Never mind that I’m a month late blogging this, it’s still something I consider a must-read for anyone exploring the wide wonderful world of online social networks for business purposes: The Ethics and Etiquette of Social Networks.

In particular, I think his comments are spot on about invitations to join…

I have received a lot of responses from people who are politely trying to say “I’m too busy to fiddle around with the [fill in the blank] social networking service you have invited me to join, but thanks for thinking of me” or the equivalent.

To everyone that has ever received or will ever receive an invitation from me to join a social networking service, let me say unequivocally: You have every right to say no, I will understand that you are busy and I won’t be upset if you say “no.” I believe that everyone should operate under this same modus operandi, and that so long as we all do so, the perceived risk and social cost of asking someone to join is lessened for everyone.

and requests for introductions…

Likewise, I operate under a simple principle regarding requests for introduction: If I know neither the requestor nor the target, I pass on the introduction. In a recent instance, this led to a semi-aggrieved e-mail from a pal of mine who had brokered the attempted request. He stated that turning down a request of the sort I did for the reasons I stated undermined the raison d’etre for social networking applications. I argued (and I still hold) that social networkers who hope to beat the nature of social capital will find that such introductions are not worth much: a form of spam, in effect. Many wiser than me have argued that introductions bereft of actual social capital — where the one making the introduction is placing his or her reputation on the line — are no more helpful than randomly meeting someone.

Stowe gets this topic as well as anyone I know. He consistently presents a balanced, yet optimistic view of this space. He’s also one of the few who, as I am, seems more concerned with how businesspeople are going to actually use these tools than whether or not there’s a business model there. If you’re not already reading his blog, Get Real, add it to your list.

Recently Eric Mack asked me my thoughts about showing summaries vs. full articles:

I have a question about length.

This brings up an interesting issue, which is the length of an RSS feed.

Some blogs post the first 200-300 characters, in an effort to get people to click-through to the site. (Which, of course, many don’t). Others provide the entire blog as an RSS Feed, which limits its utility for photos and embedded URLs. I can see strengths in both approaches.

I would like to get your thoughts on the pros and cons of RSS Feed lengths so that I can advise David accordingly.

The answer is, “It depends.”

From the reader’s perspective, the best answer is always, “Let me decide.” The RSS spec includes a <description> element and a <content> element. Most RSS readers will let the user decide which one to display by default, and will let them select it on a feed-by-feed basis.

So, more accurately, the question is, “Is there ever a compelling reason to only include short excerpts in the <content> element?”

And the answer to that is “Yes”.

The question is, from a business perspective, how does your blog support your business? If your revenue is primarily driven by product sales and/or advertising revenue, then it makes sense to only include short excerpts. You have to get people to your site to make any money. But your content had better be compelling and unique, or it could actually backfire by turning some people off.

If, on the other hand, your blog supports your business because it reinforces your brand, increases your visibility, strengthens your credibility, and creates a dialog with your readers, then by all means show the full feed. Leave the shorter feeds for the news sites who depend on ad revenue.

RE: embedded links and photos, many RSS aggregators will display those, too. Bloglines, which I use, does. You just have to make sure you use fully qualified URLs, not relative ones.

So, that’s my answer, but I’m sure there are others who feel differently. Contrasting viewpoints welcome in the comments.

eWeek recently featured an article by David Coursey entitled No Business in Social Networking. I tried to reply at eWeek, but I couldn’t even figure out how to get a simple line break in my comments, so I’ll post here instead.

David starts off with:

Social networks are a good thing. Everybody should have one–and everybody I know does, in some form or fashion. But whether you need an online social network and, particularly, whether you need one whose primary purpose is separating you from your money is another question entirely.

“whose primary purpose is separating you from your money”? Every commercial product or service is going to “separate you from your money”, but in exchange for something presumably more valuable to you than the money spent.

But what about a business social network like LinkedIn—which seems to eventually want to charge you maybe $10 to introduce you to someone that a friend or friend of a friend of yours already knows?

It’s already proven that people will pay money to manage their relationships. Outlook, Act, Salesforce, Siebel, you name it — they’re all about managing relationships. This is just a different kind of relationship management that none of those existing systems handle.

Right now, I’m working a large deal. I would GLADLY pay $10 or more to be able to identify ONE person out of the thousands I know who knows the primary decision-maker. But I can’t, because she’s not in the system. The system only works for those within it. So yes, I evangelize this technology, because I can be more effective with more people in the system.

LinkedIn took a survey of their users regarding pricing models, and the majority they said they wanted to pay a flat annual fee. They didn’t want to pay per transaction, because then, as you suggest, they wouldn’t be able to use it for less “valuable” purposes. They also didn’t see any point in paying by the month — they figured it’s a relatively small business expense, and their company will just pay for it.

And when it comes to the expensive pay-per-contact type networks that “business-oriented” services hope to make their money off of, they’ll need more than curiosity to attract the interest of venture money.

We have successful expensive pay-per-contact services in the real world: executive matchmaking that costs several thousand dollars, finders who get hefty fees for matching up investors with start-ups. So long as the fee is appropriately proportional to the value, I don’t see why the same model can’t work online that works in the real world.

Now, when a dating service like eHarmony, does this, I understand the pitch: Pay your money, find a mate (hopefully).
…
On the other hand, if people can find a use for these networks, they’d probably pay a $10 monthly fee to belong. But not more, unless these are high-value (i.e. sexual or whatever) relationships we’re creating.

Your repeated assertion that romance, or sex, is something that people will pay for, but business relationships aren’t, is surprising. Last time I checked, the financial ROI on marriage (at least for the primary wage-earner) was pretty slim. Business relationships frankly seem like an even better opportunity. If the relationships are valuable, then there’s value both in identifying the right relationships quickly, and in helping people sustain them.

For example, want an introduction to Rob Enderle? He’s a friend and if I asked him to meet with you, I bet he would. So don’t pay LinkedIn, pay me. After all, LinkedIn is just a service, the contact is mine.

That doesn’t fly. Unless I read this article, if I wanted an introduction to Rob, how am I even supposed to know that you know him? Am I supposed to spend hours of research figuring out who Rob might know until I find someone that I know, too? In LinkedIn, Spoke, ZeroDegrees, I could determine that in seconds, and my time is worth something.

But how legit is a paid introduction, do you really want your friends selling you to the highest bidder?

Exactly why there shouldn’t be referral fees. Which there aren’t. But they happen in the real world all the time. What was the point of this?

These things are really nothing new. Since the beginning of the Internet boom people have talked about making money by creating communities. Some have done it, but lots more have failed.

There are over 100 new “social networking sites” out there. I agree that the majority will fail. Why? Because without sufficient critical mass, the value of any one system is dubious. Those that find a niche and hit critical mass within it will succeed. Those that go for the mass market without a significant differentiator will not.

One final point I’ll make is that the current wave of social networking sites is a symptom of a trend, not the trend itself. The trend is the mainstreaming of the creation of meaningful business relationships through online interaction. It’s been going on in the tech and scientific communities for years, but it’s just now coming into the business mainstream. And while the social networking sites have some great additional features, Yahoo Groups, discussion forums, and mailing lists are still great places to build relationships, too.

Bottom line: people ARE using these sites to create business value. In the process of working on our book, we’ve collected dozens and dozens of success stories. I took an informal poll on Ryze, and more than 35% of the respondents had received business as a result of their participation there (and many of the respondents were new members, who wouldn’t have had sufficient time yet).

David, what would it take to convince you otherwise? You’re a sharp guy. You just need the right facts in front of you, because your experience with it so far hasn’t worked. Let me be your guide to a whole different view. Write me. Leave me a comment here. My blog will even let you format it. ;-)

See also Delphi Analyst Dan Keldsen’s comments