Robert Scoble and Steve Rubel had a very interesting discussion earlier on whether “social media” is the proper term for the whole big kettle containing blogging, podcasting, etc.

I sure wish I could point you to it so that you could read it yourself. Unfortunately, their discussion was on Twitter, and unless you were subscribed to both fellows’ Twitter streams, you might have missed it.

Fortunately, I was subscribed to both Robert and Steve, so I could follow the conversation. But what if I was only subscribed to Robert? Here’s what I might have read:

• @steverubel: most online media is now two-way at least in part. Agreed. about 6 hours ago from twitterrific in reply to steverubel
• @steverubel: a better example would be my Kyte.tv channel where you can leave your own video as part of my channel. about 6 hours ago from twitterrific in reply to steverubel
• PodTech is different from TV because you can leave comments and interact with the media. about 6 hours ago from twitterrific
• @steverubel: so you think online media should just be shortened to “media?” I’m not so sure. I like “social” because it still connotes 2 way about 6 hours ago from twitterrific in reply to steverubel
• @steverubel: he’s a fake blogger who got caught. about 6 hours ago from twitterrific in reply to steverubel
• @steverubel: what would you suggest using instead of “social media?” about 6 hours ago from twitterrific in reply to steverubel

Oh, did I mention you need to read it bottom-to-top?

Look, here’s what I suggest you do so that it makes sense: open up Scoble’s Twitter feed, open a new tab in your browser, and then open up Rubel’s Twitter feed. Start with about the 6th Twit down for Rubel, about the 7th Twit down on the second page for Scoble, and switch tabs until you’ve read their back-and-forth.

Of course, that assumes that you read this pretty soon after I post it. If it’s a few days later, or a few months later, I’m not sure what to tell you. Just keep scrolling through the Twitter pages until you find something that seems like it matches up, maybe?

Scoble also had a nice rant earlier. I can’t point you to it. Let me go copy and paste it for you. Okay, first I go to Scoble’s Twitter feed, let’s see… starts on the 4th page in. So here’s the first part…

• arikb: yeah, email still has SOME value. But going down all the time. I far prefer people not send me private notes. Scalable communication. about 12 hours ago from twitterrific
• PR people are the worst in the email regard. Speaker planners are close. I don’t answer a lot of my email anymore. If I did, I’d never do. about 12 hours ago from twitterrific
• It’s amazing that in this age of Twitter that people still send email. I hate email. I hate direct Tweets. I hate Facebook messages. about 12 hours ago from twitterrific

The bulk of the rant from the 3rd page…

• @hardaway: Facebook messages are still private. I answer my public “wall” posts first. Public first, private second. That way I get scale. about 12 hours ago from web in reply to hardaway
• @jaxn: very few people call me on my phone. I guess that hasn’t yet turned into a problem. about 12 hours ago from web in reply to jaxn
• @ChrisDoelle: 10 tweets comes because you all keep talking back to me. about 12 hours ago from web in reply to ChrisDoelle
• @webword: Mike Arrington is a hard guy to get ahold of, especially when he’s digging through 100 new hot companies. But he watches Twitter. about 12 hours ago from web in reply to webword
• @dharrels called me a “tool.” OK wiseguy. You want to answer my email? I didn’t think so. about 12 hours ago from web in reply to dharrels
• @maceo87: you miss the point. Email is not as good a communication style as the others. Email sucks BECAUSE it is not in public. about 12 hours ago from web in reply to maceo87
• @tildesley: not really. I can consume and answer Twitters much easier than email. And if I don’t catch them you can help answer too!! Scale! about 12 hours ago from web in reply to tildesley
• @pinkfu is complaining that I mashed a blog post into several Twitters. Heheh. Guilty as charged. about 12 hours ago from web in reply to pinkfu
• @Tildesley: I don’t want to converse with most of the world. There’s no way I can do that. So, the subset on Twitter sounds just fine! about 12 hours ago from twitterrific in reply to tildesley
• @loiclemeur: Twitter has a page called “replies.” I use it often. about 12 hours ago from twitterrific in reply to loiclemeur
• Basically this is my gesture to the world: I am not answering my email and I’m not going to start. I’m overloaded. Tweet me. about 12 hours ago from twitterrific
• @nikf: if I answer a question in public space it is answered for everyone. I bias toward public conversation first. That’s why email sucks. about 12 hours ago from twitterrific in reply to nikf
• @tildesley: the best way to get ahold of me? Blogg comments. Twitter. Pownce. Kyte. Facebook. Phone (my number is always public). about 12 hours ago from twitterrific in reply to tildesley
• @jeffledoux: Twitter IS better than IM already. Far better. about 12 hours ago from twitterrific in reply to jeffledoux
• If I want to get a hold of Mike Arrington, for instance, i know that writing a Tweet about him will get his attention far faster than email. about 12 hours ago from twitterrific
• @dweezel: that’s the whole point. Most of my email does NOT need to be private. It’s far better to do most communication out in public. about 12 hours ago from twitterrific in reply to dweezel
• Or people asking me to blog. Very low quality stuff. If PR people were forced to do their work in public their entire method would change. about 12 hours ago from twitterrific
• @jasonw22: yeah. I’d never get anything done if I answered my email. Most of it is people asking me to speak. about 12 hours ago from twitterrific in reply to jasonw22
• If something really needs to be private than email is great. But most of my email doesn’t need to be private. about 12 hours ago from twitterrific
• I always answer things in public space first. Why? Because those communications scale. about 12 hours ago from twitterrific

...and it finally wraps up on the 2nd page:

• OK, start quiet mode. I’m not ignoring anyone, just gonna quiet down cause I know when I through 20 tweets I piss people off. about 12 hours ago from twitterrific


• @seekground: but the advantage of public messages is even if I ignore you others can answer your questions. A lot of my email is tech suppor about 12 hours ago from twitterrific in reply to seekground


• Translation to the past 20 tweets: I need an assistant to answer my email. Outsource what you hate. I hate email. about 12 hours ago from web

There. Is that readable? You did read each bit bottom to top this time, right?

So, of course the point of all of this is that the value of this kind of conversation is negative, as far as I’m concerned. It isn’t findable, it isn’t shareable, and if you’re not following a Twitter stream all day, it isn’t coherent. It frustrates the heck out of me that I can’t easily capture cool stuff that people say in Twitter and share it with others. There’s a lot of value in Twitter, but as things stand today, its value isn’t as a publishing platform.

I know Robert’s point is about using Twitter as a public alternative to email, but even so, I don’t see how it’s a useful alternative if people need to keep asking the same questions over and over because there’s no way for them to find where it is you answered the question the first time.

I like Twitter. A lot. But it’s a walled garden. It is not a substitute for an open conversation. And it concerns me that smart people and leaders in the blogosphere are increasingly turning to Facebook and Twitter and other closed communication silos in order to express themselves.

I’m a terrible basketball player. However, I did learn something about defense from an old roommate of mine that I’ve never forgotten: no one goes anywhere without their stomach. If you want to play good defensive basketball, don’t watch the head fakes, don’t watch the feet, don’t watch the hands. Watch the stomach, and move where it moves.

The same is true of corporations: if you want to predict where a company is going to move, you have to pay attention to the one thing that never changes—the guts of the company. And in most cases, the guts of the company are at the top of the org chart. (Okay, that’s an oversimplification. Organizational culture is fairly complex. However, in Microsoft’s case, where two founders of the company still occupy primary leadership roles, it’s absolutely true that they will ultimately determine the character of the company.)

So, I’m fascinated by the fact that Hugh MacLeod has picked up Microsoft as a client, and by the discussion taking place in the comments section of his announcement post. I think Hugh’s a brilliant marketer and keen observer of the flow of ideas, and if he manages to actually help Microsoft turn their culture around, I think the world will only benefit from that. But I have to say, I don’t think he can do it.

Steve Clayton’s point here is essential: “Hugh got hired by some risk takers at Corp, not by Bill and Co.” Except in those remarkable companies that are structured to encourage and absorb input from all levels of the organization, corporate culture change comes from the top of the company and flows down. Large companies can have wildly varying cultures within their ranks, but it’s the top tier of managers that ultimately make the decisions that represent the largest share of the company’s public actions, and thus drive public perception.

This is what always interested me about the blogosphere’s reaction to Robert Scoble when he was a blogger at Microsoft. Scoble was rightly praised for his intelligence and transparency, but it mystified me that he was also supposed to be the harbinger of a new openness at the company. Of course he wasn’t. He was a Microsoft employee with a megaphone, but that’s it. He was the bullfighter’s cape, a captivating presence to pay attention to, but inconsequential in terms of the direction of the company’s energies. In the comment thread at Gaping Void, Scoble himself admits as much. He was listening to the outside conversation about the company, but “it just was frustrating to me that I couldn’t get the leadership to really listen, too.”

So, this is part of what’s fascinating to me: who has the right to tell the Microsoft story? Is it the Steve Claytons and the Robert Scobles? Is it Gates and Ballmer? Is it we, the users? Is it all of the above? And what happens when the story diverges? It seems to me that Gates and Ballmer tell one story—that of Microsoft domination at all costs. Clayton and Scoble tell another story—that of an emerging openness and a thirst for innovation. And the users tell a range of other stories, from “Microsoft is still #1” to “Microsoft is dead.”

To me, the answer is that everyone tells the story, but at the end of the day it’s the story told by the top leadership that will matter, because they have direct influence over the top tier of managers. And that group sets the tone for which ideas take hold internally, which messages go out through official channels, and which projects get resources and which ones don’t.

Personally, I prefer using the Macintosh platform, but I also live in Seattle and care about the tech community here. So I want Microsoft to be successful because I want my friends to be employed and happy, and because big innovative companies bring human and technical resources to the area that wouldn’t otherwise be here. So, go for it, Hugh. But if you want to be successful, you have to convince more than just the employees at Microsoft. You have to take every opportunity to talk directly to Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer, because those are the guys that will ultimately make the change happen.

Of course, I could be wrong. I’d love to hear of any examples of companies where change has been effected from the middle or from the bottom without the buy-in of the company leadership. Anyone?

Update: Thanks for the link, Hugh.

On a related note, here’s a good perspective on Microsoft from Dave Winer.

Update 2: I’m hardly surprised at this. This is what I’m talking about. Microsoft’s domination tendencies are deeply ingrained. They do not have a culture of community and cooperation.