I got an email from a colleague at work today asking the broader team about the definition of "social popularity." It was an excellent question and I have been thinking about it all day. I am still not sure what the right answer is but I think the term "popularity" is a little fluffy and vague. Unfortunately, I see many people today using tools like Twitter to "gain popularity" using shady tactics; and all it really amounts to is their perceived influence over others merely by their follower count or the ego they try and down play in their bio. Twitter is just one example but it happens all over the web, and even in person.
Without going overboard in its definition, I believe that social equity happens organically and is the net result of relevant content, in any form, that is produced and that the community finds valuable and shares. The way to increase social equity is to do just that: create relevant and valuable content. And, just like the value of a home, social equity can go up or go down. The best example that is top of mind for me is my friend Chris Brogan. I think we can all agree that he is a very popular guy with a significant following. But more importantly is his ability to create relevant and valuable content, consistently; which is why he is where he is today.
At Intel, we talked about this concept when referencing the social equity of Intel employees who participate on the social web. In fact, I learned just the other day that Intel has over 1,000 employees who have completed the social media training and are now engaged online and all over the world. It's a huge milestone and other organizations should take note. Yes, Intel the brand has significant social equity for this reason and they should be applauded.
What's your definition of social equity?