@ev says that when companies use social media "...well, they’re not. They may be using platforms that are primarily used for social media (like Facebook) or platforms that are used for social media, among other things (like Twitter), but that doesn’t make the companies—or their media—social".

But can companies ever be social - at scale?

With giffaff, we're moving from a 'broadcast + replies' social model to one that recognises different people, their different relationships to the business, & their different content/interaction needs.

Ironically (for Ev & the simple way Twitter calibrates relationships) we're doing most of this experimenting in Google+, where Circles (& a relatively ltd number of connections) make it easy to experiment.

I agree with @ev 's point that using social platforms doesn't necessarily make you social. The question of scalability is something of a killer one. My thought here is that technologies scale but people don't, so the only way to achieve scalability as a business is through smart use of tech (similar to what it looks like your doing for giffgaff) to give better contexts, or through establishing a different kind of relationship with your customers where they play an active part (being a networked org, threadless/local motors approach, facilitation etc)

Social is a vague concept, but I think that only people can be social, not companies. This is one of the reasons why companies have Evangelists to distribute their ideas and give a human (social, someone you can interact with) face.

Big companies have so many roles and prohibitions about what and when they can say something that the social interaction with them is simply impossible.

Context: I currently work for @IPvoices, a startup building a platform for citizen participation in socially creative project. I’m also a social science researcher and teacher.

Glyn asks about two key things: enterprises’ practises and scaling.

For the first issue: “social” isn’t a subset of “comm”. Simply put, it can be about understanding human interaction.

Enterprises involve social groups. So, “doing social” involves all sorts of interactions. The big shift happens when these are symmetrical, many-to-many interactions.

When individuals adopt social media practices, the effects can be far-reaching. But depth is achieved when these practices are integrated across the board. This where catalysts, connectors, and communicators can help.

These interaction models from @jowyang can help make sense of social media at scale:
lar.me

Scale is a complex, non-linear issue. In sociology, it’s the difference between “micro-” and “macro-”, interactions and collectivities.

In social media, we tend to use interaction models based on small groups. Even with millions of people, it’s a “street-level” view, often focused on a few key people.

We view collective action from a “bird’s eye” view. Although individuals are involved, it’s about large events, major trends, long shifts.

Networks are a way to link the two. They’re based on interactions, but they can spur collective action.

Part of the insight needed is about the organization’s position in diverse networks. Looking at a variety of interlocking networks instead of a big “stakeholder community”. Some networks can develop into communities, with a sense of belonging. But no community includes “everyone”.

Within a community, collective action can happen through coercion, democratic representation, or even widespread consensus.

In networks, collective action happens haphazardly. It can be a domino effect or that specific conditions are met. Thing is, you can’t “control” these movements. But you can monitor some things which lead to them and even provide tools which enable them. Doing so can be the basis of quite powerful a social media strategy.

The biggest shift for social is the acceptance that businesses inherently cannot be social. It's customers, however, are. More so than ever before. While platforms such as Facebook and Twitter are tremendous tools for outreach and acquisition, they're truly just dynamic billboards. There's nothing social about them in the enterprise market. For a company to be social, it needs to garner the social efforts of their customers, place it on their own domain with company branding and personalization, and own that engagement. The best practice for social is to let your customers do the work for you (support and marketing) by sharing experiences with your brand that will pique the interest of those on the fence about aligning with company/etc.