The Business of “Pay to Play” in Social Media and Diversity

As participation in social media accelerates and evolves, debate over its impact on business practices from hiring to marketing has accelerated. Both the meaning and the use of numbers such as “followers” and “likes” face scrutiny as technology enables inflating the figures, much like an oldfashioned fudged resume. Improper manipulation can hinder the potential benefit of the tools, especially in the field of diversity.

A drive for high numbers can lead to purchase of followers or excessive reciprocal support among a diversity-lacking in-group. Human resources departments who consider the numbers, for example, may not be aware of ways to evaluate them.

It brings into question the purpose of social media. For some of us, social media is about connection, it’s about research, it’s about learning a new language, it’s about connecting to issues that are important globally.

When we start to look at people’s numbers and how many followers they have and start to use that without really reflecting or questioning that, we miss the point. The question for me is as we move forward in the social media age, are we going to value number of followers or likes in the same way we have? If we are going to value that, are we going to ask ourselves important questions like ‘does the person buy the followers? Is the person or company doing their own social media? What’s the purpose?’ When I look at Twitter accounts, there are people who never reach out to other people. They’re selling their own products or promoting their own posts, which is great. That is one of the purposes of social media. Unfortunately, I think there is an importance placed on numbers of followers.

Some strategies to expand the follower base can be useful, such as collaborations among business owners who recommend each other and even provide rewards for people who cross-follow.

Wise evaluation of numbers involves weighing quality vs. quantity, remaining wary of inflated figures, and paying attention to the degree of two-way conversation, such as re-tweets, on the site.

It’s your individual or organizational definition of social media. If it’s to show that you have a huge following, then that’s what it is. But I do worry I don’t think people are asking the question ‘are they buying these followers?’ People value the numbers or think the numbers matter. Most people don’t have the language or knowledge to question what that means. The question is how are we are valuing the number of followers or likes? Why do we value that? How do we help people do their homework?

I recommend asking these questions:

· Does followership influence knowledge, influence, or subject matter expertise?

· Is that a diverse following, or is it a following of people like you?

· Is your purpose on social media simply to get followers or likes?

· What’s your goal for being a part of social media?

During their tweet ups or corporate events who is re tweeting the event “live” 

So far no one has created the ability to have their “Pay to Play” / Purchased accounts join in on live events 

I recently saw my numbers spike when I was live-posting articles and blogs during the Super Bowl, where timely and engaging uses of social media is especially effective.

The current focus on social media numbers could be a passing phase, like a short-lived attention on Klout scores a year ago.

There were articles that said ‘will we hire people based on their Klout score?. No one even talks about that. Some of us look at other ways of evaluating people’s influence. It’s like living in another culture and learning another language.

Fields Jackson, Jr