Phil Friedman

4 years ago · 9 min. reading time · visibility 0 ·

chat Contact the author

thumb_up Relevant message Comment

Is Content Really King on Social Media… Or Just the Joker?

Is Content Really King on Social Media… Or Just the Joker?

DOES WHAT YOU PUBLISH MATTER OR JUST HOW MUCH YOU PUBLISH?


Preface:  When I first suggested this concept to Jim Murray, the model I had in mind was the famous 1960s traveling exchange between Bill Buckley and Gore Vidal, both masters of acerbic contretemps. But while we both thought it worth a try, we had absolutely no idea how well or not it would be received.   Well, now we do. This marks the third year and the 27th installment of the ongoing verbal sparring between Jim Murray and me. We've covered some significant topics and some not so significant. But always, a major part of our objective in doing this series has been to stimulate open discussion. And the same is true here, which is why we invite you to join the conversation.


59dc2fa9.jpgPHIL:  Almost every day, we read one post or another or maybe a half dozen about how ― dum dee dum dum ― “CONTENT IS KING!”

Sometimes the statement is made by the ownership or management of a social media platform. Yet, I rarely, if ever see that dictum being converted to action.

To the contrary, I see actions undertaken that work counter to treating Content as an important piece of the digital publishing puzzle. Why do I say that?

Because if Content were truly King, LinkedIn would never had dismantled those parts of its system which supported writers and bloggers. And LI would never have undermined the operation of its Groups ― where in the first decade or so of LI’s existence, literally mountains of engagement were generated. But it did.

If Content were truly King on social media, beBee and other SM platforms would be finding ways to encourage writers to produce bubbling brooks of high-quality content rather than raging rivers of Insipidipity. But they don’t.

As I see it, in the deck we’re playing with on Social Media, Content is not King. The Joker, maybe. But definitely not the King.

If anything is King on social media, it’s Quantity. The more you can post, the better. And the greater common denominator you can reach, even more so.

Because contrary to all the wishful claims made on behalf of algorithms and “Artificial Intelligence”, the most that can be accomplished by social media stats collectors is to quantify ― in other words, count ― posts, comments, likes, clicks, etc.

And since the stats form the basis for monetizing a platform, well, you can understand why Quantity is King. Unfortunately, nowhere is Quality given more than lip service.

Does that trouble you, Jim, as much as it does me? Do you ever wish for a digital self-publishing environment that was primarily writer- and reader-centric? Do you think that such is even possible, given the large investment necessary to launch, build, and maintain a social media platform that does not require you to pay if you want to play?


d5bd9866.jpgJIM: You know, on this topic, you and I both may view it with a bit of a jaundiced eye because we are professional writers. We are among the ones who felt the pain of the LinkedIn claw hold first and most emphatically because both of us were pulling decent numbers there and making some good connections.

The other issue is being writers we both tend to think of ‘content’ as primarily long format blog posts. And while that may be an important ‘type’ of content, it’s certainly not the only type.

Look at what made somebody like Candice Galek a superstar on social media, for example. Chicks in bikinis up the wazoo. Look at all those big-time life coaches. It’s mostly video content. The list goes on.

You and I are writers and are really writing the stuff we do to build an audience and create awareness for what I euphemistically refer to as our personal brands.

So for us content is absolutely king IMHO. Because we are in the quality content generation business.

And here comes the 80/20 Differential that states: In no uncertain terms is any more than 20% of all generated content ‘quality’. It’s mostly crap. And for that reason alone it’s hard to consider it king of anything other than some dung heap.

But to sustain the metaphor, I honestly don’t give a shit. To quote Trump. “The system is rigged’. Social media sites need to post as much content as possible so they can con people into believing that there’s all this activity and all these willing customers when we both know that’s bull chips.

And the so-called ‘content creators’ think, wow, there’s my audience, just chomping at the bit to read my latest insight about nothing in particular. And so they dash it off. And yeah, they have a platform and probably should be grateful for that. But crap is crap and eventually they go away and more crap shows up to take its place.

But you know what, it all sorts itself out in the end.

I consider the blogging that I do, a) A gestalt that keeps my blood pressure under control, b) A bit of a PR tool, and c) Potential chapters for my next book, whatever that turns out to be. It’s also fun. I genuinely enjoy doing this. Because writers write.

Having said all that, I can only hope that I have managed to convince you that for me, at least, content is a small k king, maybe a jack, but not, in the case of quality content, a joker. What sayeth thou?


2b7e13c3.jpgPHIL: It sometimes concerns me that the things you say make sense to me. But I’ve learned to live with that.

Contrary to my gut instinct as someone who came to social media from the print magazine sector, I do recognize that “content” includes more than just writing. And while I find most of the self-produced video posted on social media just plain poor, some of it is quite good. For example, the videos that Melissa Hughes does are excellent from the standpoint of script and presentation. Smooth and polished.

But I gotta tell you, most of the rest I see are… uh… um…kinda… ah… jumpy and… um…generally not… uh… very good. Especially the “live buzzes”. Which fact, I believe, supports my original point.

The “live buzzes” are extemporaneous videos, self-shot, and non-editable. Which means they are, in effect, video selfies, quick shots suited to attracting the narcissistic Instagram and Snapchat users. They are not effective in attracting the consumers of quality content.

Consider that a top-flite writer like Robert Cormack says he takes about six hours to draft and edit (two or three times) one of his written posts. I’d bet a guy like Cormack would never even consider doing a live buzz ― precisely because you can’t edit or polish the product before publishing it.

And that tells us that the live buzz feature is designed for those who want to publish vanity videos of themselves, not for those serious content producers who want to present professional-level work to an audience.

Hey! Wake up there, you under that Panama hat. Doesn’t that tell you if Content were truly considered King, and not just quantifiable and measurable fodder for positive stats, live buzzes would not be the fad content gimmick of the moment?

Put another way, if the management of a social media platform genuinely respected Content, would it, at every turn, encourage the posting of videos of predictably low quality?


93c60ffd.jpgJIM: There are those who would argue that this is Phil Friedman at his snooty best. And I can’t disagree. But what I will say is that I did not fabricate the definition of content. Somebody else did and I just happened to agree with it.

As for quality, especially when it comes to video. I would imagine (and I’m not bad at that) that it could, and probably will, be argued that it’s not about the quality of the content per se, it’s about the ‘authenticity’ of the person making the content.

I have personally never made a live buzz, and I probably never will for the same reasons that you point out in your Robert Cormack analogy. Because I do not and never will equate spontaneity with authenticity.

In point of fact, writing this with you is the most spontaneous it gets for me, and even then, I have to think about it for a while.

I believe what we are both coming to terms with is the fact that content is only king when it is quality content. And quality content only happens about 20% of the time.

But…this is not to say that even crap content is not without some merit. For one thing, I believe, for some, it’s a necessary part of the process. You have to crawl before you can walk. That sort of thing.

For others, maybe the realization dawns on them at some point that crap is as good as it gets for them. And they move on.

I was thinking about this yesterday when I wrote a piece that I’m not sure I will publish here. I was thinking about all the people I used to notice on social media but don’t notice anymore. Where did they go? And why did they go?

Maybe, just maybe, they came to terms with the harsh reality that while content may be king in the broad, self-serving, keep providing us with content sort of way that most social media sites espouse, that it wasn’t really king, or even any level of royalty, for them.

I have never been a big believer is generalizations. Because I am a proponent of individuality, and broad sweeping generalizations like Content Is King, smack of what you referred to recently as hive or collective mentality.

So yeah. Content is something. It’s not king unless you think it is. But even then, it’s questionable. Strong personal and business relationships are, IMHO, the real King.

Am I still making sense, swami Phil?


d149f294.jpgPHIL: Snooty? Snoooo-teee, you say? Are you accusing me of being a literary snob?

Well, I’m not. I hate the work of E. M. Forster. But love the writings of John Sandford, especially his Virgil Flowers series.

Me snooty? That’s like accusing a World Wrestling Association fan of being a cultural Brahman, Mr. Panama Hat.

You know, as well, we’ve kicked “authenticity” around before ― coming to the conclusion, as I remember, that being authentic doesn’t help you a whit, if you’re an authentic horse’s ass.

So where does that leave me?

Well, one place it leaves me is with you, cranking out installments of He Said He Said, which readers seem to continue to enjoy, at least enough to keep us going. See, for example, fellow writer, Paul Walters’s, piece, Mum, I’ve Become a Bee!!!!

The question is why has He Said He Said been a success with the readership? Hold that thought.

For now, I agree with your observation that the face of posting on social media changes continually, with a lot of the “early voices” now falling silent, one by one.

We tend to think that digital self-publishing platforms have been with us forever. But they haven’t.

LinkedIn’s long-post publishing platform was fully launched in April, 2014. BeBee’s Producer in Spring, 2016. There were a few before that period, a few more during that period, and a number following after. But the fact is long-post self-publishing on a social media platform, as opposed to one’s own or someone else’s website, has only been around for a very few years. Consequently, we don’t really know what a reasonable life expectancy is for a social media writer or blogger.

I suspect the writing and blogging attrition we’re witnessing ― and we are witnessing it ― is the inevitable result of so many would-be writers and bloggers simply running out of things to say. For how many times, and in how many ways, can you say “Think positive and you can accomplish anything …”?

You want to know what I really think? Well, I’m going to tell you anyway.

I think that most of the would-be writers and bloggers who are responsible for the vast body of “inspirational” flotsam on the ocean of social media are, for the most part, giving pep talks to themselves. (Egad! I’ve been hanging around too much with the Metaphor Gang.) And when the advice they so readily mete out fails to help them in their own real lives, their “production of content” dries up. Because what they never learned is that the lifeblood of high-quality content is stimulation.

By the way, this has nothing to do with the “silence” recommended so eloquently by Kate and Don Kerr. For the mindful silence of meditation is by definition empty of noise, and is by no stretch of the imagination “content”.

People read or watch or consume content for a variety of reasons ― to be educated or entertained or figure out how to pick up men or women or perform self-ablative brain surgery. Rarely, if ever do they consume content in order to be put to sleep. Unless, of course, they choose to watch re-runs of the original Jack Lord variety of Hawaii Five-O TV shows, which will put you to sleep every time in no more than ten minutes.

Whether content stimulates depends on whether or not it has substance, that is, whether it embodies some measure of meaning, interest, amusement, or other intrinsic value.

And the fact is Content is not king, Substance is  which apparently is something many people have yet to learn.


Postscript:   Please keep in mind that JimMurray can, and always will speak for himself.  He will also publish his own parallel version of this HE SAID HE SAID No.27. So, you are free to post comments directed to either Jim or me, on either his post of HSHS No.27 or mine here. And you will always get an answer one way or the other.  If  you don't want an answer, but only want to send hate mail, please direct that to Jim. I get enough of that, already. :-)


Author's Notes:  If you found this interesting and would like to receive notifications of my writings on a regular basis, click the [FOLLOW] button on my beBee archive page. Better yet, you can arrange on that same page to follow my "blog" by email. As a writer-friend of mine says, you can always change your mind later.

Feel free to "like" and "share" this post and my other articles — whether on LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, or Google+, provided only that you credit me (and in the case of "He Said He Said", Jim as well) properly as the author(s), and include a live link to the original post.


About me, Phil Friedman: With 30 some years background in the marine industry, I've worn numerous hats — as a yacht designer, boat builder, marine operations and business manager, marine industry consultant, marine marketing and communications specialist, yachting magazine writer and editor, yacht surveyor, and marine industry educator. I am also trained and experienced in interest-based negotiation and mediation.

In a previous life, I was formally trained as an academic philosopher and taught logic and philosophy at university.


Before writing comes thinking (the optional-to-read pitch):  

As a professional writer, editor, university educator, and speaker, with more than 1,000 print and digital publications, I've recently launched an online program for enhancing your expository writing: learn2engage — With Confidence. My mission is to help writers and would-be writers improve their thought and writing, master the logic of discussion, and strengthen their ability to deal with disagreement.


3bf5b440.jpg

For more information, click on the image immediately above. Or to schedule an appointment for a free 1/2-hour consult or to sit in on one of our online group sessions, email: info@learn2engage.org. I look forward to speaking with you soon.   


f06dda3e.jpg

9e544f18.jpg

#SOCIALMEDIA #CONTENT #CONTENTISKING #CONTENTMARKETING #BEBEE #DIGITALPUBLISHING #SELFPUBLISHING #WRITING #CONTENTCREATION #WRITEBETTER


"""""""""""
thumb_up Relevant message Comment
Comments
Javier 🐝 CR

Javier 🐝 CR

4 years ago #96

Posting content search / retrieval / bookmarking within/across hives will be available during the next months :-)

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #95

#129
Jim, this is a case of my disagreeing. What would be necessary would be to find accomplished writers and publishers who are also editors or who can adopt an editor's vision -- which is to look for quality even in form and content that one does not personally care for. This is also a reason to have a board of, say, twenty and not one of only a handful. And it is a reason to have board membership rotate, that is, change out say, one-third every year. Finally, in my vision, such a board would be advisory and exemplary only. It would not have the power to reject content. That power would reside only with ownership and management, as a matter of fact, it does now. Cheers!

Jim Murray

Jim Murray

4 years ago #94

#123
Actually Phil Friedman does speak for me on the issue of an editorial board. The trouble is picking them and then getting them to agree on stuff. If you're good enough to be thought of s someone who can judge others people you may very well be a my way or the highway type person.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #93

#124
Martina, here are a few of the suggestions I've already made to beBee ownership: 1) Establish an advisory Editorial board to develop a set suggested guidelines for articles and a library of example of paradigm posts. Such a board could be voluntary and with staggered rotating membership. And the library could grow over time. 2) Begin to emphasize that substance and quality are valued by the platform ownership and management. The creation of the right community ethos could be very powerful. 3) Offer one or more platform-supported hives to help writers improve, couple with podcasts or similar to discuss writing improvement. 4) Limit the number of memes a member can post, say, to one per day. 5) Provide the tools and other support to hive owners and administrators who operate topic-filtered hives that seek out and feature higher quality posts, and which build substantial readerships. Treat them like special interest magazines. https://www.bebee.com/producer/@friedman-phil/hives-groups-and-froot-loops Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #92

#124
Here are a few of the suggestions I've already made to beBee ownership: 1) Establish an advisory Editorial board to develop a set suggested guidelines for articles and a library of example or paradigm posts. Such a board could be voluntary and with staggered rotating membership. 2) Begin to emphasize that substance and quality are valued by the platform ownership and management. 3) Offer one or more platform-supported hives to help writers improve, couple with podcasts or similar to discuss writing improvement. 4) Limit the number of memes a member can post, say, to one per day. 5) Provide the tools and other support to hive owners and administrators who operate topic-filtered hives that seek out and feature higher quality posts, and which build substantial readerships. Treat them like special interest magazines. https://www.bebee.com/producer/@friedman-phil/hives-groups-and-froot-loops Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #91

#122
Martina, neither Jim nor I have said a social media platform could "make" quality content happen. I won't speak for Jim Murray here, but what I said is that platform ownership and management could "encourage' the development and posting of quality content, or at the very least not encourage the reverse. What I've also said is that such a course requires exceptional vision and, candidly, huge cojones. Because it is the volume of activity that is generally considered to represent the "value" of a platform, and that is most quickly bolstered by encouraging quantity over quality. Cheers!

Jim Murray

Jim Murray

4 years ago #90

#120
I do have many half-assed opinions. But I also have a few full assed ones. I would like to have more of the latter, but some days half is all you get.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #89

#117
Michael, I don't disagree. An additional point about bullying is that the charge of bullying is sometimes itself used as a bully's bludgeon to shut down discussion that some people find uncomfortable. Context and venue are very important. If you comment acerbically on my post, you might (not necessarily) be bullying me. But if you comment thusly, and I return the favor with an equally strong reply, that is NOT me bullying you. That is me responding to what you've initiated. That said, one of the things I learned during my teaching years is that it is important to separate the ideas and opinions from people. And that to criticize someone's ideas or opinions is not to cast aspersions upon them as a person. I like and respect Jim Murray immensely as a person, but I tell him all the time that he has some really half-assed ideas and opinions. Naturally, if you ask him, he'll tell you the same thing about me. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #88

#116
Michael, you are correct. That is why I find it so odd when someone cites his or her own published writing as a reference. I understand if one prefaces the citation with something like "I've previously explained my position on this topic in detail in..." But I can't see that a bald citation functions is any other way than you indicate. IMO. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #87

#114
Milos, this is the problem with over-reliance on metaphors -- often, the logical implications of the metaphor are uncomfortable or distortive. From Wikipedia: "Africanized bees are typically much more defensive than other races of bees, and react to disturbances faster than European honey bees." Res ipsa loquitur. I look forward to your return. Be well in the meantime. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #86

#73
Michael O'Neil, Not at all! Thank you very much.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #85

#101
And now we also have "Africanized Honey Bees" here :) Pff ... "No good deed goes unpunished." I'm out, but I'll be back.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #84

#107
Phil, I also hope that comment #62 is now much clearer for all. Have a great day!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #83

#106
"No good deed goes unpunished." again... Cheers, my friend.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #82

#106
Phil, Thank for your clarificiaton. I understand that and agree. "If Content were truly King on social media, beBee and other SM platforms would be finding ways to encourage writers to produce bubbling brooks of high-quality content rather than raging rivers of Insipidipity. But they don’t." - P.F.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #81

#107
Now everything is much clearer. Thank you Phil Friedman, my friend, aka Mr No- Muzak :) Kind Regards, Fractal Troll ("The Danger of Labeling Others (or Yourself)" in the purpose of "No-Muzak" :))

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #80

#104
I completely agree with you Phil Friedman. But I never said a harsh word about any particular or unnamed "Influencer", "Unfluencer", " Brand Ambassador", "Bee", Honey Bee, privileged writer or about any other person with the title in social media. Cheers! It is not forbidden to criticize an individual (member with or without title) in a civilized manner, but any generalization is not good.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #79

#105
Yes, Milos, there is. But to understand one has to attend to the delineation of the set. See that delineation in comment #101 below, which makes it very clear. The problem is that you and some others insist on identifying a group to which I am NOT referring. Again, accuracy is, to my mind, an important stepping stone to understanding, whether in academia or on social media. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #78

#102
For the record, Milos, I do not speak of "passive aggressive PERSONS" or "aggressive passive PERSONS" or "WRITERS that produce raging rivers of Insipidipity" or any of the other expressions which you incorrectly, at least by implication, attribute to me. I do not generally speak about people, but about ideas, opinions, actions, and behavior. And that is not by accident but is intentional. Moreover, it is a difference that makes a difference. Accuracy is, to my mind, an important stepping stone to understanding. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #77

There is a big difference between:"counter-wrath of the Honey Bees" (plural-all) and "counter-wrath of Fractal troll (single) - Milos or David or... some "Peter".

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #76

#99
Milos, you cite "The Danger of Labeling Others (or Yourself)" and I agree entirely with the sentiment. Labels are dangerous as they create impressions and images that a counter-productive. You and I both noted many times on LinkedIn the potential negative consequences of the arbitrary designation of a group of writers as "Influencers". It's hard, I believe, not to draw similar conclusions about this platform. However, that is a topic beyond the scope of this comments thread. IMO. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #75

#101
Phil, Labeling of friends (the real one) in social media is not dangerous practice - Mr No-Muzak (my label of you). On the other hand labelling of unnamed members is something else. This is what I want to tell you only and then #66...

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #74

#100
comments by "Passive aggressive persons", "Aggressive passive persons", "writers that produce bubbling brooks of high-quality content", "writers that produce raging rivers of Insipidipity", "Affiliates cooperating in a very structured program of Affiliate Marketing" and "Honey Bees - the source of the counter-wrath" Who's Missing? "Mr No-Muzak", aka Phil Fridman and "Fractal troll", aka Milos Djukic, of course :)

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #73

#96
Martina, please understand that, as a writer, I am pretty careful with my words. Contrary to what you say, nowhere in this comment thread have I referred to "Ambassadors". In a counter-quip to one made by David Grinberg about the "wrath of Phil" (which I think is a play on words re "The Wrath of Khan", a Star Trek movie, and hence connected to the "Borg Collective"), I did mention the "counter-wrath of the Honey Bees". That difference is intentional and not a dodge or a smarmy evasion. The last thin I would intentionally do is paint the majority of Ambassadors with that brush, for many of them are my (online) friends and readers. For the record, by the expression I use, I mean a small group of bees who wrap themselves in a sweet honey coating, but who react like Africanized Honey Bees when they perceive criticism or opinion that does not fit with their own ideas of what should or should not be allowed to be expressed on this platform. Again, this is a case of asking why, if the shoe doesn't fit, would someone step forward and insist on wearing it? I trust this clarifies the matter. As always, you are entitled to your own opinion and to express that opinion. And I thank you for joining this conversation. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #72

#98
Phil, I heard about that ("That is one of my favorite expressions. As you well know" - P.F.) for the first time now. "In the case of "No good deed goes unpunished" situations on social media, suddenly great happiness is replaced with disappointment, while the amount and degree are the same." from "Leadership and Successful Human Conversations" by Milos Djukic, LinkedIn long-form post, published on March 1, 2015 (without hyperlink of course, since we are not at "war")

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #71

#96
Very true Martina. "My guess is that specifics rather than "some people" results in better communication, problem solving, and just a better life." - Martina Baxter within comment #96 "Ultimately, it is important to realize that you should not completely define the people in your life by their current behavior." - by Art Markman Ph.D. on psychologytoday.com within article titled: "The Danger of Labeling Others (or Yourself)" https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201406/the-danger-labeling-others-or-yourself #84

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #70

#97
Milos, it is not fair to quote my own words back to me. That is one of my favorite expressions. As you well know. Cheers back to you, my friend. :-)

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #69

#95
No good deed goes unpunished. Cheers, my friend.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #68

#94
Milos, I agree that "Ego is a very strange beast..." and that "Help is not only praise, but also criticism..." https://www.bebee.com/producer/@friedman-phil/finding-the-right-balance https://www.bebee.com/producer/@friedman-phil/censorship-to-cut-or-not-to-cut-that-is-the-question https://www.bebee.com/producer/@friedman-phil/on-the-limits-of-free-expression https://www.bebee.com/producer/@friedman-phil/the-rising-tide-of-aggressive-passivity I apologize for citing my own articles. It is something I try to avoid, as it strikes me as the ultimate vanity, as well as being a rather strange form of "appeal to authority". IMO. Cheers, my friend.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #67

#72
Phil, stating publicly that we helped someone in social media without facts about reciprocal activities is an inappropriate practice, a sign of vanity and an integral part of acerbic style, which I criticized so much. Overall, the others are the ones who should highlight this fact. For example: "A great person deserves no less" statments or a reference - acknowledgment within our post or article are much better practice (you used the latter technique). Help is not only praise, but also criticism of the subject of criticism or whoever endangers one's rights. No one has endangered your rights in this case. I'm not the person which talk about whether I did or did not help people. It is not my business. "Ego is a very strange beast, which is often unreasonably hungry. If we try to help others, sometimes we will be on the wrong track, sometimes we will make an omission and finally, sometimes we will succeed. We should always count on all three options. That's the beauty and the agony of generosity. However, when one day we think about it, we will see that ultimately good always returns good (good prevails). In the case of "No good deed goes unpunished" situations on social media, suddenly great happiness is replaced with disappointment, while the amount and degree are the same. However, finally serenity still prevails. For some people it is an internal need and then there is no help. They can become influential people or even leaders." - from "Leadership and Successful Human Conversations", LinkedIn long-form post, published on March 1, 2015

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #66

#85
Good point, Martina. And with all due respect, how about the following questions? 1. Why do some people on social media believe they have the right to control and censor what others say and think, as long as those others are not being uncivil or verbally abusive? 2. Why do some people on social media who profess to be uncomfortable with criticism and confrontation so readily jump on the bandwagon (or join the "mob") when they see others criticizing those "others" whom they identify as being contentious? Let's be clear on this. I reject the claim or implication that I unfairly characterized anyone. Indeed, I didn't characterize anyone at all. If I said "people who cheat on their spouses are reprehensible," would you comment telling me that you take offense at that remark and that I should not pick on such people? What would that tell us all about you? In this piece, and others, I do criticize certain behaviors, but I do not criticize people. In other words, I put the shoe out there and leave it to others to decide to wear it or not. And it baffles me why, if the shoe doesn't fit, one would choose to wear it. Context is everything and sometimes a measure of hyperbole is necessary to draw attention to things one would like to see changed in the world. I appreciate your contribution to this discussion and hope that you will continue to join the conversations that we conduct on HE SAID HE SAID. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #65

#88
I believe, Javier, that we are agreed on all counts, except perhaps on the origin of the expression. Like you, I believed for a long time that it originated in Bill Gates's speech of 1996, but just recently discovered in Quora the following which is based on an entry found in Google Books: "According to the snippet quoted, the phrase did not originate in Photographer's Market, but came from the book, Magazine Editing and Production by J.W. Click and Russell N. Baird. As this entry from Worldcat indicates, the first edition of that book was published in 1974. This would suggest that the phrase "content is king" dates back to the magazine publishing industry slightly more than 40 years ago, although it probably didn't have as much popularity then until it became a popular slogan about the Internet in the 1990s...." BTW, yes, 87 comments is good, but still a long way from the 382 registered on "Affinity Networking On the Line" -- https://www.bebee.com/producer/@friedman-phil/affinity-networking-is-on-the-line For the record, and just in case some readers might misunderstand the place of criticism on social media, I am personally one of beBee's strongest supporters, believing it currently represents the only serious opportunity for true organic development in networking and digital self-publishing around. I just hope that, unlike LinkedIn, it will achieve its exceedingly high potential. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #64

#87
Thank you, Melissa, for the kind words. And likewise, coming from you, they are a treat to read. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #63

#86
Sandra, I guess it is all a matter of perspective. To my mind, they perverted the concept in order to make it fit "the content marketing 'movement' perfectly." And did so by ignoring the fact that the original intent was to emphasize substance and, instead, treat "content" as a generic commodity that could be purchased and used by marketers and other firms like bricks being used to build a wall. IMO. Thank you for joining the conversation and cheers!

Javier 🐝 CR

Javier 🐝 CR

4 years ago #62

87 comments... not bad at all ! :-)

Javier 🐝 CR

Javier 🐝 CR

4 years ago #61

Building true social media engagement means creating a content strategy to hook the audience, not just being on social media. “Content is king” comes from an article Bill Gates wrote on Microsoft’s website in January 1996. No doubt, content drives the Internet, though many still question if, indeed, content is really king. When We Say Content, We Mean Great Content :-)

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #60

#64
Martina, there is often context that extends beyond what one reads in a single piece or one or two comments. I hope you will read more of the exchange here in order to gain some perspective before passing final judgment and casting your stone. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #59

#74
Yes, it still applies, but change out "sex" for "gamification" and you will have updated it for social media. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #58

#79
Nicole, my stereotypes of Canucks are based on my first-hand experience living and working in Canada for 15 years. Not to mention my Canadian wife's craaaazy family. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #57

#77
Sandra, as you might expect from a reading of this piece, I agree with you about content. However, the expression "Content is King" predates the emergence of HubSpot from the primordial ooze of marketing. Bill Gates is often credited with coining the phrase in a 1996 speech, but there is a reference in Google Books that points to an earlier occurrence. From Quora: "According to the snippet quoted, the phrase did not originate in Photographer's Market, but came from the book, Magazine Editing and Production by J.W. Click and Russell N. Baird. As this entry from Worldcat indicates, the first edition of that book was published in 1974. This would suggest that the phrase "content is king" dates back to the magazine publishing industry slightly more than 40 years ago, although it probably didn't have as much popularity then until it became a popular slogan about the Internet in the 1990s...." Thank you for reading and joining the conversation. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #56

#72
Absolutely right Phil Friedman, my friend. This is one reason why you're my friend. I always highly appreciate your "No-Muzak" activities in social media and the same is true today and even tomorrow, since fractals are forever :) I am grateful to you for your help and support. However, your acerbic style seems to me a little bit too much sometimes. Maybe its my fault. There is no change in ethical attitudes on both sides, please be sure about that. "The Agony and Ecstasy of Social Media Writing" again and again... My best to you Phil too. Kindly, Milos

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #55

#67
Yes, Milos, I know that, although I don't remember you complaining about my acerbic style when a couple of years ago I publicly called out a LinkedIn junior editor for plagiarizing the title of one of your most popular and widely read posts, "The Agony and Ecstasy of Social Media Writing". Indeed, I saved the thank you note, you wrote because nobody else had taken the time or had the Chutzpah to speak publicly of the infraction. Well, I guess the shifting sands of situational ethics trip us all up from time to time. My best to you..Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #54

#67
Yes, Milos, I know that, although I don't remember you complaining about my acerbic style when a couple of years ago I publicly called out a LinkedIn junior editor for plagiarizing the title of one of your most popular and widely read posts, "The Agony and Ecstasy of Social Media writing". Indeed, I saved the thank you note, you wrote because nobody else had taken the time or had the Chutzpah to do it. Well, I guess the shifting sands of situational ethics trip us all up from time to time.!my best to you.

Jim Murray

Jim Murray

4 years ago #53

#60
Getting cynical? OMG. I've been cynical since the Vietnam War.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #52

#60
Michael, Vance Packard, "The Hidden Persuaders", an advertising business classic (1957).

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #51

#64
Thank you, Martina, for reading and joining the conversation.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #50

#66
Thank you, Phil, my friend. I always speaking only for myself.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #49

#62
Thank you, Milos, for so aptly demonstrating my point and how Passive Aggression can so quickly turn to Aggressive Passivity in the reactions of Affiliates cooperating in a very structured program of Affiliate Marketing which is expected to culminate in monetary compensation to those affiliated endorsers. See my recent article "The Rise of Aggressive Passivity". https://www.bebee.com/producer/@friedman-phil/the-rising-tide-of-aggressive-passivity As to my use of the term "Insipidipity", you know full well that I have been using it since I first coined it on LinkedIn several years ago, and that it has been part of my intermittent personal crusade against the spread of the literary equivalent of Muzak across social media, including LinkedIn and Facebook. Nobody complained when I was calling out the powers that be at LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/arrogant-control-leadership-social-media-anywhere-else-phil-friedman https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/take-your-algorithm-shove-phil-friedman Apparently, it is only now that beBee has created a corps of Affiliate Marketers, a number of whom describe themselves, in their own words as "very special and privileged members", that it has become verboten in some few minds to question the tenor and direction of this platform. When Jim Murray and I did the first interview of Javier Camara Rica about the upstart beBee, introducing the platform to our connections and followers on LinkedIn, Javier stated unequivocally that there is a place for everyone on beBee. So I infer that you are speaking only for yourself, which, of course, you are entitled to do. Note, however, that I have not denigrated anyone in particular, nor gone onto anyone else's post to express my personal opinions. I am, as well, very disappointed to find you seeking to censor what is discussed on this platform. I am comfortable with letting those who read my writings decide for themselves.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #48

"What’s the difference between description and critical analysis?" by Learnhigher on learnhigher.ac.uk - Free teaching & learning resource for staff in UK higher education: Link: http://www.learnhigher.ac.uk/learning-at-university/critical-thinking-and-reflection/whats-the-difference-between-description-and-critical-analysis/ "Critical Thinking and Reflection" section on learnhigher.ac.uk "The following resources are designed to help you assess and develop your students' critical thinking and reflection skills. All our resources are available for free educational use under a Creative Commons licence. You are welcome to link to them, use them and adapt them if necessary for your students, but please acknowledge Learnhigher as authors." - from Learnhigher (learnhigher.ac.uk) Link - "Critical Thinking and Reflection" section by Learnhigher on learnhigher.ac.uk: http://www.learnhigher.ac.uk/learning-at-university/critical-thinking-and-reflection/

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #47

#56
Michael O'Neil, please check my comment #62. Thanks.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #46

#40
#42 #44 Phil, Truth is somewhere else. There is a significant difference between the expression of a personal stance about one person ("Phil's wrath" - a witty remark by your longtime SM friend ), even if proves reality based on the previous discussion threads (the documentation is also easy) and the general characterization of unnamed members of social network (the source of "raging rivers of insipidipity") as a possible source of nonexistent "counter-wrath of the Honey Bees". The first expression is a one-to-one relationship between the two longtime acquaintances and also a tactful criticism, the second one is not. The second one is a misconstruction. Proof is this discussion, since only one remaining source of nonexistent "counter-wrath of the Honey Bees" exists here, now. If my writing and writing of some other well-meaning individuals are interpreted so, as something "as sweet as honey" or as a "raging rivers of insipidipity", then Cheers, my friend. The passion requires movements or at least a hint of hope. The moment when we all become silent is at the same time the "final moment". Critical discussion requires respect and the absence of generalization and labeling of any kind. This is the reason why only a few of us members remains active within your "provocative" posts , but not for a long, I guess. This is announcement and a shortcut for the final single-mindedness here and not elsewhere (within posts by other members - the source of "raging rivers of insipidipity"). Cheers again.

Jim Murray

Jim Murray

4 years ago #45

#55
Michael O'Neil. I agree with Phil's last comment. Persuasion is a contrived technique, I know this because I'm an ad guy. In my opinion, what we are doing is is expressing our thoughts, sometimes similar sometimes different, on a subject we alternatively choose to discuss with each other. Whatever conclusions people draw from that are their own. I learned very early on in advertising not to push too hard. We push hard but against each other with the objective of basically having a good discussion and some good clean fun. Opinions are always welcome and encouraged.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #44

#56
That is very kind of you to say, Michael. Although I am sure there are a number of readers and beBee members out there who would take exception to what you say. But as I said, I can live with that.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #43

#53
Well, Michael, I guess you could say that, in some instances, I do set out to point out what I see as an insight or a truth, and to convince people to see it as I do. I shy away from the word "persuade" because it seems to connote for me an effort that is somewhat less than open, one in which skills of subterfuge and obfuscation are in play. I concede that your way of describing my vested interest is better than my choice of words, when you say you "... can understand not being particularly attached to whether or not others are persuaded or converted, but that is quite different." My point is that I am moved to put ideas and opinions "out there" and am gratified if, when it matters, I can bring some people to see what I believe is the "truth" or the "facts". But once out there, I feel my "job" is done. As to straying from the realm of art, nothing that I write is remotely connected to art. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #42

#51
Of corse, Michael, I've been wrong. One time I thought I was wrong but then it turned out I was wrong about that. :-) Seriously, judgments of greatness in art and literature are not made by a single person, nor by vote. However, great art and literature will be recognized by a consensus over time and those judgments are usually durable. But it is very difficult, if not impossible to capture in a definition the parameters on which those judgments are made. What you can do is define greatness by example, which is a method resorted to at times when defying words as well. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #41

#48
Okay, okay, Nicole and Todd. Knock it off, or FriedMatch.com will send you a bill. :-) Seriously, though, I am pleased to count both of you among the circle of writers and readers who keep in touch with HE SAID HE SAID. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #40

#47
Michael O'Neil, please don't tell Jim, but I kinda agree with him on this. PR, marketing, and political speech writers have overt didactic objectives. And when I write for pay, I do, as well -- to get the paycheck. But when I write for fun or intellectual interchange or to keep my faculties sharp (writing requires constant practice), it really is about personal expression. In my case, being opinionated moves me to express my opinions. Take them or leave them. I don't care much. That is, I care about my opinions; I just don't care if anyone else shares them. Just for the record. Cheers!

Jim Murray

Jim Murray

4 years ago #39

#8
Michael O'Neil The question of why it matters to me is a complex one. There are a lot of reasons for it. But first and foremost is that the purpose or writing is to communicate. To get ideas into other people's heads. To stimulate their thinking. Phil actually does this better than I do, but that's really the game here. It's not about ego gratification or anything close to that. Because, speaking for myself, I would write even if it was just for the gestalt of doing it. Writers don't really intellectualize what they are doing. They are simply following a compulsion where it leads. They are trying to influence thinking but it's not like this is some conscious effort. Because at the end of the day, it's really just self-expression. The same way as an artist paints to express himself or a film make makes a film to express himself (or her) self. If somebody reads it and gets something out of it, well that's the icing on the cake.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #38

#15
Thanks, Gert, for reading and joining the conservation. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #37

#37
The term "Live Buzz" is used by me in it's proprietary or trademark meaning. It is NIT used to designate every unscripted or impromptu video discussion. I hope that clarifies the issue, Michael. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #36

#34
Milos, I don't believe anyone said or implied that it was. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #35

#35
Oh, I grant that,Michael. My remark was not a reprisal, only an invitation to reconstruct the true logic of a sequentially distorted conversation. And an acknowledgement of the potential distortion. Nothing I ever say is intended as admonishment -- well, not much, anyway. :-)

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #34

#33
Milos, one does not have to fall victim to vanity in order to speak one's mind. For me, to speak one's mind is an essential ingredient in the much talked about quality of "authenticity". True, one ought not to speak unfairly, but to speak critically is not by definition to speak unfairly. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #33

#38
no, Michael, I am not saying that. What I'm saying is that is that, for example, I or we may not be able precisely to define great music, but I CAN recognize that A, B, and C are great. There are concepts that are difficult to elucidate with any completeness, but still recognizable in their instantiation, e.g. "Heroic", "Inspiring", and so on. Cheers.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #32

#32
Milos, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion, even if denies reality. The documentation is easy. You need only read the discussion threads of any posts that question the company "narrative". What you overlook in this particular remark of mine is that it is a direct response to @David Grinberg's earlier quip about, in his exact words, "Phil's wrath". And your admonition is an example of precisely the kind of one-way bias I am talking about. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #31

#30
#33 was not "inspirational" meme.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #30

#30
The moment when we start to believe that we are influential is at the same time the final moment for our own rigorous review, reconsideration and implementation of all necessary corrections.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #29

#30
Many have built their social media image on negligence of others. This is not what is good and that is something much more important than the nonexistent "counter-wrath of the Honey Bees".

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #28

#30
Phil, This is not the way to achieve an increase in the quality. "Raging rivers of Insipidipity" was not the critical consideration. This is more like a general characterization. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #27

#24
Milos, everyone is entitled to post what they will, but that does not preclude others from rejecting or criticizing it. Indeed, I believe that the critical consideration of the community is the only check and balance that can possible be workable in digitalself-publishing. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #26

Tell people: “You are Great”, while they are “alive”. Some people are precious and worthy of remembrance and acknowledgement. Phil Friedman you are great.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #25

#23
David, since you addressed Jim on these questions, I'll leave the answers to him. I will simply say that concerning "all-live-video-all-the-time world which is beckoning...", the best thing I've read said about that is, "just because something can be done doesn't mean that it should be done." Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #24

#22
David, thank you, as always, for reading and commenting and sharing. Let's see if I can answer you without incurring the counter-wrath of the Honey Bees. 1) Engagement as a concept is meaningless unless defined. So I personally can't see how it can be king. I have been working for several months on the definition of a "coefficient of engagement" and related matters but put the piece aside for a while. I'venow taken it up again and hope to publish it in a week or so. 2) I see nothing wrong with quantity if a standard of quality is maintained. But that's a neat trick, isn't it? 3) My points about social media platform ownership and management are not just about LinkedIn. The monetarily-driven preference for quantity over quality is a malady which right now afflicts all social media platforms. This is a hard point to confirm since I have a bias not to read any platform that allows ME to publish on it. (With all due respect to Groucho.) 4) The stated mission of Medium was undermined by the arrogance of its millennial-midset-dominated editorial staff. There is a fine line between maintaining standards of literary quality and over-controlling based on personal bias. In the print magazine sector, where writers' work was paid for, absolute editorial control made sense. But when the lifeblood of the content stream is freely contributed work, I believe a prerequisite for success is to give each contributor a fair kick at the can -- which was something lacking at Medium. Without that, there cannot be organic growth. And without organic growth, editorial control tends to forget the audience. With the obvious results. 5) As to "raging rivers of Insipidipity", I think hundreds, of not thousands of "inspirational" memes per day, can reasonably be called a flood. You are entitled to your opinion, but I call 'em the way I see 'em. Thanks, David, for joining the conversation. Always a pleasure.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #23

In its essence, real influence and affectivity should be always a two-way street. On social network it is impossible to separate business from personal. They are intertwined within a complex adaptive system, such as a social network, If you have not cared for your connections (producers of "raging rivers of insipidity") in social network, it’s personal, but above all the business need. Business is personal. I support all dedicated writers (including producers of "raging rivers of insipidity"), who have not yet earned well-deserved attention. Since I'm the only one. I'll support me and all other C-butterflies. There are plenty of them and they are self-similar, although they have different colors and shapes. Mediocrity is an inherent characteristic of everyone's creations. This should not be a concern when you want to write. We are not all a lean mean writing machine and manufacturers of an "attractive content". For example, I am a specialist in a raging rivers of insipidity. Never mind.... "Why Business Is Personal And Relationships Matter" by Jenna Goudreau on businessinsider.com http://www.businessinsider.com/why-business-is-personal-and-relationships-matter-2014-3

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #22

#20
Todd, you make a good point about the primacy of the writer's talent and voice in the equation. I tend to keep my focus narrowed down when making what some people will take as outlandish claims like "content is not king". So, I focused in my remarks on content. As for Jim, it's hard to get him to focus on any one thing. That's what makes his writing so endearing. :-)

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #21

#22
"Raging rivers of insipidity", hm? I proudly say, it was related only to me: "fractal troll", since I am tasteless and insipid too. I hope that all other members are excluded (> 11.8M bees). "It is better not to write at all than to write nonsense." - M.Dj. Are you listening Milos? Milos: No... We have some member who cares about it in extremely unattractive way. I will continue with my raging rivers of insipidity and low quality content. "Rage exists even in Eden." - from "Leadership and Successful Human Conversations", LinkedIn long-form post Reductio ad absurdum.

David B. Grinberg

David B. Grinberg

4 years ago #20

Okay, Jim Murray, it's your turn for a reply. Thus, here goes: 1) Regarding video and beBee Live Buzz: it strikes me that live video streaming is the proverbial Tsunami ready to engulf social media, as trends have shown. Therefore, if nothing else, Live Buzz offers a great "proving ground" to practice, fine tune, receive feedback (including constructive criticism) and prepare for the all-live-video-all-the-time world which is beckoning. Moreover, I agree with the oft referred to 80/20 rule. To wit: I have noticed some real quality Live Buzzes, but this is a learning process with a steep curve for many bees, especially introverts who might be camera shy or have a face only a mother can love (like me). As you write, Jim: "But…this is not to say that even crap content is not without some merit. For one thing, I believe, for some, it’s a necessary part of the process. You have to crawl before you can walk. That sort of thing." 2) I agree with your sound statement: "I am a proponent of individuality, and broad sweeping generalizations like Content Is King, smack of what you [Phil] referred to recently as hive or collective mentality." 3) Agree: "...It’s also fun. I genuinely enjoy doing this. Because writers write." Yes, we do, and that's the real beauty of it.

David B. Grinberg

David B. Grinberg

4 years ago #19

Thanks for another insightful and vibrant exchange, Phil and Jim Murray. At the risk of feeling Phil's wrath, I'm going to offer a few thoughts based on your individual exchanges. First, for Phil: 1) I think engagement is king and content is queen. What's great content worth if no one engages with it? 2) I believe it's better to churn out quality rather than quantity. If you can accomplish both then more power to you (not you personally, Phil, but generally speaking -- we already know of your immense talents). 3) Good points about the "Lumpy Kingdom," as Jim affectionately calls LinkedIn. 4) "... raging rivers of" insipidity (check spelling above). Really, Phil? That's a little harsh don't you think. You're writing here and I don't consider your prolific prose to be insipid, nor that of Jim, myself, or the majority of bloggers producing honey here. Well, you might have just offended a lot of bees, but it wouldn't be the first time, nor the last (I'm guessing). LOL 5) I think beBee Producer is an excellent publishing platform for writers and readers alike. This was also the goal of Medium which has now laid off staff and decided to monetize by offering premium services. What a shocker (LOL).

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #18

#19
Thank you, Franci, for joining the conversation. I think you and I are agreed pretty much on the importance of being stimulated by content, whether that is to ponder, laugh, or simply smile. Cheers!

Franci 🐝Eugenia Hoffman, beBee Brand Ambassador

Content is in the eye of the beholder, IMO. If I like the content, I move on to the quality and style of the piece. If all three are to my liking, I take the time to read it. Perhaps, what I am looking for in a piece is substance, as Phil has mentioned. I enjoy and to use Phil's statement "Whether content stimulates depends on whether or not it has substance, that is, whether it embodies some measure of meaning, interest, amusement, or other intrinsic value." I want to be entertained and feel like I have filled my mind with something of value. I follow this particular series because it's interesting, it has substance and it has style. I favor another writer on LI for the same reason. I totally agree with Robert Cormack about professionalism and a product should go out as a finished product and not a work in progress.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #16

#17
Thank you, Robert, for making that point. And for confirming my anticipation of how, as a professional writer, you would feel about publishing, in effect, a first draft. Cheers!

Robert Cormack

Robert Cormack

4 years ago #15

Excellent point, @Phil Friedman, about live buzzes. The last thing writers like me want is no editorial control (meaning I can't go back and shut myself up). I think what makes some social media sites better than others is sheer professionalism. This is a product and it should go out as a finished product—not a work-in-progress.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #14

#11
You are welcome Phil, This was not kindness, rather my perception of truth about series. Numerous participants, including inspired authors, are important since they are making a difference between content only and a knowledge shaping. A unifying framework for thinking about processes related to the knowledge shaping and sharing in social media. Work in progress.

Gert Scholtz

Gert Scholtz

4 years ago #13

Phil Friedman I enjoyed reading this post - thank you. From Jim the line that sticks out to me is: "I consider the blogging that I do, a) A gestalt that keeps my blood pressure under control, b) A bit of a PR tool, and c) Potential chapters for my next book, whatever that turns out to be. It’s also fun. I genuinely enjoy doing this. Because writers write." From Phil, the part that says it best to me is: "Whether content stimulates depends on whether or not it has substance, that is, whether it embodies some measure of meaning, interest, amusement, or other intrinsic value." O yes, I learned a new word too - contretemps - which is why I read He Said... He Said.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #12

#12
Yes, Milos, some of believe in conversing with, not simply talking AT each other. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #11

#5
Thank you, Heenay, for reading and commenting. I understand, I think what you're saying. But I am not saying that content is not important, but rather that the quality of the content is all-important. Cheers!

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #10

#9
Some of us tend to practice this "ancient art" (intellectual exchange) in social media for years, albeit with partial success :)

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #9

#6
Thank you, Milos, for the kind words. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #8

#4
Milos > "A great article is an article that faithfully conveys ideas and carries with it an interesting story and messages from writer to the curious reader. " Yep! You reading this, Michael O'Neil? It answers some of your questions. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #7

#8
Michael, first of all, like Jim, I write because that's what I do. Although I do other things as well -- particularly, when it comes to making a living. When I write, do I seek response and engagement? Of course. Because that is why I publish on social media. It gives me the opportunity to interface with people around the world, some of whom are quite interesting and bright. And I make no apologies. for that. As to what has substance and what doesn't, as far as I'm concerned it speaks for itself. There are many things related to judgment that we cannot precisely define, but we still recognize instances when we see them. In art, some of Van Gogh's work, Michaelangelo's murals in the Sistene Chapel... I could go on. We also recognize writing of substance. I am not so much concerned to define or recognize substance, but to remind my readers of the distinction. Finally, the question "Why does it matter so much to you?" is easily answered. It matters because it does. Some things matter to me, and some things don't. Just as I like certain foods, and not others. I personally happen to believe in the value of intellectual exchange. Cheers!

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #6

#3
Thanks, Pascal, I agree with you about me being right. :-)

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #5

"He Said He Said" series by Phil Friedman provides knowledge. Content by itself is not knowledge per se.

Milos Djukic

Milos Djukic

4 years ago #4

Knowledge is king which provides substance. Only then strong personal and business relationships are easily achievable goals, if a person is not pretentious. Everything we have ever written in social media represents personal signature and it is also an integral part of our social reputation. The border is thin between blatant self-promotion and useful new "content" that pertaining to a specific topic. A great article is an article that faithfully conveys ideas and carries with it an interesting story and messages from writer to the curious reader. There are really a limited number of fertile authors whose articles retain high quality during prolonged time. I write out of my profession only when I have inspiration. It makes me feel extra fulfilled. The most important is an exchange of knowledge, but also some inner thoughts and longing. I don't ever write by dictate or with a particular large audience in mind. I also see that I am a lazy writer. Never mind, interesting topics are not undiscovered. For my taste there is too much repetition. With an experience, we gain the ability to recognize someone's knowledge, even if it is not from our professional field. I find that the only way to find a balance is to achieve first "balance" between results in the real life (business and our profession) and business - professional - engagement results in social media and networks. Finally, content is not king. "Content is king" is the mantra that provides that social media gives benefits mostly to the owners of these media and to selected contents (authors). This is the reason for the existence of algorithms.

Pascal Derrien

Pascal Derrien

4 years ago #3

Pretty good stuff, sorry Jim I think I am with Phil on that one, I don't do videos and I skip almost every pep talk posts now that leaves me with some time to read the good stuff and there are quite a few of them... :-) like He Said He Said for example :-)

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #2

Mentioned in this post: Robert Cormack.

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #1

Hey, Jim Murray, HE SAID HE SAID No.27 has been published.