities, that’s clearly not the case here – at least in the sense that I’ve tried to define it. I’m truly grateful for your participation.
[Reply]
Carlos Miceli Reply:
February 25th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
There’s one HUGE assumption with your comment, Bryan. And that is that success is my number one goal. I have written about this before many times, and recently John Bardos wrote a great post here: http://untemplater.com/self-improvement/authenticity-is-for-losers-only-liars-succeed/
From day one I knew what would work online. I knew what I had to do to become popular, succeed, have a community and all that stuff. And for a while I did it. And I hated every second of it.
Believe me, if I were to keep doing it, I would sky-rocket because it’s more scientific that we are prepared to believe. It’s not about my content, it’s about what other people want to hear. Human psychology and the written word are two very powerful tools, and if you know how to use them, manipulation is a piece of cake.
But I don’t want to do that, because that’s how you perpetuate mediocrity, and the world has enough of that already.I want a smart world, not a world full of micro religions.
I’d rather fail than to lose my integrity. I don’t want to be the Letterman, the Leno of blogging, I want to be the Adam Carolla of blogging. Burning bridges all the time for sticking for what you believe in. But those few bridges that stick? Oh, baby, those are made of steel and diamond, you can’t burn those, they will be there forever.
There’s nothing wrong with maintaining a weak tie, I have many in my life, but I’m not manipulating people (because IT IS manipulation) telling everyone we are friends, that we are community, that there’s love for everyone. You tell me I need to have drones? That I need to have as many weak ties as possible to succeed. The I ask you, what comes with that? Instead of thinking so hard and showing us how much they will help YOU, what about them? What happens to them? Where do they go once you cash the check? Who guides them once you win?
Thank you but no. I’d rather be the lamest blogger that keeps cracking his head open to come up with original posts every time, that keeps trying to make people wake up of all the shit that they are consuming labeled as “great posts” and great communities, instead of just “going with the drone thing” because it’s the utilitarian solution.
I’m a realistic person. Chances are all those people that keep making it about the numbers will grow their audience throughout the years and I’ll have to suffer for being able to see through their crap while I have to “settle” with my little community of real thinkers (which I tell them to leave me every 100 posts). But I don’t care. To hell with the money. To hell with the attention, the popularity, the ego-praising.
I don’t want to do what works. I want to do what’s right.
Carlos Miceli´s last blog ..The Human Equation Conflict
[Reply]
Tim Jahn Reply:
February 25th, 2010 at 8:32 pm
THIS is the best comment ever. Rock on, Carlos. Rock on.
Tim Jahn´s last blog ..Fifth House Ensemble
[Reply]
Tim Jahn Reply:
February 27th, 2010 at 12:05 am
And I love this line: “I don’t want to be the Letterman, the Leno of blogging, I want to be the Adam Carolla of blogging.”
So true.
Tim Jahn´s last blog ..NogginLabs
[Reply]
Monica O'Brien Reply:
February 25th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Oh jeez. I don’t know that you need a lot of weak connections to get your message out. I think you need a lot of great content.
It seems like you are promoting a model of mediocre content that would not normally be shared but is because these weak ties feel like they have to reciprocate.
I agree that it is nice to retweet others, but I won’t do it insincerely. I don’t ever retweet many of my friends and I do retweet plenty of strangers. My friends are still my friends and the strangers are still people who produced something really interesting that was worth sharing with others.
Using weak ties as your main promotional tool might be the substitute for actually producing something worth talking about.
Monica O’Brien´s last blog ..Next on the Digital Chopping Block: Cable Television
[Reply]
Tim Jahn Reply:
February 25th, 2010 at 8:40 pm
“It seems like you are promoting a model of mediocre content that would not normally be shared but is because these weak ties feel like they have to reciprocate.”
Bingo. People feel the need to stroke everybody else’s back and ego, just so that other people can do the same to them. I’m all for collaboration, working on projects together, and that sort of activity.
But there’s a big difference between that and promoting a world of mediocrity for the sake of building your own drone fanbase.
Tim Jahn´s last blog ..Fifth House Ensemble
[Reply]
Some thoughts from contributor Justin Kownacki that might help shed light on the two sides being presented here:
“We’re tired of the mediocrity and we’re demanding more from this rich medium that’s practically overflowing with potential. The problem is, that potential never seems to be reached because we all spend too much time rehashing the same topics and polishing our own reputations, rather than collectively pushing the medium forward. But for those of us who would like to discuss these issues at a more “advanced” level, there’s a catch: Because our audiences come to us for advice and insights, we spend the bulk of our time educating others and far too little time pursuing the lessons we need to improve ourselves. What we need is to do both at once.”
On one side you have Bryan and Matt that believe strongly about educating the masses (whether they’re necessarily drones or not), and on the other you have Carlos, Monica, & Tim who’d rather let them worry about themselves and push the medium forward.
Though my own disposition leads towards the latter, I certainly see the need for the first. I was going to conclude that in most circumstances you have to pick your path and follow it, and that while there can be some overlap it’s tough to truly do both.
Justin’s proposed solution has me thinking differently. Can someone effectively do both at once? Would Carlos even want to?
[Reply]
Carlos Miceli Reply:
February 26th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
I’m not against educating the masses, but I don’t believe you can do it in a massive way. That’s self-promotion in disguise, even if sub-conscious.
I said it before, that kind of education works privately, one on one. One person is smart, but people are stupid.
Carlos Miceli´s last blog ..The Human Equation Conflict
[Reply]
[...] Decisions, Future, Skepticism, Thoughts, idealism, speaking My friend Ryan Stephens wrote a follow up post (which I recommend you to read) to my post “How to Build a Community of Drones”. The [...]
February 27th, 2010 at 4:16 am[...] don’t want conversation. They want you to be “nice.” Because that forms “relationships” and builds [...]
March 11th, 2010 at 2:36 pm