Criticisms of our approach

In a comment to our call for social media

In a comment to our call for social media “voice of innovation,” Adam Kmiec asks a pertinent question. He asks what qualifications we are using to define someone as 1) a voice of innovation and 2) involved in social media.

Short answer: I was waiting either for commenters to make the case and define the terms or—the more likely scenario—for them to point in a number of directions and leave the last measure of reporting and defining to us.

Adam goes on to criticize the process:

The list above simply looks like the Twitter Grader top 50 elite? This list simply continues to show how little credibility there is in this industry.

Wouldn’t it have been better for Business Week/You to have come up with a shortlist and let people vote. Right now, this list is a shining example of the “old boys club” and circle jerk that the “social media” space has become.

I’m disappointed with the approach, the list, and frankly expected more from Business Week. As is, you’ve reduced yourself to US Weekly and Tiger Beat.

Well, a lot of the names on the list (which continues to grow) are new for me. And I think if we had come up with a shortlist, it would have done more to perpetuate the “old boys club.”

One of the names I knew, Seth Godin, adds a critique in a similar vein.

Trolling for traffic like this is beneath BW. This was a state of the art traffic trick about six years ago, but now, most of your readers will just roll their eyes that you’re selling out your brand to get traffic.

Sorry to be a curmudgeon, but I really like BW best when they lead the discussion, not referee it.

So. A couple of questions. How should we define a “voice of innovation” in social media? And would you rather Helen and I just had a quiet cup of tea in Helen’s office (which is bigger and neater than mine) and picked our own “voice?” (We actually had one in mind before deciding to open up the process.)

Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal.