Tell me how many times you’ve seen one of these statements:

  • Social media needs less talk and more action.
  • We need better case studies.
  • Businesses (or People) need to be more human.
  • We need less pundits and more practical examples.
  • We need to do more good with the tools we have.
  • It’s about the HOW today, not the WHY.
  • Social media folks need to do more and talk less.

It’s the emerging contrarian pushback to the oh-so-fluffy days of social media punditry, “evangelism” and kumbaya, and I get it.

Sort of.

Yes, we’ve come beyond the “oooooh pretty” phase of social media. Maybe there are lots of folks who are still doing it wrong. And some of us are determined to show just how much more “serious” we are about it than the next guy, so we’re pushing back on all the people who aren’t living up to our social media activist ideals.

But here’s the thing.

When I ask you what you mean by “better case studies”, you’d better be able to tell me exactly what constitutes a good one, or a bad one, and how you’d recommend others improve theirs. Otherwise, you’ve no room to criticize.

If you’re asking for a person or business to be more human, you’d better be able to illustrate an example of what a “human” presence looks like, and explain why it works better than the alternative, in terms that acknowledge your personal tastes and biases for how you use social networks. (Remember this is all opt-in. Choose your path, and shape your own experience.)

A lot of the talk (read: content) that’s out there is people doing their best to work through ideas, settle into and participate in their communities in their own way, figure out what works and what doesn’t, provide examples of what they’re doing and teach or share.

So while I agree that we need to continue to do as much as we talk, I also think we need to lighten up a bit.

Punditry has it’s place. I learn a lot from thinking, pontificating, looking at ideas from different lenses.  Talking things through. Doing my own thinking around someone else’s ideas. It’s how I shape perspectives and approach, and always keep a fresh eye on ways to look at things that are outside my practical, hands-on experience. But that’s me.

So here’s my challenge: if you want to demand that more people lead social media excellence by demonstration, be prepared to articulate what constitutes your good examples, devoid of jargon of your own in order to rail against the jargon you don’t like. Instead, I’m asking you (us) to:

  • Be specific about what you want to see happen, in clear and simple terms.
  • Explain why you think that outcome is better than the alternative(s) and what it achieves.
  • Consider your own biases, even if you don’t verbalize them.
  • Break down your generalizations (“everyone”, “always”) into focused characteristics of what you think works and doesn’t work, in a specific context.
  • Illustrate the alternative actions and behaviors you want to see.

Otherwise? We’re just empty critics that can’t offer constructive solutions or ideas. Which means we’ve contributed exactly zero toward creating the change we so demand. And we’ve become the actionless talkers that we’re so mightily raging against.

Great examples of challengers that provide substance to their arguments? Geoff Livingston. Justin Kownacki. Chris Penn. Lisa Barone. See how they write about what’s not working for them, but clearly talk about what they’d like to see instead and why?

Perhaps it’s just part of the lifecycle of new things we’re exploring: we love it, then we resist and criticize it, maybe even hate it, then we settle for temperance somewhere in the middle.

But I think we can do a better job of backing up our objections with some articulate thoughts that light the path forward. And I hope you’ll keep me held to that standard, too.

What do you say?

image by OakleyOriginals