Over the last week, some very smart people have been unsuccessfully trying to define "social business strategy" and "social business design" (see Jason Falls, Anne McCrossan, Larry Hawes, and Lewis Green). However, instead of bringing clarity to the discussion, all these attempts have added more confusion.
The problem is that a lot of people are decoding "social business strategy" and "social business design" as "social business + strategy" and "social business + design" and trying to define what a "social business" is. This has, not unexpectedly, led to a pointless discussion about cause-based and non-profit "social business" organizations. I would want to clarify that at least the 20:20 Social version of "social business strategy" has nothing to do with the idea of businesses giving back to the society. It's a worthy ideal, and businesses don't think about it as much as they should, but when we use the term "social business strategy", we are not talking about it. I would urge everyone to decode "social business strategy" and "social business design" as "social + business strategy" and "social + business design". When you do that, the cloud of confusion lifts up. The terms "business strategy" and "business design" have a specific, widely accepted meaning. The term "social" here refers to "social technologies" and the four norms embedded in them: user-generated content, collaboration, community, and collective intelligence. "Social business strategy" is different from "social media marketing" ("social media + marketing") in two important ways. First, when you stop looking at "social technologies" through the "media" lens, you realize that content is only the first level in what these technologies enable: collaboration, community and collective intelligence are the other, higher levels. Second, when you stop looking at "social technologies" through the "marketing" lens, you realize that their impact goes beyond merely reaching out to customers, to connecting customers, partners and employees. "Social business strategy" is a good label for what "some" of us do because it enables us to talk about social technologies and business value, without limiting ourselves to the "media" and the "marketing" lenses. Therefore, the social business strategy label can potentially become the rallying point of a movement for "using emerging social technologies for transforming businesses, instead of merely reaching out to customers." What excites me about the social business strategy discussion is the focus on figuring out "how businesses can strategically use emerging social technologies and value systems in an integrated manner, across customers, partners and employees, to create long term business value." The well-meaning attempts to define "social business" are a distraction, at best.Update: Here is the position paper Dave Evans and I have written on the 20:20 Social Approach to Social Business Strategy.
