The vast majority of info that is published on socialNet platforms is not original.
Most content takes one of 3 main forms:
- the Re-Post
- the Pointer
- the Hook
Here’s a Map of how I see the cross-pollination of my stuff (circa 2014) in an article titled “Why Are We Here?” It’s messy, but it proposes that an article can be on multiple platforms at the same time. It lays the basis for cross-pollination.
The Re-Post is the most original of the 3.
Since I wasn’t yet a member of any socialNet publishing platform – we’re talking about a loooong time ago – I first published the article on my own website.
Later, when I joined my first professional socialNet (LinkedIn) in the mid-2000’s, I re-published it as an article there.
The SocialNet Glitch
Proud as I was of it, I pointed to the article (“shared” it) in several different Professional Groups on LinkedIn because I felt that it was relevant to each of them.
Aside: I soon discovered that I couldn’t point to (share) my own LinkedIn article in multiple Professional Groups without being punished. If I tried to do so, I would be “moderated” by LinkedIn’s automated dumbots: I was quarantined from any further contribution to anything on LinkedIn … for an undefined period of time. This LinkedIn policy was (and remains) stupid on many levels. It was one of the reasons that many of LI’s finest contributors deserted it for beBee, where they now use their rhetorical skills to trash LI.
Aside+ : Not that beBee is all that much of an improvement. beBee prevents you from sharing your article with more than 3 Groups, no matter how relevant. Maybe you can get around it – but you must game the system in order to do so. Still – at least beBee doesn’t punish you.
Back to the thread:
So I’ve created a decent piece of writing & thinking. I’ve shared it, again and again, in many places and possibly over the course of years. It’s evolved. It’s been influenced by events, by my own experience, by interactions with others and their thoughts about it (the Role of the Comment is a whole ‘nother rant).
Is my article ‘original to’ (i.e. created specifically for) the current publishing platform? There’s a good chance that it’s not. The question is: So what?
the point is: It’s original Work
The Pointer is the least original of the 3.
In any case, the motivation is still the same: “I liked it. I want to share it.”
Here’s another attribute: I didn’t create it.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with a Pointer. It’s the easiest way to share.
But it’s not original – and required no effort.
The Hook is sorta in-between.
I want you to see what I’m talking about, even though I’m too efficient/lazy to re-write the whole thing myself. So my “pointer” also has a hook to that article … as a reference. I want you to see what I’ve got to say … and I want you to see it in context.
If the author, source, or topic of the referenced piece is well known – then it’s likelier that you’ll take a look at my silly-assed opinion.
It gets your attention – for my original message
To reiterate: There’s nothing inherently wrong with pointing. But – if you don’t identify what you’re doing – they can create noise in the form of mis-representation
… and the result is distrust of the channel.
LinkedIn lost its soul by refusing to support its Groups. Groups were the source of professional-grade Content and were the basis for LI’s success as a ‘professional socialNet’. The only valued role is ‘influencer’.
beBee sacrifices its integrity as a ‘professional socialNet’ wanna-bee at the altar of Marketing. Although it rewards some contributors with equity – this applies only to sponsored spokespersons whose role is cheer-leading.
Neither business rewards producers for … actually producing original, quality content.
Content without Marketing is just music. Marketing without Content is just noise.
(c) copyright John Vaughan / The Communication Studio