Imagine a presetation of a company CEO telling his board of directors that they shouldn’t put an office in a certain large city because there is crime, that scary people live there and worse, people who don’t agree with us or care about us also live there.
And imagine that over 50% of the companies’ clients have offices in that large city or do business there. How long do you think this CEO would last?
Not very long.
Yet this conversation goes on all the time in conference rooms and board rooms about Twitter, Facebook and blogs. The number one objection I hear about not being on Twitter is it is a waste of time because our company doesn’t really care about “someone eating Cheetos® in their underwear” (no offense to Cheetos®, they are delicious) The same logic we applied to our scenario above is the same argument for NOT being on Twitter. When you look at it in its metaphorical nature, the argument seems silly.
Just because the naked-Cheetos®-eating Twit is in the same city as you, doesn’t mean that you will run in the same circles. Just as you don’t have to respond to everyone requesting information about your organization in real-life, you don’t have to accept every friend or follow request. You don’t have to entertain folks who clearly have no interest in joining your organization or contributing to it. Just as you would an office is a large city, you control who comes in the front door and with whom you speak.
The metaphor seems simple enough. Twitter is a very large city, with a very diverse community. And your clients and members are probably already there, just waiting for you to hang out your shingle.