Musings and analysis on marketing, buzz and communications.
Last night the Era of Conversation Keynotes Valeria Maltoni, CC Chapman and I were joined by Doug Meacham for dinner. We took time to give a few thoughts on the word “Conversation” and whether on not it has become cliched by marketing types.
What do you think?
[...] Well, it’s time to wrap this party up. Thanks to everyone for the great discussion on social media/social software, marketing, communications, blogging, Twitter, and most of all, CONVERSATION. [...]
[...] is certainly important to note. When people are given the opportunity to participate in the conversation and be interactive, does it add or detract from the authenticity of reporting the facts or [...]
I can’t watch the video, as I am at work.
“Conversation” hasn’t become cliche – it has become overworked as a paradigm.
The vast majority of the clients/consumers/public a corporation “could” have a conversation with simply choose not to.
It’s disingenuous to repeatedly claim we’re “having conversations” when most aren’t engaged.
I’m starting to think of a new way to express this – a way that captures an openness, a willingness to listen, an open channel…
But conversation has flaws as an analogy. I just don’t have the alternative yet.
Well, I guess so, but why does everyone have to be involved to have a conversation… In my mind, you only need two people to have a conversation.
If you are in a room with 1,000 people – and only have a back-and-forth with one person, you are conversing with one in a public venue.
The word “conversation” has more of an active connotation. What we mean in Social Media by “Conversation” is a communication that is more open and transparent, and INVITES participation.
I’m not sure what the proper analogy needs to be here, but the vast majority of clients/customers aren’t ready themselves to engage.
We’ve opened some channels, but it’s not feeling like a conversation just yet.