Why a “business out front, party in the back” strategy may help you better leverage your online community. Also: Terminology matters when you describe your content leaders at events.
It’s great to have a presence on a big social network. It shows you mean business.
But when you want your community to really get into it, it definitely helps to have a place to let it all hang out. You know, like a mullet.
Read about how that works in today’s Social Media Roundup:
Party in the Back
We talk a lot about why communities are so valuable and why a private online community is worth much more than a public one.
But one guy on the front lines of the discussion, Online Community Results‘ Ben Martin, tells Aptify’s Bryan Kelly that there’s room for both. In Kelly’s latest interview in his Association Mavens video series (shown above), Martin tells him that the best strategy is to get your front-facing social networks to work in tandem with your closed communities. He compares his strategy to inviting people to a party:
So I’ll use Facebook to say, “Hey, there’s a cool conversation happening right now on my community on budgeting. Bob had a great post about it. Click here to read it.” And I’d draw them back into my community. So I use those as my outpost, as kind of like the party invitations, if you will. So it’s important to not just abandon those. You have to use those to keep people coming into your community, but in a nutshell those are the reasons that we recommend having an online community in addition to your public-facing social media efforts.
In other words, having a multitiered, mulletlike strategy will ensure you’re reaching members from all angles. Watch the video above for more insights on online community management, and check out the full transcript on Kelly’s site.
More Than Speaking
— Greg Ruby (@GregRuby) May 5, 2014
Adrian Segar goes to a lot of events. He’s a total pro at it, and the Conferences That Work author puts a lot of effort into engaging his audience. But there’s a little issue of nomenclature.
The word “speaker” often follows Segar’s name at conferences, but he says a big part of his job involves interacting with the audience—whether he has 25 minutes or 60. There’s a reason for that, he explains.
“People cannot listen and simultaneously think effectively about what they’re hearing or seeing,” he writes on his blog. “We need quiet time to reflect on what we have just heard and seen; time to think about what it means, how we understand it, whether we agree with it, and so on. We also greatly benefit from doing this reflective work with other people as we are then exposed to different interpretations, new points of view, additional relevant experiences, and so on.”
Segar suggests “presenter” or “facilitator” might be a better term for his work—though, really, he hopes that conference planners think hard about the word they use to describe people who lead sessions. Some good food for thought. (ht @GregRuby)
Let’s turn the question back on you: Do you think the term we use to describe session leaders matters? Offer your take in the comments.