You’re not understanding what I’m saying.

I have nothing against the concept of community. In fact, I embrace it. You don’t have to defend it. It isn’t necessary.

What I’m against the automatic mantra espoused by a lot of people I’ve heard over the past two years who seem to simply repeat the same phrases over and over. “Embrace your community” when they don’t have a community. “Engage or die” when death isn’t imminent. I’ve constantly heard this in discussions, on blog posts, on Twitter. It gets ridiculous. Most of them have never come close to building a community.

They mistake current users of a product or, for that matter current potential users of a product as already being members of a company’s community. They aren’t.

And they will say this about any type of product, even it the product is not one that’s conducive to communities.

In your example, a company used (from what I’m going to guess) your company’s software (folks, that’s http:..www.smallworldlabs.com) to create a community over time. They didn’t embrace something that didn’t exist, they used tools to create one.

That’s what should be happening.

For example, a golf apparel brand may create a community for people who are interested in teaching children how to play golf. People aren’t going on to the community to talk about the brand, they care about best practices, tips, and empathy. The brand gets associated with caring about the future of the game and may have some advertising on the property targeting the parents since they are likely to be the brand’s ideal demographic. As long as they are transparent about who they are, nobody will care who the sponsor of the community is- as long as the community has value to the membership.

So, fine, “Community” might be over used as a term but I don’t see the situation you’re talking about happen very often.

Yes, Apple did work hard to create a community. They created products with their customers in mind. The created “personal computers” (but not PCs)…things that people ended up finding great value in.

Plus, tech products often have people who are already online who once talked on Usenet who now talk and share in online forums, etc.

The companies you mention are all low hanging fruit. Everyone mentions Harley Davidson, Starbucks, Southwest. Throw in Nike and Whole Foods.

That’s not knocking them. That means that they have an internal business culture along with a type of product or products or service or services that can breed that.

You could probably find hotel chains, clothing lines, food companies that could do the same. But all of that misses my point….

My beef here is not with the concept of community. If anything, I’m trying to, in a way, protect that concept. My beef is with some social media strategists who seem to feel that every company out there should be engaging their community…when the company doesn’t have a community. I also make the point that most product aren’t capable of having a community. They’re function is often too mundane.

As far as Apple, my point can apply this way. They couldn’t engage their community at first…because they didn’t have one….so it took people like Guy Kawasaki (and others) to help create one. It took work to do that. And the product itself was conducive to have a community.

Take a look at my latest post. “The Fallacy Continues:. 15 out of 16 community building efforts are failing to actually create a community. My guess as to why? Poor execution based on faulty assumption and products that are ot necessarily community ready.

Again, I’m NOT knocking the concept of community. I’m knocking the overuse and misuse of the term…a trend I see happening and a trend that’s somewhat responsible for 15 out of 16 efforts not making the grade.

I’m concerned that implies that Apple finds it easier to have a community. That simply isn’t the case. Apple worked harder than any other company to create that community. They employed staff members (like Guy Kawasaki) to evangelise this community.

Here is the fundmental difference. Microsoft, IBM and co produced technology companies then used marketing to get people to buy them.

Apple knows its customers and continually created products for them. Everything to do with Apple is orientated towards community.

If Apple seems to have it easy with a natural affinity, it has nothing to do with their industry sector. It’s because they make it look easy.

Companies in a variety of other industries have developed great communities. JetBlue and Southwest in Airlines for example, Harley Davidson in motorcycles and even Starbucks.

You are absolutely right – I did one of the things I am most irritated by and allowed myself to filter your thoughts based on an assumption of intent on your part that wasn’t there – I apologize.

Communities have been a vital and central part of political and grassroots advocacy campaigns for quite some time now and I am a passionate believer in and defender of their importance.

I have become particularly sensitive to a growing number of small but aggressive voices on FriendFeed and Twitter who seemed more concerned with setting themselves apart by tearing down other’s ideas rather than working to truly advance a constructive narrative on how these tools can be used to change the way information is communicated for the good – this is obviously not your intent.

I think the 3 causes you identify in your “more on the fallacy” post are dead on – there are a number of people who understand some of these concepts enough to sound impressive but not enough to truly make them work.

I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts in the future.

BTW Apple was indeed a slow-moving softball over the middle of the plate – what can I say I was typing fast while feeding and keeping the little guy entertained!

Where do I start?

Reread what I wrote. I don’t see where I flamed the entire concept here.

This post was not denigrating the concept of community. I started out by writing how it is a sacred principle. I finish by saying that it is one of the most important concepts in social media.

The point of this article was to bring attention to the fact that many social media strategists automatically expound on how brands must “engage their community”. And many of these strategists say it as if it applies to everything out there.

I then point out that most brands don’t really have a community. They are also, by their very nature, not the type of product that can engender a community.

But to me, so many social media strategists are caught up in the concept of community that they don’t recognize this. So they continue their mantra about “community”, actually damaging the concept because it seems irrelevant to the brand, causing marketing managers to pull away.

Yes, these point were about brands…because that’s what I was talking about.

Your bringing up Apple is telling. There is nothing in what I wrote that contradicts how community can be important – no, vital – as a mean of marketing. But you choose a brand (after pointing out that I seem to be only concerned about brands) that has a natural affinity for a community. That’s low hanging fruit. Also, it’s a technology product. Please. The great fallback category that’s always used.

Can’t you see I’m talking about the rhetoric that many use about practically any and all products? Not just the Apple’s of the world that have been able to garner communities for a couple of decades?

To me, you’re automatically defending the concept of community when I haven’t attacked it. I’m trying to bolster it and keep it genuine.

Unless I missed something though all of the supporting arguments were limited to one type of community: brands – even that argument doesn’t hold up 100% of the time.

Isn’t “community” an underlying principle of Apple’s evangelism marketing? Find and create a community of passionate users who will tell others and bring them into the fold – right?

I’ll grant you that “community” like many, many concepts is both over and mis-used but we don’t need to flame the entire concept.

What inspired this post was the constant dribbling of many social media strategists who push the idea that every company/brand/organization already has a community out there (whether they know it or not) and they, of course, should engage with it.

It’s the essence within a community that makes it special. Whether it’s forged by a passion or a need to collaborate, they exist because of the common desire for its members to bond.

I obviously have a different viewpoint than many in this field. I honestly think some of them hurt the field as they push, push, push the concept to befuddled audiences.

The problem with communities, as you’ve hinted, is the potential for community fatigue. Weak communities are pointless communities. For a community to form it needs a very strong emotional bond with the company, but not just the company, but what the company stands for.

My biggest complaint is we’re acting like this is some radical new thing that technology is only just allowing. That’s just not true. Instead technology has just allowed for the proliferation of communities as it’s become easier to do.

Generally, communities that were successful before the internet, have been a runaway success online. But, online, they have also become far more visible to other companies who want to emulate this success. This new visibility is what I expect is driving these communities. These new communities isn’t aware that these groups existed before the internet, and so give the sociological aspect far less focus.

Finally, one seperate point I would add is that communities can be internal to the company. Sure, you might not care about your toilet paper. The odds are you probably don’t want to connect with others who use the same toilet paper. But for those that work to make and sell that toilet paper, it’s a big deal.

They see each other every day, they might very well be enticed to become a closer community. A community who can discuss important issues online and offline, and a community which can increase productivity and the retention rate of staff. Maybe even become a beacon to potential new recruits.

I’d never underestimate communities within companies. These are the ones whom might really benefit from such technology and the right facilitators.