The answer is that with only so much time available every day to connect with people on social networking sites, I had a decision to make. I could either have 2 highly valuable social networking assets or join another 6 or 8 and have a diluted presence.
I think of it like this:
- If you have just enough coffee to make 2 really good cups, then spread it out across 10 cups, you end up with 10 bad tasting, weak cups of coffee.
- If you have enough time to be relevant on 2 social networks, yet you spread that time over 10 different social networks, you end up with 10, weaker, social networking profiles. You end up automating. You end up cross posting the same stuff everywhere. You end up vaguely relevant on 10 networks, rather than directly relevant on 1 or 2 networks.
For example, I currently have almost 12,000 people connected with me on Google+, which puts me in the top 1% of users, based on my number of contacts (circles). It’s a network, where I have developed some high quality connections with lots of great people and learned a lot too. Now, if I was also having to spread my time across Facebook, Linkedin, StumbleUpon, Digg, Pinterest, Tumblr, Reddit and Mixx etc, I would have a series of diluted presences. I’d be weak in many areas, rather than relevant in 1 or 2.
Getting the most from your Social Networking time
Yes, if you have a lot of spare time each day, you can be relevant on more networks than me. However, if you run a successful, growing business and time is in short supply, as it is for most people reading this, I believe you will get a far better return from focusing on relevance rather than volume.