Monday, January 26th, 2009
Last week, we saw the launch of the Association of Bloggers (Singapore) (ABS). The reception has been mixed. Some expressed concern, to sarcastic, to cynical and analytical.
Of course, some of us took the opportunity to poke some fun at a controversial issue, and I’m not above having a laugh either.
Now that the hype has subsided a little bit, I have my own opinion on why the news of the ABS seems generally badly received by the Singaporean blogosphere. Do note that I’m writing my personal interpretation of the communication or non-communication of the ABS, and I don’t claim to be reporting the truth.
The problem with the introduction of the ABS is simple: The issue was communicated to the external audience before what is arguably the more important, if not critical, internal “stakeholders”, in other words, the “constituents” that the ABS is supposed to cater to: the bloggers.
Because the news was broken in the mainstream media, it does read to me like the ABS was concerned about getting their message out in “proper” channels (where the audience may or may not care), instead of the blogosphere (where the audience cares, a lot). As a result, now they are not scrambling to communicate their message to their primary target audience, but is it too late?
Whether the bloggers reacted with shock, surprise, or ridicule, I believe they did so because this was sprung on them in the exact opposite way a Web2.0 association should have been introduced: from the ground up. A form of “structure” or “authority” may have been introduced, but not in the way the crowd desires (whether or not they even want such a structure is up for debate).
There are other minor issues like the vagueness and lack of communication of the benefits of joining the ABS, the lack of street credibility (note that the ABS has “formal” credibility as they are officially registered, but I don’t think the local blogosphere is treating that as a critical factor), and not addressing the question that is on the mind of many: is this an extension of the 2008 saga? The strategic inclusion/appointment of the founders sure lead some bloggers to think so, but we have yet to hear from the ABS themselves.
The point here is not whether anyone believes them, but that they be transparent and deal with the issue, or the blogosphere will not let go. Unbranded Bread n Butter tackles this issue in particular, and doesn’t hesitate to remind us that the “fiasco” of 2008 is extensively chronicled online.
I also feel all warm and cosy inside knowing that the dispute mediator is a scorned former founder of ping.sg who was complaining about being left out of the “in-group”, didn’t receive ping award, stirred up a big fuss, left in a huff and puff and decided to form his own little own group. “Take that Ping.sg!” It’s all nicely catalogued here.
Will the ABS overcome a bad start and begin to win people over? I hope the more controversial members of the committee do not make the critical mistake of reacting the same way they did in previous controversies, by lashing out. It’s naive for them to believe the blogosphere would have welcomed such an association with open arms without garnering support beforehand, because particularly in this medium, acceptance and trust is earned, not taken as a given.
Tags: abs, association of bloggers singapore, blogosphere, mainstream media, primary target audience, singaporean blogosphere, stakeholder communication, street cred, street credibility, structure in the blogosphere, web2.0
Posted in Singapore, social media | 6 Comments »
Monday, August 18th, 2008
Yesterday I talked about the trust issues surrounding our tiny little blogosphere, and I can imagine companies rolling their eyes thinking “not again”. But there actually are a few learning points here:
1) It’s a good thing
Think about it. If you’re organising an event and people are actually bitching and being sore about not being invited/attending, that says something. People hating you isn’t a bad thing. People being indifferent is the worst possible thing that can happen. I would’ve felt much worse if no one turned up for SMB3, compared to people thinking it was so exclusive that there was a blacklist in effect.
2) Stuff like this will happen
ie: Be prepared. If it’s going to happen, it will happen online, so you should be monitoring what’s going on. How you react to it, in what manner and via which medium should be decided too. Sometimes it may not even be worth acting on, depending on the credibility of the bloggers involved.
3) When stuff like this happens, trust your “antibodies”.
I don’t do much to monitor my blog besides checking my inbound links and having a Google Alert set up. Invariably I’ll miss something, but like the person who sent me the email, other people in the community highlight it when people are starting flames. It’s the same for any organisation getting involved online. There are going to be people who jump at any chance to launch an attack, but there will be those who will defend you. I personally feel the most important thing is to trust your supporters or “antibodies” because they will be your first line of defense, and probably the best line of defense.
4) The earlier you realise you can’t please everybody, the better.
No matter what you do, there are people who are going to find fault with it. Is it worth your time placating them, or should you spend the same amount of your time building relationships with your supporters? It’s really your choice. Again, not every instance of a disagreement and/or attack warrants a reply. In fact, sometimes silence may help the situation even more.
That’s it for today, what other concerns do you think companies would have entering this space? Tomorrow: How do you decide which bloggers are “safe” to align yourself with.
Tags: antibiodies, bloggers in singapore, blogs in singapore, local singaporean blogosphere, singaporean blogosphere, smb3, social media, social media breakfast 3, trust issues
Posted in Singapore, collaboration, community, social media | 2 Comments »
Sunday, August 17th, 2008
Sheylara and I were just talking about Social Media Breakfast: Singapore 3 and talking the pros and cons of expanding the team, one of the cons being politics, especially in Singapore’s blogosphere, where overnight, friends can become enemies and form opposite posses.
I got emailed by someone anonymously (the person went through the trouble of creating an email account just to send me this email), showing me the contents of a private Plurk between some people with fairly malicious content about me, my blog, Social Media Breakfast and my professional life.
I only know one person personally from that private Plurk, so I messaged the person on Facebook asking what was going on. It’s seemingly turned out to be a misunderstanding and I take it as it’s sorted out, but I don’t understand how people can have so much malicious intent inside them, especially towards someone they don’t even know personally.
One of the issues behind the misunderstanding was that the person thought there was a “blacklist” for SMB3. Firstly, I’d like to tell everyone that there isn’t. SMB isn’t my “event”. It’s a team effort between Sheylara, Claudia, Derrick and myself.
Secondly, SMB is an open event, we would never stop anyone from attending. It’s for the community! We have never ever discussed who should attend and who shouldn’t. It’s open to all.
Thirdly, I don’t necessarily like every single blogger I meet, but that doesn’t mean someone else won’t like him or her, or someone else won’t get some value from him/her. That decision isn’t mine to make. An event like SMB is held so that everyone and anyone can attend, and each person can decide who to mingle with and keep in contact with from there.
I have two big issues with this particular quirk of the local blogosphere:
1) You don’t know who to trust
I can’t speak for everyone, but I don’t enjoy going to events like Social Media Breakfast and blogger outreach programmes and having to wonder who’s genuinely shaking my hand and saying hi, and who’s doing it with the figurative dagger behind their back. How do you know the next person you reach out to for help online isn’t going to take the opportunity to demolish you instead?
I think people have had their differences in the blogosphere (myself included). Some have solved it like adults, some haven’t. But regardless, I would like to think we can disagree and/or dislike each other, but we don’t have to let it devolve into outright hate do we?
2) It hurts credibility
Between this kind of behavior and that of our dear local female bloggers, is it any wonder companies are so hesitant to enter the local blogosphere? Can we as social media evangelists truly recommend a social media strategy in the best interests of their clients, knowing full well today’s “influential” blogger is tomorrow’s public antagonist number one?
I’ve two follow up posts to this (which I haven’t gotten down to writing yet):
1) How does this lesson translate to businesses involved or looking to get involved in the social media space?
2) Knowing how the local blogosphere is, how do organisations decide who to associate themselves with?
Keep checking back or subscribe to follow the posts.
Tags: blogosphere in singapore, claudia.sg, community event, facebook, local blogosphere, Plurk, sheylara, singaporean blogosphere, smb singapore, social media breakfast singapore, trust in the blogosphere
Posted in Poor Practices, Singapore, Uncategorized, community, social media | 16 Comments »
Wednesday, June 18th, 2008
Daphne plurked today about leaving Plurk to concentrate on ping.sg as well as Twitter and because things were just getting too overwhelming for her to keep up with everything at once.
It got me thinking about whether this is a natural progression of sorts. People join an online community until the benefits of another (uptime for Plurk) far outweigh the previous benefits of another (Twitter), or the conversations on Plurk are more intense/genuine than those on the shoutbox on ping.sg. What do we do when that happens?
I know Pat Law has mentioned a very good point that people move on to better value propositions. That’s why we’re not on Friendster or ICQ anymore. If the community shifts to a new “tool”, should it matter? After all it’s people-centric rather than platform-centric isn’t it?
Of course, I’m not saying either ping.sg or Twitter are inferior, unworthy platforms. I think ping is still great for getting the latest buzz in the local blogosphere and log on at least thrice a day to check out the newest posts, Twitter runs in the background on Twhirl for stuff to pop up once in awhile. But when faced with a new, potentially better tool, what happens?
One reason also why the ping.sg shoutbox is less “vibrant” now is because many of the pingsters are on Plurk as well. This suggests that people see more value there, or are joining it because everyone is as well, or a combination of both, but that results in ping.sg being less lively. Natural evolution of online platforms? Innovate and keep your communities or die?
I pretty much understand where Daphne is coming from, so I ask the local community because I’m curious: If you’ve shifted to Plurk, do you feel like you should stick with your previous platforms just ‘cos? Or does the higher value proposition outweigh all? Very curious to know the various views behind this.
Tags: daphnemaia, facebook, friendster, icq, msn, patlaw, ping.sg, ping.sg shoutbox, Plurk, plurk vs twitter, singaporean blogosphere
Posted in Plurk, Singapore, Social Networks, community, social media, twitter | 6 Comments »
