Aug 28th
Answers.com defines the word “clique” as a particular social group: circle, coterie, crowd, set. Informal bunch, gang.
The organic formation of cliques is an inherent part of networking and using social media communication tools. My clique consists of people like Cheryl Harrison, Ryan Bauer, Jim Borchowski and Michael Bowers. Guys like Bryan Huber, Dave Culbertson, (Bryan and Dave and I work together in case you didn’t know) and Perry Maughmer always add value to my conversations, by using their own expertise and social reach to enhance the communications.
(To all of you above, thank you for investing in our relationship. You really do mean the world to me and I’m grateful we’re connected.)
These great people invest their social capital in me in order to help me spread my content. Guess what? I do the same for them. We work together in a community, and since we all live in Columbus, Ohio, we’ve been able to form deep relationships through offline interactions. If you think about it, there’s a cyclical element to this sort of relationship development. Here’s what this might look like:
-> People meet online = relational context is created
-> Offline relationships are nurtured = relational context is deepened
-> Greater affinity = ongoing support of online communications
Relationships Across Boundaries
Then there’s people like Bryna Jones and Cori Padget, neither of which I’ve had the chance to meet in person. Both of them are also in my clique, and we too have relationships. Cori lives in Orlando FL. Brynna is a native of Ontario, Canada. I met both of them on Twitter, but I know them through the content they create across multiple other mediums. We’ve been able build our relationships through the content that makes up our visible self-brands on the social web. What’s interesting is that when we finally do meet in person (and we will eventually), I already know that because of “relational context” it will feel like a reunion between old friends.
Digital Relational Context (DRC) (No citation here. This was the product me staring at my ceiling wide awake at 3AM last night.)
DRC is a reoccurring phenomenon that is created through self-branded content on social media. Somewhat related to social penetration theory in that DRC provides , the content we create provides an authentic and experiential lens into our personalities, values, interests and general lives. Creating this authentic personal content makes it safe and attractive for people to connect with one another, regardless of physical distance.
For example, when I met Chris Brogan for the first time (in person) last Spring, we immediately found a context around our relationship. Both of us put out content across multiple outposts (Chris much more than I). A few virtual interactions on Twitter and Facebook combined with a little content reading, created enough of a foundation to begin peeling away the deeper layers of the relational onion.
What what type of online content do you create, and have you ever experience the DRC phenomenon?
Photo credit: Jason Withrow in 2006
Nate! Firstly, I’m so excited to be included in your clique (or community as you might also call it). It’s awesome that we’ve been able to learn from each other in this forum, because it’s true: without twitter, we never would’ve met. You genuinely add value to my online/work life. I’ve always enjoyed your blog, so it’s cool to be featured in it
It’s so interesting that you should touch on this subject, because it seems to be a theme this week in the SM world. I know Danny Brown and Chris Brogan both blogged about community. But I think your definition of DRC might be the most succinct.
I also read a fantastic post by @ScottMcKain yesterday in which he describes a similar feeling of cennectedness with all the “Friends he has yet to meet.” (See his blog post at http://www.mckainviewpoint.com.) As I commented on his blog, it’s hard to explain to those who don’t have the SM presence, that you can form real relationships with people in these platforms.
But I agree with you. Despite the fact we haven’t met, we’ve formed a real community/clique/inner circle. I think it’s amazing that these technologies have been such a unifying force. I can’t wait to get to know you better, and to continue to develop these relationships with others.
P.S. When we do meet in real life (and like you said, we will) we’re going for a run! Lol.
Comment by Bryna — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 18:35:11 +0000 @ 6:35 pm
I am experiencing the same thing in Central Ohio and now across the country as I train others to become captains for Tastescasting. We may not meet in person, but how we meet on social media and then how we interact using technology is also very interesting. The relationship grows stronger the more we communicate and in some cases what we use to communicate. Twitter takes you so, far, then you read their blog, next thing you know you’re on the phone and then engaged in a GoTo Meeting sharing ideas. In one case so far I drove to Pittsburgh to be a part of the Pittsburgh TasteCasting event and because of the connection, context, and content I felt like I knew these people and we started off immediately as good friends. I like Alvin @Wyliemac become involved at Startup Weekend two years ago. It was the best investment in a weekend that changed my life and opened up opportunities that I could not have imagined.
Comment by Dan Harris — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:32:10 +0000 @ 11:32 pm
Love this post, Nate. Social media is certainly game changing for the way we form relationships.
Comment by Cheryl — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 00:05:36 +0000 @ 12:05 am
Nate, very nice post, however I would reccomend laying off the coffee at 3 am! Just kidding.
Spheres of influence are essential to social media capital, with out them, one is dead in the water.
Comment by Rocky VanBrimmer — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:42:56 +0000 @ 5:42 pm
Great post. Social media and digital relationships offer you such a great opportunity to create meet people that you wouldn’t otherwise have a chance to meet. As @Cheryl says, it’s truly a game-changer in the way we form relationships!
Comment by Jacob Stoops — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:01:41 +0000 @ 4:01 pm
My online content is all about peeling the onion. I work from a perspective of “True Intent.” This is my theory that if we all just took the time to determine what someone’s true intent is in our interactions we would get along that much better. My true intent with my online interactions is to let people know the real me so that we can share common experiences and help each other find, well whatever we need to find – solutions, answers, or maybe even just solace. Social Media for me has been life changing. I feel so fortunate to have this avenue for sharing, but most especially for the relationships I’ve been able to build, and the great people I’ve been able to meet and share with – like you.
I really like this post!
Comment by Jim Brochowski — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 10:55:08 +0000 @ 10:55 am
[...] most compelling arguments for self-branding is that the content you create online is critical in establishing a context for building relationships, especially when you are using technology to communicate across [...]
Pingback by Brand Ownership | nateriggs.com | NateRiggs.com — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:16:00 +0000 @ 12:16 pm
[...] yesterday’s OWL presentation Nate Riggs discussed Digital Relationship Context. Nate made a clear case that your brand does NOT equal your logo, but in fact, is the summary of [...]
Pingback by What’s The Buzz? « First Today, Then Tomorrow — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 10:51:37 +0000 @ 10:51 am
[...] I’ve started to build a professional relationship with Elaine Reese through Digital Relationship Context. [...]
Pingback by Making Your Own Social Business Strategy | Featuring Elaine Reese | NateRiggs.com — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:36:28 +0000 @ 3:36 pm