I was watching Brian Solis interview Marcel LeBrun of Salesforce Radian6 about the Future of Social Media Monitoring (h/t Michelle Chmielewski) when two particular comments sparked thoughts I feel are important enough to share.

LeBrun, referring to Proctor & Gamble’s withdrawal from soap opera sponsorship after 77 years stated the reason to be, “The audience has moved…” to Facebook.

“It’s not really an audience anymore where you just kind of push your message out, it’s really, now, a conversation.”

However, it’s only a conversation when there is dialogue, a back-and-forth exchange. So many companies (and some individuals) miss this. Tweets and Facebook status updates alone are not “conversations.”

Later, LeBrun was talking about Dell and it’s launch of a Command Center, a “physical place that [Dell] can take their customers through and show how their investing in listening.”

That’s the other problem I see. Companies are quick to pat themselves on the back for investing in social media, in listening. But, the most important question is, “WHY are they doing it?”

It reminds me of the scene from the movie White Men Can’t Jump in which Woody Harrelson’s character is debating with Wesley Snipes’ character as they drive along in their top-down convertible:

Hey… what is this?

Jimi Hendrix.

I know. Why are you playing Jimi?

Because I like to listen to him.

That’s the problem. Y’all listen.

What am I supposed to do. eat it?

No. You’re supposed to hear it.

I said I like to listen to him.

There’s a difference between hearing and listening.

Exactly. Listening is only important if you’re willing to “hear” what is really being said - and to engage with and act upon that information, then “lead the conversation” as Solis suggests.

Are you listening… or hearing? Are you participating in “conversations?” Are you taking action? Leading?

Maybe.

I logged into my Klout profile yesterday and noticed something shocking: my score had dropped 18 points, basically overnight; from 58 to 40.

At first, it looked like Klout may have been experiencing technical problems - aside from the drastic dip in my score, data wasn’t charting and my avatar was a cartoon caricature of what appeared to be Ebeneezer Scrooge, complete with feather quill.

I logged in again late last night. Still Scrooged.

This morning, my avatar was back to being me and my score was up to 49, but still significantly lower than where it was previously.

Was it something I said? Did I lose hundreds of followers? Did I stop sharing with my networks? No. No. And, No.

Then, something clicked.

Foursquare.

Last week (July 13), Mashable reported that Klout was integrating Foursquare into it’s scoring algorithm. So, like all good early adopters so, I linked my Foursquare account to my Klout profile. No big deal.

Perhaps I should have read the follow-up piece the next day (emphasis mine).

After Klout users learned this week that Foursquare activity would now affect Klout scores, many of them — particularly people who aren’t on Foursquare or who don’t regularly use the location-based service — were unsure about how the Foursquare integration would work.

That’s partly because the folks at Klout aren’t yet sure exactly how Foursquare will factor into the hush-hush Klout algorithm, which already considers Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter to measure the online influence of social media users.

“We are still figuring this out,” Klout CEO Joe Fernandez told Mashable. “Obviously things like tips that turn into to-dos are interesting as is the ripple effect of a checkin through a network. In the next few weeks we’ll be testing and perfecting the algorithm.”

No other significant changes had occurred other than adding Foursquare to my profile. And, I had reassurance. 

One thing Fernandez knows for certain, though, is Klout users’ scores will only go up once they add Foursquare to their Klout dashboards.

I’m not so sure that’s the case. It’s pretty curious that the day after I linked Fousquare to Klout, the rapid decline began. Sure, it could be coincidence or just my failure to see something more obvious, but it sure looks like a smoking gun.

As of today, I’ve revoked access to Foursquare. We’ll see what, if any impact that has on my Klout score over the next few days. I’m not ruling out connecting the two, but for now - especially if my score recovers - I will opt to not include have Klout factor in my foursquare activity.

Have you had a similar experience? Do you know someone who has?

Over the past few years, I’ve observed something happening pretty consistently - particularly among females - that is both fascinating and disheartening.

But, before I get to that, I want to be sure I clarify this post a little. It is NOT a rant against women; it is an observational piece that highlights a tendency I have witnessed, which happens to be particularly evident among females.

Also, there have been numerous studies and news stories documenting the likeness of human social interaction with that of wolves. In fact, groups like Living With the Wolves have been at the center of much of this research. So, there is nothing inherently “new” about likening the behavior of humans to that of wolves. I am simply calling attention to one aspect.

More and more, I began noticing women forming “packs” - not unlike wolves - seemingly as a way to form micro-communities where each member feels accepted, protected. The problem (as I see it) is, the similarity of these human packs to those of wolves don’t end there.

I did a little research and here’s what I found:

Wolves are an extremely social animal. They exist as a social unit called a pack. 

No surprise there.

Wolves travel and hunt in a group and perform almost all other activities in the company of fellow wolves.

We’ve all noticed that this includes, among other things, using the restroom in pairs.

Pack sizes vary, most packs have 6 or 7 members, although some may include as many as 15 wolves. The size depends on many variables including the current numbers of the wolf population, the abundance of food, and social factors within the wolf pack.

Now we’re getting somewhere.

Individual wolves in a pack play different roles in relation to the others in the group. There is an alpha pair - the leaders of the pack. The other pack members respect their positions and follow their leadership in almost all things. The alpha wolves are usually the ones to make decisions for the pack when the group should go out to hunt or move from one place to another.

And, here is where it starts to get interesting. My observations show that this social dynamic in the wolf pack is very much alive and well in their human equivalents.

There are always one or two “alpha” females in the pack who make sure the other members of the pack know who is in charge and who calls the shots. Look around you. You’ll see it. It’s not hard to spot.

Remember the alpha wolves decide “when the group should go out to hunt.” In the wild, this is straightforward - the wolves hunt for food, for physical survival.

In the human “pack,” the “wolves” hunt their prey to try assert their dominance (more accurately, their self-perceived dominance) over those they see as threats or in many cases, just easy targets. They hunt for their for social survival.

Don’t believe me?

Wolves are social predators…  they hunt by wearing down [their prey] in short chases.

This is perhaps the most telling statement and most compelling correlation between the wild wolf and her human counterpart.

I have seen, time and again, these human wolves “hunting” their prey with unwavering determination. The social landscape (especially with the proliferation of social media/networks) provides the perfect environment for them to hunt their prey, to attack them in calculated but consistent short bursts - as a pack. Their pursuit is often relentless and highly tactical.

The irony is the fact that while there is a sense of protection and security within the pack, just like real wolves, within each pack is an elaborate hierarchy, where some of them may be “able to ‘boss around,’ or dominate, their sisters… because they have established themselves as superior in some way. This superiority… can be based on personality.”

That’s right, the pack can turn on their own in a heartbeat.

While similarities abound, there is one significant difference I have found between the two. It is this:

Wolves do not pretend to be anything but a wolf; whereas, the human “wolf” is often dressed in sheep’s clothing.

To most onlookers, the human “wolf” appears to be anything but a wolf. In fact, the most dominant members in a pack are often individuals who most would consider standout members of their churches and communities. They’re seen as charismatic, perhaps even as leaders.

That’s the entire mirage, right there. By wearing their sheepskin, it makes it more difficult for others (see also, prey) to see them for what they really are - wolves. It makes their hunting style very stealthy because most people “can’t see it.”

Picture the wolf in sheep’s clothing. The outside - the sheep - is passive. The underlying core - the wolf - is highly aggressive. Coincidence? No. That’s why passive-aggressive behavior is a hallmark of the pack and it’s hunting methods.

Jay Baer (of Convince and Convert fame) made this observation:

It’s sad to me that we haven’t evolved enough to put away our claws and stop being so doggone paranoid, insecure and territorial. It’s sad that fear drives behavior instead of love.

If you read this and felt threatened in some way, take off your sheepskin and look yourself in the mirror. Own what you really are - a wolf. A bully.

If you read this and felt uneasy or sad, you’ve probably been preyed upon by the pack. Hold your head up and be strong. Pretty soon, people will figure out who the wolves are and expose them. You will have your day in the sun.

So, what do you think? Am I wrong in my comparison? What has your experience/observation been? How can we deepen our relationships to the point that intimidation and abjection give way to appreciation and kindness?

Quoted Sources:

http://www.wolfweb.com/facts-pack.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolves

For those appreciating the Duran Duran reference:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOg5VxrRTi0

I noticed a growing trend in my feeds today - a lot of chatter about linking social profiles and a general loathing of the practice.

Scott Stratten (@unmarketing on Twitter) used a bit of humor to illustrate his disdain. No surprise there; Scott is the king of tongue-in-cheek humor. But, he’s also a pretty smart guy. I recommend following him if you don’t already.

For those new to the game, linking your social profiles refers to the process of essentially syndicating your posts from one network to another network. For example, if you link Facebook and Twitter, your Facebook status updates will be posted as tweets to your Twitter account. Conversely, if you send a Twitter update, that content will be posted to your Facebook profile. You can do the same with Twitter and LinkedIn. You get the idea.

While there are certainly times where is makes sense to post content to multiple social networks, it is important to understand that each network has a unique audience and purpose. Therefore, a “one-size-fits-all” approach to content doesn’t make sense.

Think about it: chances are, your professional connections (LinkedIn) aren’t going to see much value in your tweet that states, “Grabbing a burger for lunch.” Similarly, your Facebook friends probably aren’t going to care about the link you shared to a comprehensive white paper illustrating the growing trend of Six Sigma certifications in companies with fewer than 150 employees (I made that up, by the way).

Different networks. Different people. Different relationships. Different expectations.

Besides, with tools like HootSuite (aff.), TweetDeck, Seesmic and others that allow you to post to one or more social profiles from a single interface, there isn’t a need to use “traditional profile linking.” These tools allow you to control what content gets distributed to which social profile(s). Filtering your posts shows the people who care enough to connect with you that you care enough about them to not just spew things into their stream “because you can.”

What do you think? Is linking social profiles a good idea? Bad idea? Do you do it? Why or why not? What tips do you have?

Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth.

Why then, do we hear nothing about the continuing plight in Haiti? The country is still a pile of rubble, cholera and other diseases are at epidemic levels, the people still live in extreme poverty and struggle for survival.

In the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake, you couldn’t turn on the radio, television, computer, or open a newspaper or magazine without reading stories or seeing images from Haiti. We had celebrities crawling out of the woodwork - even hosting a national telethon - to raise awareness and funds to help the people of Haiti.

Now… nothing.

I shutter to say that the same scenario is playing out right now for our homeless brothers and sisters.

Ted Williams, a (now formerly) homeless man from Columbus, Ohio was spotted by a reporter from the Columbus Dispatch. He was panhandling at an interchange off of I-71 holding a sign stating that he had a “God-given gift of voice” and had “fallen on hard times.”

The reporter stopped, filmed Mr. Williams, posted the video to YouTube and the rest of the story has been playing out at a fever pitch from local news, to national morning shows, to the late night circuit.

Much like the situation in Haiti, in the first few hours since Mr. Williams was “discovered,” the media have jumped on the story like white on rice.

Mr. Williams got his big break. It’s been an incredible story of hope, perseverance, redemption and second chances.

I fear it is also a tragic example of society’s painfully short attention span and symptomatic of our addiction to instant gratification.

You see, Mr. Williams is a representative of America’s homeless population. His story of redemption is inspiring, but what gets lost in his story is the fact that there are still thousands of men, women and children living on the streets - families like yours and mine. There are thousands of people just like him - talented, intelligent, willing to work, clean and sober (though we’ve recently learned he is still struggling to keep it that way) - who just need help, someone to care… a second chance.

It is for this reason that I so admire the work of Mark Horvath from We Are Visible (@WeAreVisible on Twitter) and Shay Kelley from Project 50/50, two people who I have had the privilege of meeting, getting to know, and working with over the past several months.

Ted Williams could be the poster child for We Are Visible. The organization is dedicated to connecting the homeless to each other, to resources, and to the world by leveraging social networks and the real-time Internet. And Horvath is uniquely qualified to see it succeed. He, too, was homeless for a time.

Think about it, a video posted on YouTube was the catalyst to Williams being bombarded with opportunities to reconstruct his life. He went from being an unknown homeless panhandler, to an overnight sensation all because of a single video posted online.

Horvath hopes that We Are Visible will be the platform to produce hundreds more stories like Ted Williams’, though you can be sure they won’t get near the fanfare. But the point isn’t to generate a feel-good story for the evening news. Lives can be, will be, and are being changed because of what Horvath is doing.

Similarly, Shay Kelley just completed the first chapter of her Project 50/50 campaign in which she traveled to all 50 states in 50 weeks, living in her old blue pickup truck, “Bubba,” accompanied by her dog, Zuzu.

Kelley’s objective was to collect 10,000 canned food items during a national door to door food drive. Despite being alone on the road, she surpassed that goal and also hosted a sock drive that generated more than 4,000 pairs of socks for homeless Americans. Kelley gave away hundreds of pounds of clothing, and collected dozens of new pairs of shoes. She distributed thousands of hygiene products and gave away enough camping gear to keep dozens of people warm and dry as they try to survive an outdoor life.

Kelly will be embarking on her nationwide campaign again this year, only this time she will be joined by her husband Shane, whom she married in late 2010.

Kelley helps sustain and provide hope and comfort to the homeless, and Horvath is providing them a platform and a voice.

The next step is to get businesses into the fold, providing employment opportunities for people who are qualified and willing to work, but find themselves homeless. Because of incorrect perceptions, there is a tendency to discount the number of employable people there are who are homeless.

In a recent Yahoo! Finance article the number of people who have been unemployed for more than 27 weeks is on the rise and unemployment figures aren’t getting much better. Even those with a nice “safety net,” are finding themselves jobless, facing foreclosure, and having dwindling chances of finding employment. All of those factors lead to formerly “middle class” professionals on the brink of or currently experiencing homelessness.

I truly believe that businesses can be part of the solution. Perhaps the hospitality industry is most well-suited to pioneer such a movement. Hotels have built-in potential to offer room and board to employees as part of their compensation package.

Before you roll your eyes or shriek, “That’s ridiculous!,” think about this:

When my wife and I took our honeymoon in Jamaica, the resort we stayed at housed resort staff. They lived on the premises. They were never late for work, always well-rested, and grateful to be working for a company that cared about them! Loyalty is a good thing, right?

That’s just the tip of the iceberg…

What do you think? How can we break the cycle of poverty and homelessness? What are you doing to help? What is your company doing to help?