While Facebooking yesterday, I remembered there’s a reason one-way friendships rarely last. The friend who always calls the other and listens patiently usually loses interest when he or she doesn’t feel the relationship is reciprocal anymore. (And does the other friend ever figure that out?)
I’m a FB fan of some great healthcare organizations. I check in often to see what they’re up to, and they always fill me in on their latest news. I love to hear it and comment to find out more. But some groups don’t allow fans to post comments. There seems to be little or no real dialogue.
It reminds me of folks on Twitter who follow you, but then block their own updates until they approve you. It’s like a virtual “talk to the hand.”
Isn’t that missing the point of social media? Isn’t it about sharing and connecting with people more than ever before?
One-way relationships lead me to think the organization doesn’t really care about its fans – or they’re trying to control the conversation – or both.
Hopefully, that’s not the case. No one wants to push off the same relationships they’re trying to build. Sure, there’s always risk in opening up, but aren’t the rewards worth it?
Tags: Facebook, healthcare marketing, hospital marketing, hospitals, marketing, social media, Twitter
December 23, 2009 at 6:09 pm |
Thanks for the comment! I’m referring to people who may follow you, but lock their own feed from potential followers – pending individual approval (if you’re worthy). That’s not sharing. IF you get an unwanted follower (i.e. spam or AC), THEN you can block them. Big difference, I think, in the first impression.
December 23, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
Some people use the “block” feature on Twitter to prevent tweets from spammers and adult content distributors, not as a “virtual talk to the hand” manuever.