A Puzzlement.

Driving around on Tuesday, I was listening to WSCR-AM, the Chicagoland sports talker.  Each time the hosts mentioned Twitter, they followed with "I mean a social network". The hosts indicated they would explain these corrections later.

source: Wikipedia

I also happened to be listening when the hosts cleared up the "Twitter, I mean social network" statement. CBS which owns WSCR-AM (among other outlets) sent out a memo directing on-air talent to not reference their Twitter handle. Quoting the memo, the hosts relayed "Twitter is the pipeline, our content is the product" or translated "Only reference the station website to avoid building any brand other than CBS and sponsors".

Ignoring the potential social media marketing disaster (experts can break that down better than me) I am still left with a question. I don't think corporations make decisions based on stupidity, I think corporations make decisions based on greed (I mean decisions based on maximizing shareholder wealth). Therefore, I don't understand the directive to not mention Twitter. What could make a corporation  happier than a cadre of on-air talent building the company brand even when the talent isn't on air? That's free labor, and corporations love free labor. So why the Twitter ban? I think either CBS is concerned about complaints from sponsors (why do we pay for advertising and Twitter doesn't) or CBS is scared the talent will build a loyal following that is portable. A portable and dedicated audience for the talent means the non-compete clause that keeps radio hosts off air between jobs means less. That transfers power (and $$$) to the hired help and corporations hate that.

So was the "no Twitter mentions" directive driven by sponsor complaints, management anxiety or my need for a topic? Have you encountered other examples of insecurity driving bad policy? How did that make you feel?

Why Google+?

To say there are more social networks than you can shake a stick at is an understatement. Frankly, shake a stick in any direction and a social network will likely spring up immediately. Given that nuisance limit of 24 hours in a day, it doesn't matter how many "gotta be on" social networks exist. Like the cable conundrum where the number of channels increase and the stuff worth watching decreases (okay, disappears), at a certain point it will not be possible to be on all the social networks* one must be on.

New Year, New Challenge.

I made Google+ a priority for 2012. Wanting to break in on Google+ with friends, I asked via Facebook status, "Anyone want to connect on Google+?". I made some connections. My friend Yvonne (a great advocate and activist) aka @stopfox indicated that she had more social networks than either time or money. Yvonne asked (not directly) "Why another network?"  Her query caused me to think, "Why Google+?".

Indeed, "Why Google+?" is a good question. Although Google+'s circles organization is very practical, any unique strength of a social network is usually co-opted  by other social networks (it is maddening for a medium that encourages individuality to play follow the leader in this manner). Google+'s integration with the Android platform and everything else Googley is nice, but I'm sure Google+ works equally well with other platforms. My reason for involvement with Google+ is merely mundane.

No One Will Ever Read The Newspaper On Their Computer.

Like the horseless carriage, the television, the Betamax and the MP3 player before it, social networking is here to stay. The format may change and today's mega-monsters of Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter may or may not continue for decades but platform driven e-networking will continue as long as their are humans and computers.  From all appearances Google's business model appears flexible enough to withstand the roller coaster turbulence of today's marketplace. So that is "Why Google+". I'm not leaving Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and the cast of thousands but I will actively add Google+ to the mix.

How do you feel about the plethora of social networks? Any networks (currently in existence) you will be adding or subtracting from your mix? Would you rather return to carrying a pocket full of change to make a necessary call from a payphone?



*The social networks on which I currently have accounts include: Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, Triberr, HubPages, examiner.com,unemployedworkers, Blogger, examiner.com, Mashable, Huffington Post, StumbleUpon, Quora, Plaxo, Google+, connect.me, Branch Out, Klout and some Yahoo groups. I also have inactive accounts with Wordpress and MySpace. This doesn't count the blogs where I am an occasional commenter. These blogs also have the elements of a social network, but I don't want to include them in my list for fear of appearing obsessed with social networks.