When automation subs for thinking, is that a good thing?

Yesterday, we were told that Google+ is wide open for business. We learned that Facebook now sends your account news based on what they think you are most interested in. Both of these platforms congregate personal networks into audiences and apply an automation model to the process of extending the user’s identity and activity across that audience.

I’m a proponent of social media, which I consider “the people’s public relations channel” as it taps into and uses online broadcast utilities to distribute comment and reputation outside of traditional media. What once was under the complete control of a reporter and editor now is within the command of any individual internet user. And it has turned the previous media relationship on its head, as reporters and editors now search among social media looking for sources for stories and expertise.

However, the proliferation of multi-featured channels, with increasing demand for permissions to access and sell your personal attributes, poses huge questions for users, both corporate and individual: how much do we trust these social utilities to understand us and respect our individuality? How great an effort are we willing to put into managing these tools so that the automatic features we use operate as we intend?

Marketing is a process. Each cycle of communication rests on calculated tactics aimed at specific outcomes drawn from product and consumer knowledge. All along the communication and feedback loop, energy must be expended. When we enter social media channels with the hope that they will automate our communications and ease our work, are we putting our faith in the right place?