Mark W. Schaefer’s {Grow} blog carries an interview with Web. 2.o critic Amanda Chapel this week that asks whether the acerbic commenter is still relevant. I believe Amanda remains most relevant. The rivers of Kool-Aid flowing in social media need to be dammed (and damned) and few of us consistently do so.
I’m grateful that Amanda included me in her list of “critical thinkers” along with Kent State prof Bill Sledzik, Ike Pigott, Joel Postman and Mark; that’s high praise from an important voice.
Look, I’m a committed capitalist, so I don’t begrudge anyone from making money, in particular, people who are early adopters and make the personal investment needed to stay just ahead of the crest of a wave. A bunch of people have done so, and are making a terrific living at it.
Some of those people don’t have anything but an expertise at sales and a gift for jargon to qualify them, and that’s a big problem in social media. Consider that we don’t even have licensing for mainstream PR and marketing — and think about how much really bad advice organizations get from those professions.”
At least in PR and Marketing there are longstanding professional associations with codes of ethics, increasingly strong academic and theoretical foundations, and a body of research-based knowledge (Cutlip, Center, Broom, 10th ed., p 120) that qualify us as members of a profession. This is despite our many weaknesses, including the presence of our own charletons.
Social media isn’t even there yet, and it needs to get there soon in order to separate the wheat from the chaff. Despite worthy efforts from Institute for PR Measurement Commission colleagues Katie Paine, Don Bartholomew and a few others, we’re still working on how best to measure social media effectiveness beyond output metrics.
We need Amanda to continue to call out snake oil salespeople, foggy logic, asinine commentary and the real danger of a lost of authoritative, professional conduct in such a fast growing area of communication practice. That she does so with wit, style and occasional vulgarity keeps the stew from being too bland.
So, count on me not only to declare Amanda relevant, but for vote #3 for the return of Strumpette — 140 characters at a time isn’t enough space.
As for “her” anonymity — I have been of two minds about it, both “yea” and “nay,” especially following my rather “eventful” introduction to Amanda last year. But in the end, I don’t think it affects credibility at all and it offers the freedom to focus on the message rather than its sender.
Finally, skepticism is not negativity, as I asserted last June. We surely are not lemmings, powerless in the thrall of the “wisdom” of the crowds, are we?
Tags: @commammo, Communication AMMO, communication messages, effective communication, evaluation, PR measurement, Public Relations, Research, Social Media, Twitter
Some people want to be lemmings. Because it’s easy. You get to belong to a group that is going places, and all you have to do is run where the leaders tell you and jump at the right time.
If you stop and ask “Why?”, you’ll never get anywhere.
Ike, thanks for stopping in at the “Why?” Cafe.
I guess I’m never going to get anywhere…
Are you ready. Wait for it now… But Amanda is so, so mean! Boo-hoo!
Yep. She’s a bully who throws sand in the face of SM’s leaders. She mocks. She insults. But she makes you think — and if you don’t take this stuff too seriously — she also makes you laugh.
I still miss Stumpette outstanding satire and crisp writing. Amanda’s tweets, while clever, just aren’t the same. When she shut down the blog, she broke my heart.
For old times sake, I invite your readers to enjoy “One PR Man’s Love Affair With Amanda Chapel.” http://bit.ly/6dedd