Sotsiaalmeedia reeglid politsei uuesti streikivad!

linkedin politsei

Niikaua, kui inimesed mind tunnevad, olen röövinud valitseb politsei sotsiaalmeedias. Nad ajavad mind tõeliselt hulluks. Kümme aastat on üks argumente, mis jätkub, see, kas peaksite ühendust võtma inimestega, kellega olete ei tea online.

It uuesti pinnale eile, kui jagasin Dan Schawbeli postitust, Miks ma aktsepteerin kõiki LinkedIni kontaktitaotlusi. Dan loetleb 5 põhjust, miks ta suhtleb võõrastega, sealhulgas suunamised, uuringud, teadlikkus, mõjutamine ja bränding.

Kuid leidub rida vastikuid, kes pooldavad jätkuvalt veendumust, et see on kohutav sotsiaalse meedia etikett või aegruumi pidevuse rikkumine, kui ühendate sotsiaalmeedias kellegi, kellega te pole kunagi kohtunud või kellega teil pole suhteid. Mõni vestluses loetletud reegel ei tohtinud ühendust luua, kui te pole kedagi silmast silma kohanud. Või kui teil on tähendusrikas suhe kõigepealt.

Inimesed ... mis pagana kasu on sotsiaalsest võrgustikust, mis hõlmab linnu, osariike, riike, ajavööndeid ja mandreid, kui te seda ei kasuta? Kas tõesti usute, et selle uskumatu ressursi parim kasutamine on lihtsalt võrguühenduseta võrgu reprodutseerimine?

Miks te ei lähe lihtsalt oma vana rolodexi välja tõmbama ja kutsute oma keskkooli semud koopasse ja draakonit mängima?

Teate, kuidas ma kutsun inimesi, kellega ma pole sotsiaalmeedias ühendust võtnud? Ma helistan neile potentsiaalsed kliendid, potentsiaalsed investorid, potentsiaalsed töötajad, potentsiaalsed praktikandid, potentsiaalsed sõbrad, potentsiaalsed partnerid, potentsiaalsed müüjad, potentsiaalsed mentorid ja potentsiaalsed kolleegid.

Ja jah, ma tahan nendega ühendust saada. Tahan neid aidata. Ma tahan neid kuulata. Tahan kuulda, mida neil pakkuda on. Ma tahan ühendada võimalikult paljude inimestega! Ja kui mul on abi vaja, tahan nende poole pöörduda ja seda paluda. Arva ära?! Saan palju abi ühendused Ma pole kunagi kohtunud.

Meil kõigil on vedanud, et tööriistadel on ka võimalus lahti! Võin seda teha, kui nad on ebaviisakad, pealetükkivad või raiskavad mu aega. Seal on ka rämpspostist teatamise nupp, kui nad on üle joone. Ma ei küsi kelleltki veel neeru ega oma lapsi (veel), vaid lihtsalt vahendit ühendada inimestega, kellest olen tõeliselt huvitatud kohtumisest.

Minu jaoks on uskumatu, et samad inimesed, kes kritiseerivad inimesi suheldes inimestega, keda nad ei tunne, ei kõhkle kõndimast üle rahvarohke toa, et oma visiitkaart teile näkku lükata, või helistades külmalt, et prooviksite oma toodet müüa. Ometi istuvad nad seal täielikus vastikuses, kui klõpsate veebibrauseris nuppu.

Siin on idee ... hoidke oma reegleid enda teada. See, mida ma teen, töötab minu jaoks ... ja minu võrgu jaoks.

11 Kommentaarid

  1. 1

    Ma olen
    been thinking quite a bit about this topic as of late.

    What do we call people who break the rules set by others?

    Sometimes, we call them innovators. We call them pioneers. We call them
    ettevõtjad.

    But other times, we call people who break rules criminals.

    Mis vahet seal on?

    It seems to me that the difference between a criminal and an innovator isn’t
    really the level of authority of the people who set the rules. We consider many
    revolutionaries to be heroes, but they were breaking the law and fighting with
    their own governments.

    Instead, I think the difference is really about the rules themselves: do the
    rules help people, or do they do more harm than good?

    With regard to social media, many of the rules are established by the companies
    that make the properties. Facebook has a rules umbes
    the contents of cover photos and who is allowed to have personal accounts.
    LinkedIn has a rule (more of a recommendation, really) about
    kes
    you should connect with.

    There are also rules that seem to arise out of the community. “Don’t be a
    jerk,” for example. Or: “Try to find out for yourself, and then ask
    for help.”

    I think that you start to cross the line from innovator to criminal when you
    start to look like people who are criminals. If you attempt to connect with
    everyone on LinkedIn and send them all the same identical message, you begin to
    resemble a spammer. That’s when people start talking about “the
    rules.”

    Likewise, if your resource optimization strategy depends on you being
    in the minority of people using that strategy
    , you’re going to trip
    on people’s sense of fairness.

    Rules are cornerstone of any community. Doug writes “keep your rules to
    yourself. What I’m doing works for me… and my network.” I think of an
    extreme version of this: “Keep your laws to yourself. What I’m doing works
    for me and the fellow bank robbers in my network.”

    Are there any rules in social media that can’t be broken? No. But there aren’t
    laws in any society for which there will never be cause to defy. That’s
    precisely why it’s important we keep talking about the rules, so we know which
    ones—if any—are worth keeping.

    • 2
      • 3

        “There are no rules veel."

        How will we know when there are rules? And what about the rules that the companies specify in their own TOS?

        Ja lõpuks, iga rule is just an opinion. Hopefully it’s an opinion shared by many people (instead of just the people with the power) but rules start out as opinions and remain opinions, forever.

        • 4

          The rules are what works and doesn’t work for your company should help you determine how you leverage the mediums. And, of course, as you pay attention to how others are using the medium, you learn what works and doesn’t work for you. We don’t tell people that they “can’t” or “shouldn’t”… we share with them how that’s impacted other companies in the past and then see how to test it without doing any damage to their brand.

          There are, of course, compliance issues that people must abide by, but those aren’t social media rules… those are industry regulations and laws that must be followed.

          I’m not telling you that you must agree to every LinkedIn request. I’m just sharing with you that doing so is successful for me and hasn’t have any negative results. So… don’t tell others that they shouldn’t do it… maybe it will work fine for them.

  2. 5

    Even though I’m a LinkedIn junkie, I don’t accept EVERY LinkedIn request that I get, but I do accept all of those that make sense to connect with either now or in the future. But the beauty of it is that we can each set our own rules or guidelines to follow and don’t need to mimic what others do.

  3. 8

    There are rules, and then there is personal choice. Most social media platforms actually have very few use based rule sets built in. LinkedIn made the change a while back that allowed one to request connections to gobs of people, very easily. I got chastized only twice when I used it to build up my rolodex, and what did those instances tell me about those folks? That I probably wouldn’t want to hang out with them anyway. LinkedIn no doubt used bits of the same code in their endorsement model. Is it useful? Well, it depends. If I see a social media guru with twenty or thirty thousand connections, and they in turn have a huge number of endorsements for everything from social media, to email marketing, to raising the dead, I ask myself a couple of questions. Could they have possibly had direct interaction with so many, working with them on specific projects? Or do they regularly contribute high quality, relevant information (in other words, useful) to the masses? Or is it simply a case of fame worship?
    In most cases, we all fundamentally know when we are being spammed in a good way, or a bad way.

  4. 9
    • 10

      Very balanced argument, Anthony. We could argue about LinkedIn’s User Agreement for a while, though, since they apparently don’t eat their own dog food. Log into LinkedIn right now and you’ll get a list of people they recommend you connect to… regardless of your actual relationship with them. Cheers!

Mis sa arvad?

Sellel saidil kasutatakse rämpsposti vähendamiseks Akismetit. Vaadake, kuidas teie andmeid töödeldakse.