Acronym

Scott -
I didn't attend the workshop, nor am I a state veterinary exec, but I still feel compelled to add something to your comments on time.

I hear a lot of organizations saying they don't have the time - and you are correct, it is a value judgment. And part of that judgment involves determining what it is that you are going to stop doing. Because most organizations can't just add another FTE whenever they find something worth doing. In many cases, I believe that whatever you stop doing is going to be replaced or improved by use of social media - but you have to get over the new medium by which you are accomplishing the goal. (Obviously, there are things we should stop doing because they simply don't make sense anymore, but that's another topic for another time.)

It seems like such a minor observation but I think there are numerous ways that we can accomplish existing tasks/goals in new and more efficient ways using social media. But that means that the folks who are doing those tasks now in the traditional form are going to have to change or get out of the way. That is hard to communicate and enforce to individuals who are mired in "but that's the way we've always done it." But if you don't figure it out, someone else is about to do it for you. And if you don't believe that, check out Google's Sidewiki - a tool that lets you comment on Web sites, even if the Web site won't let you. I hate fear mongering, but we cannot escape this.

Great post - as a content contributor to the workshop I had the advantage of experience in using the tools and took the opportunity to really observe the process of educating and mentoring others. One of my concerns came with the legal module because it is a flashpoint. And, in this case I fear created more anxiety than needed. For the record, this session is critical because we in assn must know where the legal lines are so that we can make good decisions. However, I also think as assns we have a responsibility to challenge the copyright and sharing rules as necessary to remove those aspects that cast such a wide net as to put barriers to sharing.

I do hope that those in the room listened with an ear to what do I need to know to make good decisions - not to back away from socmed. I would like to see this session given from a legal mind who has a command of social media tools and so could address alternatives like widgets and creative commons to address copyright.

I did participate at the workshop and it was a great opportunity to immerse myself for two intensive days in the Twitterverse. It is too facile and frankly disrespectful to simply dismiss a wildly pervasive mode of communication just because it is new and strange to you, and reaching a snap judgment that it is "no more than the electronic equivalent of passing notes in class" when you haven't given it an honest try (as many association peers in my age group have done). I DID give it an honest and sincere try, and I don't claim that even an intense, 48-hour trial is adequate. But it did open my eyes. And provided a basis to further explore and test and see what benefit I can wring from Twitter for myself and for my association.

That said ... and I know I will immediately draw atomic level indignation from those who love living in Twitter ... I remain unconvinced that the medium offers enough true utility either as a content delivery vehicle or as a means of community building to warrant the time, attention and energy it demands.

I (probably lamely) tried to Twitter to #smw09 throughout the conference and avidly followed the tweets of the other participants. Not to be critical of those dedicated tweeters, but the 140 character limitation and the lack of message linking (which would have allowed something like a colloquy to occur) meant a stream of disconnected and fairly random thoughts of no depth. It did not add to my appreciation of what was actually occurring in the room, in fact it was a distraction that caused me to get less from the conference presenters than I would have if I had been giving them my full attention.

I tried to imagine what the experience would have been like if I had NOT been able to be physically present at the conference. Would the tweet stream have offered me a rewarding, conference experience by proxy? I think not. Again, the character limit and lack of threading, which would have allowed an actual conversation to develop, limits the ability to effectively convey content of any depth or allow for meaningful engagement in any of the very profound ideas and insights that emerged in the room itself.

Then there is the social element. I was earnestly (almost too earnestly) assured by all my new Twitter connections that I needed to open myself up to the social, non-business, non-serious side. I tried. The personal level of connection struck me as just too shallow. And frankly, artificial. Getting personal insights on how to find the best cookies in the Reagan Building food court really didn't create any basis for a meaningful connection with @saraburson. The very brevity of the message capacity creates a tendency to try to send out zingers and one liners to be sure people noticed how clever I was. Sarcasm and often lame attempts at incisive wit. It all felt about as genuine and community-based as two Hollywood divas who hate each other hugging and air kissing on the red carpet at an awards ceremony. (And that right there is the kind of arch comments that seem to dominate Twitter. Aims at wit, ends up snarky. And certainly adds nothing to the shared knowledge and experience of the community or to true, human connection.)

Which brings me to my most negative reaction. And I know that it will most certainly launch a massive flame war of harsh criticism, dismissal and derision from the very community I am about to describe - - - Avid tweeters like to think of themselves and are often described by non-combatants as "the cool kids." Trouble is, just like in high school, I think they believe it. There is a pervasive air of arrogance and self importance in so much of what I followed during my 48 hours in the Twitterverse. Intolerance of any view that didn't reinforce the paradigm within which they operated. Don't agree with me on how simply spectacular that last insight was? You're dismissed. You must be a moron. Say something I disagree with? Is that an opportunity for an honest engagement over ideas that might lead BOTH of us, not to agree, but have a deeper insight? Of course not. Just dismiss the contrary viewpoint. Obviously, he/she just doesn't get it and I can't be bothered with anyone who fails to appreciate the self-evident superiority of my point of view.

One extreme example, but certainly not the only one I could point to, was the conference speaker on legal issues. Potential exposure to legal liability is inconvenient to your worldview? I won't try and understand his perspective, I will simply dismiss it as misguided and irrelevant. And how DARE he have the audacity to try and teach me something about his area of expertise without first becoming an expert in my own area of superior knowledge.

In short, anyone who can't see your brilliance and understand how you ARE the future and you ARE the elite of the elite, well that just goes to prove how superior to them you really are. More than anything else, reading much of the Twitter traffic, I was remembering the movie "Mean Girls."

[I can only imagine how I will now be described in the Tweets of those I have offended ... but that is one of the benefits of the media. It will all go on behind my back and I can be as arch an brutal as I want without actually engaging directly with the target of my ire.]

I am NOT going to give up on Twitter ... I think it can add value in some very limited but impactful ways. Maybe I will warm to it. I might even become "cool." I just hope I won't go all radical on it and lose any sense of perspective or appreciation for the infidels who haven't yet seen the light.

Hi all, interesting info indeed! I didn't attend the event, and I am a middler in terms of experience and particiaption in sm....I am on facebook, linkedin, Twitter...I find them both helpful, fun, frustrating, and time consuming, like any other tool in life...I feel the same way about email, databases, and the circus.

Honestly, I feel like the biggest challenge with social networking is its fragmented nature...there are so many applications out there, a new goofy name arises everyday, will there ever be a time when we run out of inane terms that aren't words?

...my thoughts are that the key long term to leveraging social media effectively is to have a central platform to both pull and push content and ideas...a central site or several sites that you can then use to push people to using automated tools...having a facebook page, a linkedin group, and tweeting to your hearts content only makes sense if you get around the silo-like nature...the only way I see to do that is to develop a place where you have a strong, consistent message and resources people need that can utilize these new tools to achieve goals and strategy. The community is important only in the context of why it exists, which is usually for play or work.

The legal issues will always be there, whatever medium...in fact, these legal risks have now been around for years on discussion forums and content-focused websites, I don't really see any new legal risk associated with social media, it feels like that fear has been managed well over the last decade, I could be wrong?

@Mark - wow, THAT is a dense comment. A few things occur to me:

1. Is Twitter right for every situation or every organization? No way. Every person and every organization needs to look at ALL these tech options and decide whether there's a fit. Don't jump on tech for tech's sake - ask yourself what problem you're trying to solve and then see what options fit.

2. Signal to noise ratio on Twitter - you bet. There's a lot of noise. So as users, it's our responsibility to find the signal. A great personal example? Chris Brogan is one of the true rock stars of new media, and I have his blog on RSS. But I quit following him on Twitter because it felt, to me, like all his tweets were about which airport he was in and how crappy the food offerings were there. Does that make me a bad person for not following him? I hope not! There are plenty of people out there who are worth following - the association social media wiki list provides a good starting place - and plenty of people who aren't. You have to decide for yourself who falls into which category.

3. Can Twitter take the place of a face to face event? Nope, but prior to Twitter, if you didn't attend, you couldn't get *any* of the benefit. At least now, people who can't be there in person can get some of the information, and following the stream can help you evaluate if it's worth trying harder to get to a particular event the next time around, or if your money and time would be better spent elsewhere.

4. Social versus serious content - OK, you didn't find Sara's tweet about cookies particularly enlightening. I did - she was sitting at my table, and it helped me strike up a conversation with her that was personal and wasn't about social media. Just like in any other situation that involves people, you're going to click with some and not with others. If you don't click with someone, don't follow them, just like you wouldn't seek them out in a face to face social situation.

5. Shallow content - well, the medium definitely requires brevity. But it's not intended to take the place of actual face to face interaction - it's a supplement. And yes, I have heard the comment that social media makes some people look more social than they actually are - one of my observations upon attending BlogPotomac back in June was that on the breaks, everyone stayed glued to their computers rather than taking the chance to talk to each other. And again, if someone's style grates, don't follow her/him. But there are plenty of people out there providing meat.

6. "Cool kids" - I'm sure that most of the speakers who used that term meant it tongue in cheek, but I do agree that all the comments to that effect can be off-putting, particularly to those that don't feel part of the crowd. If that's something that's important to you, there's an easy way in, though - get on the platform(s) that feel comfortable to you (and remember, Twitter might not be the right one) and start participating in the conversation. You know, like you just did here. That's really all you need to do. Showing up for some of those periodic face to face social events you'll start hearing about will help you get to know people faster and better, but you can be a "cool kid" entirely by the force of your ideas.

7. The legal presentation. Yes, Twitter can be a echo chamber where comments, negative or positive, get amplified beyond reason. But the people who were unhappy had valid points: the attorney was brought in to present on the legal implications of social media, yet he seemed totally unfamiliar with the platforms, how they are used, or the real issues that arise from their use. And he was presented as a copyright and IP expert, yet he'd never heard of Creative Commons, which is a nearly 10 year old IP rights reform project that was founded by Larry Lessig and came out of the MIT Media Lab (not exactly sketchy/obscure/fly by night credentials). I'm sorry, but this is something that a "copyright expert" should know. Yes, some of the comments probably were a little harsh, but it was hard for a lot of us to take him seriously after he demonstrated this basic level of ignorance. I'm sure he's a great attorney - Venable is well-respected in the association world - but he wasn't a good choice to speak on these topics. Was it appropriate to point that out? I think so, but you're free to disagree.

Yay, yay YAY for Mark Golden for stepping up and telling the truth! Thanks Mark. Too often thoughts like that remain as whispers in the hallway, and those don't contribute to our learning, so thank you. I feel like running down to the Reagan Building and buying you a cookie. If only I knew where! Just kidding.

The cool kid description was pretty harsh. Mean Girls?! Yikes. And you think we'll flame you "behind your back" on Twitter? Personally I doubt it. It's funny, too, because I don't view a twitter conversation as behind anyone's back. It's open to the public. Though obviously you'd have to know who to look for (or search on your name). Regardless, it's good feedback. I agree with Elizabeth that those of us who refer to cool kids are mostly joking about it, but if the perception is otherwise we should be aware of that. It's about impact, not intention.

It's funny. For me it's not really about whether you "get it." It's actually more about not trying to "get it" in the first place. Twitter (and much of social media probably) doesn't fit our existing mental images of communication, relationship building, community, etc. Hold it up against our existing mental models and it will fail, particularly in the short term. On the other hand, I don't think it particularly represents a shiny new model that everyone must "get." It just is what it is right now, and when I opened myself up to it and stuck with it for a while, it helped me do things that were valuable to me: learn, build relationships, enhance my reputation, etc. By the time I figure out some huge way to "leverage" it, it probably won't exist.

So I'm just going to keep playing with it. There are broader underlying trends that I do think are worthy of "getting it" (user-generated content over centrally published content, for instance), and social media reflect those trends (so woe to you if you completely ignore them). But I love you even if you don't tweet or know what creative commons is.

My advice is to simply lower your expectations. That sound bad, like it's "lowering the bar," but that's not what I mean. It's more like letting go of your expectations (because those are rooted in mental models that might not work here). Know going in that the rules of engagement will be different. And give yourself time to experiment, and then focus on learning.

This is a great conversation and all via social media. I agree with Elizabeth and Jamie on their points. As for the "cool kids," I probably started that meme without thinking the impact it would have for some people. I use it mainly as a way to tease some of my friends that have been involved in social media for a long time since I am a relative newcomer (Hi to Maddie Grant, Lindy Dreyer, Peggy Hoffman and a multitude of others). I am still learning the potentials of social media especially as a small business person that needs all the marketing help she can get.

However, I need to comment on the legal part of the presentation. I have the utmost respect for Jeff Tenenbaum, his is one the best nonprofit attorneys. He very freely share his knowledge with all who ask. Just consider the number of papers he has written and shared on legal issues for associations. However his lack of knowledge about how social media works affected his credibility.

Copyright and trademark infringement have been issues since the first printed word. However the legal issues do not change because the person is using social media as the publication format. Jeff could have given his presentation years ago when associations were arguing whether or not to set up a web site (remember those days?). A blog is no different than posting a article on your association's web site or an overly long response on a discussion forum. Tweeting is all about sharing information and providing a link to an article, blog posting, video, file sharing site and is not infringement. You have not modified the content neither received any financial gain.

I was sitting at a table with a person who was a copyright attorney in a former career. She took exception to some of the points Jeff made about fair use. Who was right? I would vote for my colleague since that was her specialty while Jeff is more of a generalist. The law is subject to interpretation which is why we have attorneys. One attorney's interpretation can be rebutted by another attorney. The difficulty is that as an association executive you have to listen to the attorney's advise and decide if you will follow it 100% or make modifications to meet your organization's needs. An attorney's advise is not "gospel" but advise that you can choose to accept or ignore.

Thanks to ASAE for hosting the social media workshop and facilitating this discussion. We are learning throughout the process.

Terrific dialogue. I appreciate the content, but it also offers concrete examples and real world demonstrations of the strengths, weaknesses and practical applications in a subject area (social media) that too often is too generalized to be really useful.

Point taken about having realistic expectations about Twitter. It is just one tool and not the panacea to all communications/knowledge development needs.

That point was further demonstrated here: in one or two short, reasoned and well thought out postings from a number of thoughtful bloggers with different opinions and perspectives, content of value and quality has been contributed to the debate about legal issues (particularly copyright) and the strengths and shortcomings of what was presented on this topic at the workshop. Such content and value was entirely absent from the live tweets . . . which isn't to invalidate that medium, only to highlight an area of utility it is not strongly suited to.

If I had not been at the Workshop, the only insight or information I would have gotten from the stream of tweets on the legal session was that those active thought the speaker was an idiot and ASAE was to be condemned for giving him a platform.

In a few short posts on this blog (from many of the same people who were tweeting), the relative strengths and failings of the presentation are concisely cataloged, and the varying perspectives are out there in sufficient detail to allow individuals to make informed assessments and draw their own conclusions.

Doesn't mean Blog is good; Twitter is bad. Just means Twitter is good at X but blogging is better.

I have continued to stay in the Twittersphere post-workshop. Don't pretend to be an expert or that my opinion is in anyway authoritative, however:

Twitter's strength appears to be in alerting a universe of whoever is interested WHAT is going on WHERE right NOW.

"What" can be individual or corporate, personal or professional, and "Where" can be physical or a virtual destination on the Web, but the nature of the medium makes it pretty limited: pointers to where new information on a topic of shared interest is available (pointers to online content for example), short "title page" level descriptors of content that is being presented live at some physical meeting ("Peter is talking about YouTube"), or individual statements of where I am (physically) and what I am interested in (right now) to see if there is anyone else in the vicinity with a shared need in this place at this time.

The content is instant and instantly expires. And instant often translates into ungoverned impulse reactions --- if I am at a conference and know that there are others in the room who I can reach instantly via Twitter, that creates the opportunity to react to a shared experience (e.g.; to something the speaker just said). My experience trying to rely on Twitter for play by play access to a conference or event I can't actually attend, however, makes a vulnerability clear. Forced to interpret with ZERO context, those 140 character streams of consciousness don't tell me enough to be substantively useful and are prone to gross misinterpretation. At best, the info is insufficient to be useful to me ("Peter just made a great point about file limits in YouTube"); At worse, it sends a wrong impression. A clever, comeback to an utterance I wasn't in the room to hear sounds pretty snarky and arrogant. I judge and react to the information based on how cleverly it was worded, not on the strength of its content. That offends more often than it enlightens.

In sum, Twitter isn't useful for me as a proxy for attendance to gain some (even limited) access to content I can't be physically present to connect with. What Brian very aptly describes as "signal to noise" ratio is critical, here. Not enough comes through to be worth the bother. (Just my opinion; if it works for you, great.)

Which leaves the social potential (which I do NOT in anyway discount or hold less valuable than the content and knowledge development/delivery aspects). May not work for everybody. I am the first to admit it has not (yet) worked for me in any meaningful way.

Finally, though, I apologize if the cool kids reference or specific cookie example offended. I didn't mean them to. But I do continue to see a barrier to expanded acceptance and use of Twitter in the prevailing tone of the community. I do NOT believe it is an intended tone, nor do I think it accurately reflects the attitudes of the individuals involved. (I know many of you outside of the Twitter context.) But try and read a Twitter stream on something like #SMW09 on an objective and detached basis, like someone new to the community looking for a way in. The prevailing tone comes off as pretty arch, sarcastic, harsh and judgmental, not warm and welcoming. I know, I know, I know: not the message you are intending to the send. But very often the message received. And while that is partially a failure on the part of the message recipients, if you dismiss it as entirely "their" problem, shame on you. You have become the unfair caricature that is painted of Twitter.