I have been interested in social media / web 2.0 long before there were fancy names affixed to the use of technology to bring people together in an attempt to encourage participation, collaboration and to share content, opinions, insights, experiences, perspectives, and media. That’s not to say that I had any foresight into just how big it would become or realized it’s true potential, rather I simply knew it was an important phenomena but couldn’t put my finger on whether it was simply a fad as so many things related to the internet have been or a lasting trend that would ingrain itself into the fabric of our culture and society.

However, now that we have seen the entire social media movement mature, grow and move beyond something that is more than just a flash in the pan over the past few years, I am still struck by how little people know and understand about it holistically. It’s more than just about killer web apps (MySpace, Facebook, flickr, Twitter, Del.icio.us, etc.), bringing people together and catchy buzzwords, and many people seem to have a difficult time getting their heads around the idea as an aggregate. It also seems like the buzz surrounding the idea hasn’t subsided either as individuals, organizations and associations are now, more than ever, looking to leverage some or all aspects of social media to create more unique, lasting, and valuable interactions with other individuals, customers and members.

As such, it’s often useful to revisit some of the basics just to keep things in perspective. As I was cleaning out my feed reader, I happen to come across a blog post that does a good job of focusing on the essentials. It was written almost a year ago and discusses the habits of highly effective Web 2.0 sites. Granted, it is written with more of a technical bent, but at the same time it does provide a solid list of attributes that are really essential to creating relationships as opposed to conducting transactions.

• Ease of Use is the most important feature of any Web site, Web application, or program.
• Open up your data as much possible. There is no future in hoarding data, only controlling it.
• Aggressively add feedback loops to everything. Pull out the loops that don’t seem to matter and emphasize the ones that give results.
• Continuous release cycles. The bigger the release, the more unwieldy it becomes (more dependencies, more planning, more disruption.) Organic growth is the most powerful, adaptive, and resilient.
• Make your users part of your software.They are your most valuable source of content, feedback, and passion. Start understanding social architecture. Give up non-essential control. Or your users will likely go elsewhere.
• Turn your applications into platforms. An application usually has a single predetermined use while a platform is designed to be the foundation of something much bigger. Instead of getting a single type of use from your software and data, you might get hundreds or even thousands of additional uses.
• Don’t create social communities just to have them.They aren’t a checklist item. But do empower inspired users to create them.

As I read through the article, and specifically this list, I couldn’t help but see some similarities between it and what Jeff De Cagna proposed in the August 2007 Associations Now article The Ungovernance Model. Specifically, I believe there are commonalities in the following areas: simplicity of activities, distributed accountability/responsibility, and diversity of thought.

The name of the game is convergence and change. There are lots of examples and lessons that exist in seemingly unrelated areas that we can learn from and not only to how we think about governance, but also how we do just about anything with/for our associations. The key is to be on the look-out for them, even in the most unlikely places.

Web 2.0 is more than just technology empowering people, it’s about challenging conventional thinking and long-held beliefs. It’s also about identifying and creating value for stakeholder groups and getting and holding their attention. This shift is forcing organizations/associations and individuals to take a good hard look at what they are doing and why they are doing it. Status quo, as much as it has worked in the past and may still be working today, may no longer be enough.

I am not trying to make any sort of intellectual leap in comparing this information to Jeff’s article on Ungovernance. They are obviously two separate topics that happen to share a few common themes. And much as Jeff’s article was simply a starting point, so too are the principles listed above. The question is: are you (or your association) ready to take a good look at what is happening around you and react in a way that might be different than the way you are operating today? Are you willing to embrace change or rise to the challenge of thinking in a new way? Chances are, if you aren’t someone or some other organization or association is.

One of the biggest stigmas that social media has been, and continues to, contend with is the fact that it’s a time sink and harmful to productivity. Ben Martin shared an article with me a few days ago (Facebook surfers cost their bosses billions) that related the findings of a study of Facebook users within Australia. The authors findings: Facebook users who keep a close watch on their profile page were responsible for costing their employers approximately $4 billion USD a year. From the report:

“Facebook is shaping up as every boss’ nightmare as the social networking Web site urges its members to hook up with workmates online. That means millions of corporate dollars could be lost as workers manage their online social life via Facebook, rather than being productive in front of the screen.”

Based on the dollar amount alone, this is a startling and staggering revelation, but I believe it’s misleading and not entirely accurate. Additionally, studies and finding like these only make it harder for the productivity, community and communication enhancing effects of social media tools and technologies to be demonstrated and validated. This in turn makes it rather difficult to suggest or adopt technologies within organizations because public opinion is obviously clearly divided.

In a recent posting titled: “Facebook Is Not a Waste of Worktime” on the Digital Edge blog Beth Lawton seemed to echo very similar sentiments in defending the merit and value of social media technology in the digital media field. In constructing her argument she cited reasons such as (I created the categories, her thoughts are quoted):

• Know Thy Users: “As a newspaper online editor (or any digital media exec), you should be looking at these sites to figure out why everyone is playing with these sites.”
• Diversify Your Approach: “you may want to find out how you can either Work with the sites’ capabilities or partnership programs to get your content in front of your target audience or incorporate some of the cool elements from these sites and networks into your own digital media outlet.”
• Know Thy Competitors: “especially with Facebook platform, a ton of publications, digital media outlets and companies are working to gain access to consumers in creative ways.”
• Network, Network, Network: “Digital media groups, alumni groups, localized industry groups, etc.

Beth finishes her thoughts with the following statement:

“if you work in digital media and you are not “wasting” time on Facebook, MySpace and other Web 2.0 outlets – where your content consumers, potential content consumers and other digital media people are spending their time – you should be there.”

In looking at this from an Association perspective, I couldn’t agree more. In fact, I’d be willing to go so far as to suggest removing digital media from the statements above and filling in your own association or industry/field/etc. that your association is trying to serve.

Bottom line: you need to be where your members are, and understand where your members go in order to serve them effectively and provide them as much value as possible. If you are not, they will either go and do it themselves or go and find it somewhere else. In either case its the association who loses out, not the individual. Social media is a great connector, and while not without its faults, does have many more positives than negatives. Lets start to try to highlight it’s strengths so others can learn from our successes while we also take a close look on it’s weaknesses so we can figure out how to fix/correct them. Saying that social media is a waste of time is the easy way out…it’s just lazy.

I’ve had a number of conversations over the course of the past week and a half regarding tools or applications that can be used to create online communities or team sites that are functionally robust but easy for the members/participants as well as those administering them. I would generally point people to a list of the usual suspects such as Ning, and LinkedIn largely because they are well known, easy to use, and familiar names to many people. However, a few weeks ago, after completing the first week of the four-year U.S. Chamber of Commerce IOM program and becoming very close to my classmates, I wanted to create a place where my colleagues from the IOM class could collaborate.

As I thought through the aforementioned list of tools and also considered Yahoo! Groups and Google Groups none of them, presented the right mix of functionality and usability that I was looking for from an administrative and end-user perspective. What I really wanted for was a tool or service that allowed me to create a closed community site and combined the threaded discussions of a typical forum, group calendaring, the ability to share photos, links and files, and some aspects of the popular social networking sites in an affordable, semi-customizable and easy-to-use package. A tall order no doubt, but it was with those features in mind that I began my search.

A quick Google search yielded a lot of results, some relevant, some not, but one link looked promising: Groupsites by Collective X which offered “free private or public Groupsite(s) for sharing and keeping your group connected.” Intrigued, I decided to explore the offering a bit further and was really excited with what I had found. The product tour was very revealing and based on my shortlist above I felt relative assured that I had found what I was looking for. The video below effectively provides a really good introduction to the service.

What I found really attractive was the fact that the service is feature rich (it doesn’t have everything that I would want, but it’s not bloated either), and that the basic service is free. The company charges additional fees for additional storage, advertising removal, etc. It even has an option for large organizations allowing them to pay a yearly license fee to create multiple networks. For some additional insight into the product take a look at Mike Arrington’s Tech Crunch write up on the today’s official launch of the Groupsite service and some additional details along with some insightful discussion in the comment threads.

It’s pretty obvious that the service has a number of strengths and very few weaknesses. Yet it might not appeal to all, it will all depend on your needs. However, if you are considering setting up a community site and want a flexible service with strong support then I suggest taking a good look at the CollectiveX Groupsites. I am really happy with the service as are my colleagues who are participating in the community. In closing, here is a look at the site I set-up.