It’s very popular to blame violent movies, internet sites and games for violent behavior of violent youngsters (hmm where did that come from “youngsters”? think I’m getting old.) When there is a shooting in a school, some politicians or other activists think they can score easily by jumping on the barricades and yelling that we need to protect our children from all the violence in the media. But do violent movies and games cause violent behavior? (=causality) Or do children (I want to avoid that weird word youngsters) that have some kind of violent (aggressive) nature tend to watch more often violent movies (=correlation). Please let’s not get into this discussion since I know it’s not a general rule. (I secretly enjoy watching the Saw movies but that doesn’t mean I am hunting down my practice manager with a chainsaw. And, well at least that’s what I believe but correct me if I am wrong, I don’t have a very violent nature.) Heading to the social media discussion: companies that make good use of social media strategy and get great results from it, is it because of the tools like Twitter and Facebook or is there something else? Otherwise said, will using Twitter make your company more successful? (=causality) Or do companies that have an innovative culture and are already working hard on customer intimacy tend to be more open for using social media tools? (=correlation) Thoughts? --- Lee Provoost is a Cloud Computing Strategist and ERP+ lead at Capgemini. You can follow his ongoing stream of thoughts on Twitter http://twitter.com/leeprovoost.
Having success with social media: correlation or causality?
L. Provoos
5 Comments
Category :
Social
About the author
5 Comments
Leave a comment
It's never the tool that makes one succesful in something and someone other not. It is always a result of the person (or enterprise) using it and the context in which it is used. If Twitter would make your company an instant success (Twitter as a silver bullet (could I coin that as TaaSb)), I think the complete financial market was twittering and many other companies too, all to prevent bankruptcy by twittering, since twittering turns you and your business in an instant success. Well it doesn't, Twitter is not a business model, however you can apply it very successfully in your daily business.
Correlation +1 for me.
Correlation +1 for me.
In my opinion, it's more correlation than causality. It's very challenging to implement social tools in an organisation that not already has a culture which is collaborative and accepting of openess.
Correlation. I would it to be causality (would make my job easier) but it is not. Correlation it is.
Correlation +1 as well. Tools like Twitter, Yammer or Facebook are great enablers. But you need a good approach or strategy and/or an innovative culture to put them to good use. If you look for instance at Zappos, they have a very distinctive culture, which makes that they can use Twitter to serve their clients even better. But it's not Twitter that meke them a successfull company.
I also choose for correlation. I believe that the tools chosen by an organisation should support their business and vision. This is more likely for organisations which already have an innovating nature.
If it would be causality I would see it more in the range of what Rick said, that you use Twitter as business model, which would be interesting, but weird too.
If it would be causality I would see it more in the range of what Rick said, that you use Twitter as business model, which would be interesting, but weird too.
