If the problem were conscious, I’d say it’s a battle between those promoting one-way communication and those promoting two-way. But it’s clearly not conscious. I think the biggest competitor to implementing, as you said, a well-structured and well-executed social media plan for an event, is simply not knowing what is possible (and, incidentally, executives and AV companies alike not knowing how they can profit from it). They’re also unaware that there are some of us out here who by now know A LOT about how to implement interactivity to its fullest extent.

So when Twitter came along, we observed yet again how easily a new, fun technology could seduce folks into using it, willy-nilly, in apparently serious situations. I’m not saying it can’t be useful — it definitely can be — but rather that in most cases it’s use hasn’t been thought through in terms of meeting purpose, outcomes, sequencing, briefings to executives and presenters, instructions to the group, processing the twittered ideas, feeding themes back to the group, focusing subsequent discussions on those themes … and more. Those are many of the differences in our model, above, between the lower right and upper right quadrants. Tools appear in the lower right … using them well defines the upper right.

I have a hunch that you know what I’m talking about. Let’s pass it on …