SM is all about supporting relationships with consumers. While it can drive traffic, make introductions, etc… it cannot create relationships or close sales unless you have developed the prospective consumer’s relationship to that point. Social media is still about the social and not the media - and always will be.

I just wrote about the biggest disconnect between those businesses that are successful with SM and those that are not is that those who are having success are doing so because their business cultures already embrace the more social elements of the consumer relationship. Those that do not, fail because it comes across as hypocritical, insincere and thus manipulative.

My company decided to dive into Twitter head first because we saw it as a way to have more conversations about more issues with our clients than anything else could do. It is immediate and that is extremely powerful as witnessed by the number of new clients and strategic partners we have culled from using it, as well as the existing clients we have been better able to communicate with and draw distinctions between our products and offers and our competitors.

Consumers are also demanding more transparency and communication from the brands they do business with and SM is great for helping brands facilitate this part of their message as well.

The results exist for companies who understand and embrace SM for what it is and not for what it is not. It is a tool. An interactive strategy for helping develop and support relationships with those who would be your friend or your client. It is not business as usual.

Personally, Twitter has produced a number of consulting gigs, interview opportunities, guest blog posts, etc.

As one person said above, it really depends on how well you use any social media. Use it well, and the results will come.

Check out my 30-Day Twitter Challenge for a blog post on how I use Twitter to produce great results: http://blog.bookmarket.com/2009/03/30-day-twitter-challenge.html

I’m not quite sure it’s about being afraid to post a name. It’s about a high-profile person separating professional and personal thoughts; a must in the twenty first century. Integrity is my policy.

One could make the argument that LinkedIn is just a Facebook whose members are more likely to have jobs. As an older demographic begin to flock to Facebook, the distinction between Facebook and LinkedIn becomes even more difficult to make.

Linkedin is professional and therefore useful. “Social networking” things like Facebook, Twitter, Myspace are distractions, merely for entertainment. I use them for that, and that alone.

Linkedin (and to some extent Plaxo, Hoovers, etc) are for business.

Too bad that post above is by an anonymous poster - it almost looked interesting. But I have learned not to read anything that people are afraid to put their name on

John Tenney
IsuranceHR.com

However, one could also make the argument that because they don’t use Twitter, by definition, it’s less of a closing tool.

A good qualifying question would have been, “Have you ever used Twitter?… Facebook.. and so on.

I personally think the study affirms some of my own hypothesis.

I was recently at a Social Media panel and got to speak with a few Social Media Consultants with some very big clients.

I believe the usefulness of Social Media is actually quite apparent and needs no further explanation. It is the fervor and obsession of those who have made Social Media a profession that alarms me.

Furthermore, people in this field often pride themselves on being innovators and earlier adopters yet they always seem to promote the same three sites because the happen to be the only adult in their circle using them… (not exactly beneficial to the rest of us who have been beaten over the head with how great Twitter is).

If you spend half your day justifying your profession to a board of execs there’s something wrong.

What can small business owners take away from this?

Many have touted Social Media as the great equalizer; for example, a niche shoe manufacturer can have just as much presence as NIKE through Social Media as opposed to a traditional media model.

Herein lies the paradox of Social Media. These same experts will also say that Social Media isn’t about making sales, it’s about fostering relationships with your brand. Clearly, NIKE has the same advantage they’ve always had. More resources and man power to spend on Twitter which in turn will only perpetuate brand dominance for the same companies that held the throne before Social Media existed.

For anyone who runs a small business, sales are extremely important. An attorney spending three hours a day, Tweeting with 50,000 Twitter followers, trying to create brand conception or realization (or whatever buzzword you’d like) is obviously at a disadvantage.

The icing on the cake is when sites like Twitter, MySpace, and Facebook come to the realization that they need to actualize revenue. They create a model whereby companies with a bigger budget are given more exposure. Whether it’s purchasing ads on Facebook or extra characters in Twitter, they essentially reconstruct the same hierarchical structure indicative of a centuries old marketing model.

Many will point examples of Social Media successes. Perhaps, you’ve come across a human interest piece in the local newspaper that features a “Baker” who’s used Twitter to gain a following. I would argue that the “Baker’s” success with Twitter is completely contingent on the law of scarcity. Inevitably, this baker has competitors who just haven’t utilized Twitter yet.

It’s free, easy and there’s no barrier to entry so what is likely to happen?

As every Baker in the state begins to utilize Twitter, the inherent marketing power of our original Baker begins to wane.

Over saturation of New Media sites is nothing new. Just a few years ago, believe it or not, MySpace was a great way to drum up a following with very little time or effort. Inevitably, everyone and their uncle started promoting their music, services and wares on MySpace. The same forces which had made it a revolutionary tool for marketing began to make it an un-enjoyable experience. People began tuning everyone out and spent more time deleting friends than making them. Eventually the site became rather unappealing do to the noise and clutter.

Now telling a colleague to “Check out my MySpace” is the cyber version of saying, “Let’s do lunch at the Greyhound track.”

Facebook has been able to walk a tight rope. At times upsetting their users, while trying to court revenue and make themselves profitable.

Even the young and innocent Twitter has already had to impose restrictions on their member’s ability to reach large numbers of people.

What was considered a great marketing tactic on a site one month, will be deemed as Spam the next month. It all depends on where the site owners want to place the fulcrum between a marketing frenzy or restricting people’s ability to socialize.

Social Media has allowed individuals to connect and share media with a larger number of acquaintances and friends. That in itself makes Social Media incredible, yet any claims above and beyond that are unproven and fantasy at this point.

There are no shortcuts. If you’ve been able to make some quick connections using a new tool, congratulations. Wait until a dozen of your competitors are targeting the same people.

Too many hands in the cookie jar.

If you use one of those Social Networks mentioned above and you find it isn’t helping you selling B2B, is that the ‘fault’ of the Social Network or is the way you use these networks ‘faulty’?

A better question would have been: HOW do you use Social Networks for B2B selling? (i.e. make first contact, get referrals, answer questions etc).

It’s that old saying: if you want the social networks to work, you’ll have to work the social networks (can be replaced with: if you want your websites, blogs, webshops, email marketing to work, etc etc).

Karin H. (Keep It Simple Sweetheart, specially in business)