Last weekend, as I wandered through the farmer’s market, I discovered a storefront I’d never been inside before. Just inside the door was a gorgeous display; of course, I pulled out my phone to take a picture. As soon as I got the picture, a man rushed over to me and asked me—brusquely, but politely—to please ask before taking pictures. “Of course!” I said, “I can delete it right away! So sorry.” He assured me that I needn’t delete it and explained they’d had trouble with people copying some of the designs for sale. I asked for a business card, apologized for my thoughtlessness, and left (with permission to post the picture).
The experience of being personally chided for the very possibility that I might steal designs without giving credit reminded me of the recent etiquette and culture debates I’ve seen on Tumblr, Twitter, and Delicious (the 3 networks I’m most active in personally). It feels like everyone is worried about attribution. As things get easier to pass around and pass along, our reputations (as organizations and individuals) depend on what we share as much as what we create.
Interestingly, this can also offer a new model of customer engagement. Newsweek, for instance, has a Tumblr blog that links to Newsweek and external content, provides an easy way for readers to share Newsweek articles, and—last but not least—enables Newsweek to reblog readers’ best content and suggestions. On websites and traditional blogs (like this one), user-generated content is often relegated to the wilds of comment sections or discussion boards. Newsweek’s Tumblr interacts with users as equals (while maintaining order through careful curation). Suddenly, an organization that seemed faceless and one-sided is a potential reader or partner in conversation; to me, this seems like the very heart of customer engagement.
Pop quiz:
- What kind of attribution do you expect from your network?
- What makes you trust re-tweets (RT), reblogs, or links? What makes something worth passing along?
- How do you think Twitter’s new RT feature (currently in limited rollout) will affect attribution and engagement?
tags: customer communities, customer engagement, social media
January 4th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
I recently had a similar response from a store owner when I took a picture of a pair of shoes. The funny thing is that the shop keeper’s suspicion (and accompanying attitude) ruined my impression of the shop altogether. It isn’t uncommon for savvy shoppers to take photos to post positive reviews to Yelp, SMS to a friend to weigh in on the purchasing decision, or use as shopping research. Designs can be stolen online much more easily than in-person photos in a boutique shop. I find that this level of fear will backfire on shop owners who are not familiar with the norms of social networking and sharing.
1. For attribution, I expect, at a minimum, normal writing standards equal to a footnote: who said something/drew something/photographed something, where, and when. But best case is to include this AND a link back to the original source or to a place where more info can be gathered (LinkedIn profile, portfolio, shop URL, blog, etc). For example if I take a photo of a product, when I post to Flickr I include the shop name or brand name and URL in the description. If this is within Twitter, just “via @NAME” or “RT @NAME” is sufficient when referring to a person, or if not a person, then a shortened ULR linking to a place for more information.
2. I prefer re-tweets with commentary showing the person has read the article/blog/what have you and is suggesting it for a reason – not just blindly RTing to seem active. This is hard in the 140 character limit, but worth it. Unless the tweet is just a quip, no comment is required (if something is funny/insightful/relevant, you shouldn’t have to point it out).
3. The thing about the new RT feature is that one can’t comment on why the tweet is worth RTing (unless you use Tweetie which gives the option of RT or quoting), but the benefit of showing the face behind the originator’s @NAME in the RT, is clear. This face has more frequently had me looking at the originators profile and considering following them than ever before. Alas, this same feature demotes the person who is doing the RT, the person in my network, which is part of reason I would consider the link in the first place.
For CRKSN (http://www.crksn.com), we often RT without comment to ensure we don’t seem biased towards particular clients or against any Projectline competitors. This is a unique situation where the role of CRKSN is to share information, not editorialize on it.
I wonder how the click-through rate has changed with the new RT feature.