Stetoscope

Few years ago Jeremy Rifkin wrote a book called “The Age Of Access: The New Culture of Hypercapitalism, Where All of Life is a Paid-For Experience” on the idea that being the owner of goods, services or information means nothing anymore. According to him all that mattered was the access and the property.

Since this book published in 2000, the social networks appeared and some of the Internet commentators adapt Rifkin’s observation to social network. As to them, the value of your personnal brand would be linked to the extent of your social network and the personnal value of the people you have a contact with? Is that true?

Broadly speaking, I would say “yes”. Your access to “people” just as to “goods”, “services” and “information” is part of your personnal brand value. But looking closer I have a doubt on it. Following people on twitter, trying to get a lot of friend on facebook and multiplying your professional contacts on linkedin does not make you a great connector as Malcolm Gladwell would say.

As having access to a great car does not make you a pilot, having access to people does not make you a great connector. To be fully valuable a good network is when you can activate people on a specific project.

That is why I think about “social ability” which is the ability to active your own networks. It your ability to turn a friend or a contact into an active members of your community. So “social ability” would be the personnal ability to turn contacts access into an acting community that creates value.

This “ability” notion is extendable! In this “Age of access” the “ability” is to turn huge amounts of available goods, services, information and people into value.

So now the issu not seems to be on “access” but on “ability”. What about sharing abilities?