Regarding Socialnomics, I was amazed by the lack of any deep insight. At best it’s a series of superficial anecdotes.

I seems like the author rushed the book into print so he could claim to be an expert in a growing field. His style may be personal, as the review (above) points out, but his journalistic standards are low. (I’ve been a business editor for 31 years.) For example, he makes many claims that are unsupported by data or studies. Here is one of them: “Social media…connects parents to their kids like never before.”

Here is another specious claim: “Wikipedia is bound to be more accurate [than Encyclopedia Britannica] for major topics–if you have 1,000 experts contributing, versus 3 to 5 experts, the social graph will win every time.” Qualman does not define “major topics.”

He says consumers “historically hated” traditional marketing because it involved “empty promises.” No support for this claim.

He says, “One trend we are starting to see is Generation Y and Z’s difficulty with face-to-face interactions.” No support for this claim.

One thing that I found annoying was Qualman’s reference to Socialnomics (with capital S) as though it is a brand. He declares, “Socialnomics is a massive socioeconomic shift.” Grandiose?

And finally, the sublimely ridiculous: “Obama knows that staying connected [with the people who voted for him] via social media will be his key to success as president.”

Wiley publishes some very good business books, but this isn’t one of them.

And your intro is exactly what I’ve been trying to convey to people suddenly looking for social media brains – if you hear the word expert, run for the door. It’s a shame as those looking to buy knowledge need a consult just to tell who is worth hiring to consult.

I haven’t seen/read much from rtraction – will definitely have to correct that I need someone good to point to

Cheers, Erik Qualman