Bill — it’s a bit like ordering a filet of elephant sandwich. They won’t start a whole elephant for just one sandwich (buh-dum BUM). Symmetry, with its demand for mutual change (as distinct from two-way) is awfully difficult in a mainstream media-centric world. Social media should present the opportunity to have influence run both ways, and for all I know, it’s doing so in some fashion.

Mark — Definitely the user’s perspective would support that dual purpose, point taken. And maybe that’s the reality. I’ll have my nose to the Tweet stream (at least a little piece of it) in an effort to find out. I suspect that for every @Comcastcares there’s a @VerizonWireless.

Neicole — I remember your “conversation” post well, and for that matter, the other one you reference. It reminds me of the Dennis Leary ads for IBM in the 90′s — the ones where a grandma and a little kid tout their skill with PCs and Leary gives the, “yeah, yeah, whatever, get outa the way, there’s work to be done.” Growing up isn’t easy – and someone takes away your toys.

Everyone, thanks again for taking the time to comment.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by CommAMMO: http://bit.ly/5K08YK I’m marinated in PR Theory, and wondering which apply most to social media. Weigh in, please. #li…

Also, as I blogged about in another post, Social Media Marketing Needs to Grow Up, (http://bit.ly/cK17l) I think that as the various networks become more mainstream and take on changing demographics, and as more and more varied types of businesses flock to social media, you necessarily see changes in the way social media is used. Although younger generations do participate more in conversations, etc., there are significant numbers of people who remain observers, rather than active participants. They are receiving messages. Marketers need to keep that firmly in mind, and not expect nor build their campaigns to require interaction/conversation as the main measure.

I’d love to see the results of your study. I think this area can use more focused research and analysis, rather than relying on inference from other studies.

I’ve long argued that the “relationship” concept preached in social media (especially by the authors of Cluetrain) is an old idea wrapped in new technology. Anyone who’s studied the theories guiding PR will see that the concepts of symmetrical PR and Excellence mirror Cluetrain’s “markets as conversations” idea.

I made these comparisons in two professional presentations, which eventually led to a post titled “Symmetrical PR Meets the Cluetrain Manifesto.”
http://bit.ly/7B18h1

In our academic PR world, symmetrical practice is the reigning paradigm. But like you, I don’t see the transfer to practice, even on SM platforms like Twitter. While conversations are ongoing, Twitter is full of companies and individuals tweeting to establish their brands. But is that a bad thing? Starbucks sells a lot of coffee because of its efforts in social media, and Dell moves a good many computers. I don’t follow either company, because Starbucks still burns its beans and — well, I’m a Mac guy. But that’s my choice.

On the individual side, I might not have seen your post today had you not promoted it with a tweet. I follow you because I’m interested in your ideas, and that often leads to conversation — though usually not one confined by 140c.

So to your question: Twitter is part one-way, part two-way. Just like real-life PR! In fact, if you subscribe to Grunig’s “4 Models” of PR, you’ll find each of them playing out in social media every day. Those who don’t like it may unfollow — or even block the “offenders.”

BTW, my post on the “4 Models” has drawn more than 10,000 visits in the 16 months since I posted it, so people are interested in this stuff. http://bit.ly/ZDmZj

Disclosure: I was the one responsible for luring Sean to Kent State’s adjunct faculty. Read this blog and you’ll understand why.