Update 2015-01-17: WEF Davos 2016: Top 100 CEO bloggers
Social media has been around for a while. Yes, various social network platforms have come and gone, like Bebo. Founded in 2006 to compete with Facebook, it was relaunched in December 2014, but has not really been heard from since.
Is social media for breakfast pictures or milestones?
Seems like a valid question, but this is also a time of growing digital fatigue.
We can share anything online. Unfortunately, this takes away opportunities for having a real conversation with a real person.
How does WEF Davos cope with its fans’ digital fatigue? Yes, WEF Davos continues to tweet furiously and madly update Facebook.
BUT, is anybody listening; do you care? We investigated this a bit further. See also:
We all know that one of most CEOs’ undoubted skills is burnishing their own profile
For starters, the World Economic Forum provides CEOs a great podium to push their pet projects.
For instance, in 2015 Eric Schmidt talked about his Google Search and #endtrafficking project. But just like the Google Flu Trends and earthquake monitoring fads, Mr Schmidt has now moved on from #endtrafficking.
Last year, Marissa Mayer from Yahoo even managed to curate an image as a fashionista, hanging out with Anna Wintour, the editor of American Vogue. Anna Wintour is definitely not in Davos this year. Marissa Mayer might make it to Davos, unless she is ousted by her board of directors beforehand.
But how well does WEF Davos foster dialogue? Does it go beyond those attending?
1. Houston, we have a problem
Klaus Schwab states in interviews that WEF Davos’ strength lies in bringing together varying opinions. In turn, he feels that one also needs to listen to those with different opinions.
With social media, this means you must monitor your blog’s commenting system carefully. While any comment should be reviewed before being published to avoid spam, this work should be done quickly.
Incidentally, WEF Davos rarely if ever gets a blog comment. This would suggest that its resonance with the public (i.e. readers) and delegates is not that wonderful. In such a situation we must monitor comments carefully, release them in a timely fashion, and most importantly, answer the questions raised by our readers.
But as the example below shows, there seems to be a bug in the system, which fails to publish reader input. The comment was left here: WEF provides the hashtags
[su_custom_gallery source=”media: 1294″ limit=”7″ link=”image” target=”blank” width=”530px” height=”750px” Title=”If you do not publish the few comments you get, are you engaging in the conversation or still following Web 1.0 = broadcasting?” alt=”If you do not publish the few comments you get, are you engaging in the conversation or still following Web 1.0 = broadcasting?”]
Mr Schwab talks about engaging and dialoguing often. I am pretty certain that he is very serious about this. Unfortunately, his social media and content marketing staff seem to fail him.
But DrKPI is ready to come to their rescue if they would just ask. Besides, this entry shows that WEF is failing the engagement challenge, but its staff seem to know that better than anyone else. That is to say, whenever they talk about their social media efforts, you would think everything is just peachy-keen.
Of course, arrogance or too much self-confidence is probably a form of ignorance… or vice versa?
Whatever it is, Davos 2016 must do better in this regard. Otherwise, the attention it gets through traditional media will not be carried further by the people – an important factor in getting things done after the meeting closes.
[su_box title=”3 things we learned from WEF Davos about Social Media” box_color=”#86bac5″ title_color=”#ffffff” radius=”5″ width=”px 700″ ]
When these three things happen, be quick and fix the problem – or face the consequences. Whatever you do, DON’T continue in the same vein!
1. Comment ended up in the spam inbox and got lost, deleted or whatever: Possibly an explanation, BUT not an excuse!
2. You just ignore the comment: If you want dialogue, this is a non-starter!
3. You delete the comment: A HUGE no-no if you listen to Klaus Schwab, who wants to foster dialogue and have different opinions be heard!
Whatever the reason, none of the above is excusable. Surely, it stops any conversation from ever starting.
Experience: I left a comment (see above). It is still in the list of ‘to be moderated’ comments on the Disqus platform, which is what WEF uses.
Of course, any true blogger could have told the WEF folks, as I did a while back, that using Disqus is not a great move. That is, if you want to foster more dialogue.
But WEF probably does not know any better.
2. We all make mistakes, but failing to learn is plain stupid
For the last eight to ten years, experts have pointed out that in Web 2.0, broadcasting is out. Instead, engagement with your fans, clients, enemies, and so forth, is in.
“Mastering the Fourth Industrial Revolution” is the theme for WEF Davos 2016, in addition to other interesting and very important topics. The WEF has used social media extensively for quite a few years.
But has WEF continued fine-tuning its social media use effectively?
I began monitoring these efforts in 2008. They were quite good then, and got better by 2011, but since…
Do we have dialogue here? Or is WEF Davos 2016 once again following the classic broadcasting model?
Tweet updates come fast and furious, you can barely keep up. Over the months leading up to this year’s meeting, no dialogue has happened. Neither on its blog about Davos, nor any other channel.
Is this how one overcomes the audience’s possible social media fatigue to foster engagement?
[su_custom_gallery source=”media: 2960″ limit=”7″ link=”image” target=”blank” width=”780px” height=”766px” Title=”#WEF #WEFdavos Why talk is cheap. #bigfail: Plenty of broadcasting but ZERO dialogue with and engagement from readers and attendees” alt=”#WEF #WEFdavos Why talk is cheap. #bigfail, plenty of broadcasting but ZERO dialogue with and engagement from readers and attendees”]
We are barely a week out from WEF Davos 2016. Unfortunately, people are not discussing the event. “How can that be?” I ask. Or is the theme too abstract and buzzword like for many of us?
Mind you, cities with few or no cars will certainly look very different from what we experience now, no matter what city we find ourselves in. So the theme chosen by the WEF Davos 2016 organisers seems an important one and timely as well.
So why such paltry resonance on its blogs and social networks? What might be going wrong?
[su_box title=”WEF Davos 2016: 3 simple checks that show the problem” box_color=”#86bac5″ title_color=”#ffffff” radius=”5″ width=”px 700″ ]
It is not what you show or want me to believe (also called impression management). Instead the focus is on what you do. For instance:
– How well does WEF Davos manage to engage its readers on its blogs? Check: Reader Comments.
– Do your moderators do a good job and release the comments? Check: Cases I know – NOPE not done well.
– Do content authors / posters write replies that give readers added value? Maybe, but we cannot find ONE REPLY!
Incidentally, WEF Davos rarely if ever gets a blog comment. This would suggest that its resonance with the public (i.e. readers) and delegates is not that wonderful.
What do you think is the reason for this?
Does no one care?
Davos 2015 had a set of hashtags. For Davos 2016, 10 days before the event I still could not find a blog entry on WEF telling me what to use. Seems unfortunate.
What is your take?
– What do you do to fight the possible social media fatigue of your target audience?
– What would you recommend WEF Davos do to foster greater engagement on their conference blog?
– How do you deal with this data deluge from Davos via Facebook and Twitter accounts?
– What would you recommend to a novice (ropes to skip)?
Incidentally, if you look at the tweets this last weekend (January 9 and 10, 2016) and WEF’s Twitter account, there is no apparent strategy regarding content or getting people hyped for WEF Davos 2016. What is going on, is a robot posting? Just watching the updates go by makes me feel dizzy.