Michael Wu, Ph.D. is Lithium's Principal Scientist of Analytics, digging into the complex dynamics of social interaction and group behavior in online communities and social networks.
Mi...
Updated 6 months ago
Version 14.0
Blog Post
Michael,
Great analysis. There is only one point I am not sure I completely agree with.
You mention "If we use them [social technologies] in addition to F2F engagement, then they can definitely help us build stronger relationships. If we use them as a replacement to F2F, and since socializing through social technologies is less efficient than F2F interaction, we would end up with a weaker relationship" == totally agree based on our previous conversations.
However, in your #2 scenario They would NOT be able to attend if it was an IRL event, due to distance, conflicts, or whatever reason it may be, you say for these people the virtual summit is an addition to the F2F engagement. This is where my contention is. I think for these folks the virtual is a replacement and not an addition - as they would not have attended a F2F anyway.
Also, by saying #2 is an 'addition to' are we not coming out with contradictory results?
Previous concl: Social tech "in addition" to F2F creates stronger relationship.
Current concl: We are only creating some relationship (& therefore weak) with folks who are using social tech "in additon" to F2F (scenario #2).
I love the idea of your survey and I think it would benefit to break it into one more category.
Great analysis. There is only one point I am not sure I completely agree with.
You mention "If we use them [social technologies] in addition to F2F engagement, then they can definitely help us build stronger relationships. If we use them as a replacement to F2F, and since socializing through social technologies is less efficient than F2F interaction, we would end up with a weaker relationship" == totally agree based on our previous conversations.
However, in your #2 scenario They would NOT be able to attend if it was an IRL event, due to distance, conflicts, or whatever reason it may be, you say for these people the virtual summit is an addition to the F2F engagement. This is where my contention is. I think for these folks the virtual is a replacement and not an addition - as they would not have attended a F2F anyway.
Also, by saying #2 is an 'addition to' are we not coming out with contradictory results?
Previous concl: Social tech "in addition" to F2F creates stronger relationship.
Current concl: We are only creating some relationship (& therefore weak) with folks who are using social tech "in additon" to F2F (scenario #2).
I love the idea of your survey and I think it would benefit to break it into one more category.
- 1. Folks who can & would have attended the IRL if it were available
- 2. Folks who can but would not attend the IRL but opt for the Virtual
- 3. Folks who cannot attend the IRL but would attend the Virtual
The interesting thing to see would be how many cross-over from #1 above to #2. In other words, by offering virtual how many relationships are you potentially pushing away (by giving them a choice).
Anyway, just some thoughts. Interesting read as always - and love these academic jabs with you :-)
Regards,
Ned