April 5, 2006
on becoming more viral in the offline world...
Had an interesting conversation with Anu Gupta yesterday, all to do with how blogs make people more viral, even in the offline world.
Take HR, which is Anu's profession. I know very little about HR. What I know about HR could could probably be written on the back of a postcard.
So let's say I'm talking to some hotshot at a cocktail party, and he mentions he's looking to hire someone in HR.
As I know nothing about HR, nor do I know anyone in that profession very well, in the pre-blog world I would probably have just gone, "Sorry, can't help you", and quickly have changed the subject.
But with blogs I can tell the hotshot, "Well, there's this guy named Anu Gupta that works in HR. Don't know much about him. Met him once or twice before. Nice guy. Seems pretty bright. Here's his link. Maybe talk to him etc."
Suddenly a connection between the hotshot and Anu is made, without the bridge (i.e. me) having had to risk any of his (my) social capital, via making the recommendation.
In other words, the better your blog, the less qualified I have to be in order to recommend you. The easier and less socially risky it is for me to spread your story. Because all I have to do is give the guy your link, and hopefully your blog does the rest.
And if the same is true for everyone else who knows you, suddenly, like Anu, you've become a lot more viral.
Which surely is a good thing, right?
[Update: Roy says "it's how blogs work in the background." Well put.]
Posted by hugh macleod at April 5, 2006 5:49 AM | TrackBack/What I know about HR could could probably be written on the back of a postcard./
Ah, Hugh… Don't sell yourself short. How many times have you managed to fit reams of info onto the back of a business card? I can think of a few times when a picture and about five words were as good as a book.
But it's true about the offline viral effect of blogs… I've been on both sides of that equation, where it was just easier to say "go read this guy."
I'm not sure that the fact that "this guy" has a blog is what really changes things… In the old days, I might have referred someone to the author of a book. What's different is that bloggers tend to be easier to approach than print authors and seem to be more inclined to respond. The real reason I'd send someone to a blogger rather than a book is because of the possibility of relationship, conversation and yeah, doing business. Definitely all good things.
Posted by: john t unger at April 5, 2006 6:56 AMAhh - the perils of keeping two blogs, and only updating one frequently !
Thanks for the link, Hugh - if you get a moment, could you point to www.scalefree.info instead ?
Posted by: anu at April 5, 2006 7:33 AMno worries, anu, already fixed.
nice seeing you again yesterday =)
Posted by: hugh macleod at April 5, 2006 7:40 AMtest
Posted by: Roy Blumenthal at April 5, 2006 8:24 AMHugh...
Your spam filter is rather stringent! I'm trying to post a reply to your post, and it's not letting me.
Bah!!!
Go check out: http://witstrainees.blogspot.com/2006/04/hugh-macleod-on-how-blogging-makes-you.html
Blue skies
love
Roy
Hey - don't forget your regular comment makers ! And try www.theengagingbrand.com....best HR around...waiting for your call Hugh ! Though I think you can teach us a thing or two.... are you going to do us a business card for the site ?
Posted by: Farms at April 5, 2006 8:42 AMJohn, sure, a book would've worked. That is, if Anu had written one. And if the hotshot felt like visiting the bookstore and whipping his credit card out.
A much more complicated (i.e. less viral) process than giving out a link to a blog.
Posted by: hugh macleod at April 5, 2006 8:58 AM'In order words the better you blog the less qualified you have to be' to get a job!
We all know there a very large element of 'who you know not what you know' and the blogosphere does nothing to solve this, in fact it makes it 'who knows you'.
Posted by: Ed Byrne at April 5, 2006 9:35 AMYes, Ed, life is unfair. Heh.
Posted by: Hugh MacLeod at April 5, 2006 10:04 AMHey Hugh...
Thanks for posting the link, dude. Much appreciated.
Blue skies
love
Roy
This is just diffusion theory. The only difference is that technology (blogs) are growing your social network. I don't understand why blogs are being heralded as an innovation that will change the world. They are only an innovation that increases the volume/momentum of already existing mechanisms.
Posted by: JohnO at April 5, 2006 1:55 PMIf you recommend the blog of someone who turns out to be a dud, then your social capital will be affected just as much as in pre blog days.
Moreover, with easier connectivity, the risk of this happening increases and we all know that the "pissed off-ness" of having been given a bad steer will linger than the joy of receiving a good one.
Which leads us back to the age old issue of who's judgement to value. Blogging hasn't changed social networking, it's just mulitplied it.
Posted by: john at April 5, 2006 2:39 PMHi John...
Nah... not true. Your social capital DOESN'T suffer, because the amount of investment it takes to check out someone's blog is minimal.
In other words, if I suggest a blog to you, and you take a look at it, it'll take you at most a minute to decide whether or not to keep reading.
Because it's only a minute or so, you haven't sunk large amounts of energy finding out about the person you've just looked at.
It's like looking at a trading card. Who cares if you don't like what you see? You won't hold that against me.
Blue skies
love
Roy
I disagree with John...
John 0, it's not what blogs do per se that is the story. the story is about how cheap and easy they are, compared to other alternatives.
Posted by: Hugh MacLeod at April 6, 2006 10:58 AMOf course your social capital suffers - it's based upon the quality of your recommendations and not the amount of effort I have to go to in order to check them out. If I have to make a huge effort, then yes I may be proportionately more pissed off with you, but that doesn't imply that I will not be pissed off with you if I only have to make a little effort. Bottom line, your recommendation wasted my time (how ever little of it) and did not improve my situation, therefore your social capital has fallen.
Posted by: john at April 6, 2006 1:50 PMYes, I would like to make myself more viral too, get others on board as well. Geoff and I have just had a long chat about you, are your ears red? It would be good to know what you think of my blog.
I shall keep trying to get politicians on board - if they dare.