As the social networking scene becomes more crowded, busy, and chaotic, more people are experimenting with automating or outsourcing social media tasks. But does this violate the spirit of authenticity which is so highly valued within social media?
Another way some people are automating social media tasks is by having their status updates automatically distributed to multiple social networks. Tools like TweetDeck make it possible to post an update to Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, FriendFeed, and Google Buzz with the click of a single button.
Does this violate the spirit of authenticity?
Some people criticize syndicating updates because usually it means the person is just broadcasting to those networks and not listening or engaging with anyone there. Critics also poo-poo syndicating because the audience and purpose of each social network is unique, so updates ought to be customized for each.
Proponents, though, say syndicating is a helpful time-saver for people who have a presence on many social networks. Some syndicate their updates and also go to those networks to listen and engage. Others syndicate to networks where they never listen or engage with others, and their argument is, “Might as well have a syndicated presence for those who want to follow there, rather than no presence as well.”
Complicating the issue is the fact that some social networks like FriendFeed and Google Buzz consist almost entirely of syndicated updates and contain almost no original content.
My take… I don’t think anyone has a problem with syndicating updates if you also read and engage with people on those networks. But it’s pretty lame to syndicate updates to a network and never listen and engage. That said, I syndicate my Twitter updates to FriendFeed, Google Buzz, and LinkedIn. Why? Because people continue to follow me on those networks. If they find my updates useful, then why not continue to provide them there?
What’s your take on syndicating updates? Authentic or not?
–> Authentic or Not? Part 7: Having a Social Media Agenda
Co-founder & CEO, OurChurch.Com
Paul has been the CEO of OurChurch.Com since its founding in 1996, combining his passion for faith and technology to lead the organization.
An accomplished writer, Paul has authored over 2,000 articles on faith and technology, featured on platforms like ChurchLeaders.com, The JoyFM, and his personal blog, LiveIntentionally.org.
Beyond his professional achievements, Paul serves as an elder at Journey Community Church and is deeply engaged in his community through his involvement with the Florida Sheriffs Youth Ranch and the Safety Harbor Chamber of Commerce. He is a contributing author of the book Outspoken! Conversations on Church Communication.
5 Comments
I have to say that it is Authentic – because I am a big proponent of it.
It is the best way to share with your friends and followers.
But honestly, I don't think that people see it as authentic – based on what I can see on Google Analytics. It almost cold calling for referrals.
>>I don't think that people see it as authentic – based on what I can see on Google Analytics. It almost cold calling for referrals.
Hey Phill, not sure I understand. Are you saying that looking at Google Analytics people aren't clicking on links you syndicate to other social networks, and therefore your conclusion is that the people on those networks don't view those updates as authentic?
hmm, I mean that for syndicating links from my blog.
I have no idea about syndicating links from other people.
as for syndicating my own thoughts across the spectrum – totally authentic
Right, I understand that. I wasn't sure about the reference to Google Analytics or "cold calling for referrals."
Pingback: Tweets that mention Authentic or Not? Part 6: Syndicating Updates to Multiple Social Networks « Christian Web Trends Blog -- Topsy.com