When I read Connie’s statement of “Authenticity is arrived at thru consistent branding ” my thought was, “Hmm, I don’t see how that is possible, since we are rather dynamic beings – in fact, if over time, I see that someones opinion never changes, even though new information is being presented, then their “consistency” actually makes me think that they just don’t get it, and that they are somehow out-of-touch with reality.”

Statements such as those also make me leery – as if the person or company thinks of me in terms that I am a lemming, and will blindly follow along simply because their message never changes.

Connie, this is in no way directed “at” you, but your statement did ignite this thought stream in my mind, and in keeping with the general premise of the open-web, I am sharing it here.(p.s., I read your Oct 6th blog entry – I wish you all the luck in the world in figuring out how to disconnect yourself more and rejoin your family and friends – I started that project myself just a few months ago.)

I did say “To be fair, I didn’t explore their blogs or websites deeply into the past”.

And you’ll see that I did appreciate the fact you and Jeff and the others I know are active in social networks stress on transparency and non-anonymity – which contrasts against those who ‘game’ the networks for traffic or other benefits (you must keep in mind that I’ve spent 10 years in the MMO-IM niche, which is rampant with such behavior and know quite a few ‘tricks’ folks resort to).

Yet, there’s a broader, deeper dimension – multiple facets of one’s personality, indeed – that remain unrevealed across the multiple social networks an individual participates in… which was the point of my post.

The BREADTH of topics/interests covered across a network of social media STILL is a small fraction of the person. Why? And how does an equally diverse other person relate to the narrowly defined individual revealed through these social networks?

In that sense, I can even make a case for keeping ‘anonymity’ while revealing a richer, variegated personality. FORTUNE magazine had a column from the 1990’s by Stanley Bing (he’s authored some nice books since) which did not reveal the identity of the author beyond the info that he was working in/for a corporation.

Yet through his column readers got a VERY good, deep feeling for the PERSON – his interests, dreams, frustrations, likes and dislikes, almost to the point I related to him as well as I might have if we knew each other personally.

That’s what I see lacking in the limited exposure to social networking research I’ve done over the last 2 or 3 weeks. And wonder why.

Oh, and my other blogs ARE purple -

http://www.ezinemarketingcenter.com/blog/
http://www.ezinemarketingcenter.com/drmani-says/

This one is new – it isn’t yet ‘purple’ (remarkable)!

All success
Dr.Mani

I’m trying to understand how you view my blog post as ’skirting the issue of the core person’? In my post I reveal a lot about myself:
– the position that I held until two weeks ago as a public librarian/community leader
– transfering that personsa online & being consistent
– WHY I choose to wear red reveals a LOT about me. Why isn’t your site purple if that’s your statement? Did you read my post?
– And at the end I comment about friends (revealing that my online ones are important to me).

Authenticity is arrived at thru consistent branding (or honest representation of yourself if you will). If you browse my blog you will hear about my family, my hobbies, my work, etc and more will come. We (myself, Jeff Pulver and many others) are very transparent – that’s what makes social networking relevant to us & our friends.
Connie

You may meet me a medical conference, but we won’t just talk shop. We might talk about your new tie, or my trendy jacket, or the quality of my visiting cards, or the pretty lady at the reception desk, or our last meeting in Europe, or any one of a thousand things OUTSIDE our niche that get mentioned in passing.

Which is difficult in online social networking – UNLESS each side is aware of what interests the other person.

Hence my curiosity of why most people (not only in this niche, but any other) tend to limit their online persona to one (or few) dimensions of interest, instead of being more ‘exposed’ – which in turn would foster that ‘personal’ bond you aptly point out as lacking in this medium.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts

All success
Dr.Mani

Makes me wonder why “reaching out and connecting” with people via social networks, such as the three which I dropped out of, can be so meaningful to others.

Is life for them so shallow or boring that having a bunch of people listed in their profile means that much to them?

I’m all for conversing with people, online and offline – meeting someone online is great, but without the personal bonding elements, it’s not very meaningful to me.

Others have said or eluded to the fact they have a strategy, which to me means that their cultivating relationships merely to advance their career — there is enough dishonesty in the world today, and now it looks like advances in technology are only going to proliferate sch behavior.