Social Media is No Mo

As we conclude 2006 and head into the new year it is my conviction that the phrase "social media" is moot.

Social media, according to Wikipedia, includes "the online tools and platforms that people use to share opinions, insights, experiences and perspectives with each other." This includes blogs, message boards, podcasts, wikis, vlogs and so on. For the last few years this was all considered related to, but separate from mainstream media. That point of differentiation is now gone.

In 2006 all media went social. Pretty much every newspaper, TV network and publication has wholeheartedly embraced these technologies. Newspapers have comments, RSS feeds, blogs, wikis and other forms of two-way communications. TV networks have a presence in Second Life and more. The lines have blurred. Even some of the marketers themselves are producing content that could be called "media."

The changes in communications go deeper, however. The media formerly called mainstream also communicates in a far more conversational tone that it did before -- one we use.

Meanwhile, the barriers to becoming a member of the fourth estate have been obliterated by these very same technologies. Look at Robert Scoble's writing this week as he tags along with John Edwards on the campaign trail.

So as we roll into 2007, it's fair to say that "social media" as a separate entity is dead. This will only accelerate as individual publishers add employees and build networks of sites that compete with the big boys. Need proof? Look at what Om Malik and Michael Arrington accomplished this year.

There's no point in differentiating any more. The story that Dan Gillmor chronicled in his landmark 2004 book We the Media has only accelerated. We are all one and it's silly to classify us into two different species.

Tags: socialmedia, media, 2007

Comments

[Brian Clark]

Well then, it's time to change your tagline.

Want me to try to come up with something? ;)

[Chris Thilk]

CAUTION:
Meme Starting Alert! The preceding message may cause a meme to get started that doesn't really mean anything. All bloggers are advised to avoid linking to this since doing so may result in this idea actually gaining some momentum.

Steve - If social media as a phrase is dead because all media is media, then can we safely stop using other terms like "social networking" since all networking is inherently social or "internet usage" since all time on the internet is, by definition spent using it?

How deeply do you want to go here? Should we stop differentiating "internet video" from everything else once the format reaches a certain level of usage.

I think the term "social media" is still useful since what we're using is media that allows us, quite frankly, to be social. It allows us to connect, to share our values and opinions and reach an interested audience. Letters and telegrams are social media in much the same way, only with a more defined audience. I still think the term has value and relevance as differentiators because we, as users, give them value.

We are the "social" part of "social media." Yes, it's all media but that is a special sub-group of that larger umbrella that it's important to recognize.

[Dana Vanden Heuvel]

Steve,

Chris has an interesting point about what the EchoSphere will do with your post!

For "those of us" in this space (bloggers, tuned in, reading feeds, etc), sure, you're spot on, and we should all adjust our vocabulary accordingly.

For everyone else (millions of business decision makers who pay us all to speak, consult and lead the way), "Social Media", and many, many other buzzwords that are "sooooo 2006" will have a shelf life of at least a few more years and the rest of the population ramps up.

[maggie fox]

I disagree - adding the word "social" before "media" is just a modifier, as are "mainstream", "conservative", "online" and "broadcast". They're all modes of communication, we're just being specific about how they are employed.

The term social media will have resonance for quite some time - we tend to forget that while it all seems so very 2005 to all of us, it's still very new to the enterprise decision-makers who will entrench social media, with 2007 likely being year "0".

[alan patrick]

Well, it seems that some bloggers are already being treated like Old Media hacks (cf Microsoft Vista hoo-ha ;)

Re Social Media being dead...the term may be or may not be, but the impact of online social networks on media overall has still a long ways to work through till its endgame in my view. This is just Act 1.

[Rafat]

Steve
You can't be more wrong...get out of the bubble you live in.
rafat

[Brad Berens]

Hi Steve,
I think that calling, ahem, antisocial media a thing of the past is problematic in at least two ways. First, while the number of media companies that are either acknowledging or embracing social media is increasing, there are still MANY that fear the web, let alone user-generated content. Second and more importantly, having anybody -- but particularly a thought leader like yourself -- cry out that the universe has accepted social media as the norm is self-congratulatory and conceals the large amounts of work yet to be done. I have the same objection to this that I do to people using the absurd phrase "Web 2.0". Web 2.0 is an exercise in self-medication... it reduces technoanxiety by letting its users think that we have our hands and minds wrapped around the next generation of online content, and that simply isn't so. I realize that I'm in the minority on this, but I'd argue that we're somewhere around Web 1.001, not Web 2.0, and I suspect that big things happening in 2007 will wind up supporting my POV, although only, alas, in hindsight.

To change the subject for a sec, thanks for all your work and for making Micropersuasion one of my must-reads for so long.

Happy New Year!

All best,

Brad Berens
_________________________
Brad Berens, Ph.D.
Editor in Chief & Chief Content Officer
iMedia Communications, Inc.
www.imediaconnection.com

read my blog at www.mediavorous.com

[Steve Rubel]

All, why do we have to segregate ourselves from the rest of the group. It's kind of degrading no? It makes us sound like we sit at the kids table.

Look at Scoble. He's media. He's on the campaign bus! Rafat, you make a living breaking news and competing with larger players. And you take ads. You're not media? Of course you are! Are your competitors anti-social? Hardly.

Now if you want to make an argument that "social media" (e.g. amateurs) is a tentpole within media landscape, that's fair. But it's all media. TV, radio, online, blogs, etc. All are media. Why differentiate? Is it that we have a need to feel special?

[DanielR]

Steve,

That's a bold statement to make. Washington Post and NY Times placing trackbacks and RSS feeds does not make it "Social Media". That's like PDFing a brochure, uploading it, and calling it a website.

Also, not all online media need to be "Social Media" compliant. And the ones that do, like many newspaper, have a long, long way to go to fully embracing social media. It needs to be culturally-ingrained and institutionalized. Everyone is simply copying what's in, which today is Social Media.

At the same time, I think folks like you and Edelman are helping pave the way when just about "all media is social media". But, we are not there yet.

I think that as people shift away from traditional PR and think about it (conceptually) as Social Media Relations, we will finally start to see that shift hitting at the cultural and institutional level.

Right now, I'm just seeing a lot of websites saying "me too!"

[Jim Long]

I'd like to echo Maggie's comments. But while "social" serves as a modifier, I think social media, or at least what i perceive it to be, is more strictly "cluetrain" compliant than it's mainstream counterparts, who largely ape the honest, transparent forms of conversational media.

Sure, MSM has(transparency disclosure: I'm employed by MSM) embraced new media technologies. Of course they've begun to sound more "conversational". But all of this has come out of an instinct for survival, not out of a desire for cultural transformation. As such, it somehow, sometimes rings hollow - kind of like astroturf. Looks good...just doesn't feel right. If social media is the "kids table", it's definitely the cool, smart kids table. Save me a seat

[Olivier]

Hi Steve,

I like to compare new media to sports. You can play tennis for recreation, you can play in local competion, you can be in a college team, make money as an amateur or even turn pro. How and where you play doesn't change the rules of tennis. Sometimes a pro will be beat by an unseeded player. And all pros have started by being amateurs.

You get the idea.

Now the same is happening with media, content creation, etc. Depending on your involvement, talent, luck, you can be a Steve Rubel/Mike Arrington, or a simple amateur like me.

[Karl]

I think this is a great post. The lines have, indeed, blurred, and it's important to recognize it, however I think DanielR has a point that many of today's adopters seem to be looking at social media as a menu of features to implement, instead of the shift in operational thinking that needs to occur. This year will be telling.

[david weiner]

While I think that a lot of what you are saying is accurate, the headline is a bit over the top ... for the sake of conversation.

[somaking]

Steve,

Its worth noting that use of the term "social media" has its roots in the technical realm. Until recently social networks and blogs have been largely devoid of rich media.

The "social media" term came into use because some sites combining rich media and social interaction became popular.

On the technical side of the equation, rich media is vastly more complex to manage than merely text and graphics.

We are now seeing a new crop of sites that provide the infrastructure to manage rich media complexity, and couple it with the social dimension.

As such, "social media" represents a new breed of web site: One that allows all types of media equal representation.

[Brian Solis]

Steve, are you trying to spark contreversy or do you really believe that "social" or any other category preceeding the word "media" is dead? Just to be sure, let me clear this up for everyone here...Social Media is not dead. It is in its own definitive category. So if anything, 2007 becomes the year where social media is a respected and recognized channel for media, but it is by no means mainstream, traditional, broadcast, etc. We still have a lot of work to do to get the rest of the world to join the conversation.

[Ricardo]

This is a deeply short-sighted comment.

For starters, in most countries MSM still behaves like MSM. No comments are allowed, no wikis or blogs are used extensively and RSS feeds are limited to a few sections or non existant.

Even in countries in which blogging and social media are very strong like in the US, I do not see them becoming very conversational. Does having a comment capability makes them more conversational?

Third, in most corporations and organizations Intranet or Internal blogging is still not used or used as a platform for publishing the ideas of the corporation and not to empower individuals.

The whole idea of the post is a bit ahead of its time in a way that it doesn't add much value. I think the differentiation still matters and still will for some time.

[Jim Nail]

Whether "mainstream" and "social" media have converged so much that we can eliminate the terms, I'm not sure about. But there is so much mutual influence that they must be considered together to understand the total set of influences that shape peoples' opinions.

[Lee White]

Another way to look at this is with respect to the competency necessary for organizations, outside of the pure media space, to operate. From a PR, Marketing, Communications perspective, there is often little understanding of the principles behind "social media". So at least in that sense the term still has validity.

[Jeremy Pepper]

When I was younger, I never got the "you can't have your cake and eat it to." Maybe I was too literal a child - you get a cake, there's like 10 pieces, and you get to save those pieces and savor them, so you get at least a month long love of cake. So, I got my cake and ate it to.

As I got older, I got the way too literal reference that once you eat the cake, it's long gone. Gone, gone, gone.

Here's your dilemma, Steve. Cute post, cute meme - but if social media is dead, what do you have left? Does that mean specialized divisions of PR firms (oh, say, Me2) are dead and antiquated already? Did you just eat your cake and have nothing left?

You might have been better off noting that media is media - both new and social and mainstream. Noting that one is dead is just as bad as saying mainstream media is dead. Neither are dead, but evolving and changing.

[Owen Lystrup]

All media went social...but that social?

You think it's no longer a slight minority that spends time in the social media (oops, should I no longer say that? I mean, I don't want to be out of the times) realm?

It hasn't quite caught on as much as you might think. There's still a majority of 'normal' people in the world that lives outside of the tiny realm you work in. That majority has not quite caught on yet.

[shel israel]

Steve,
Sometimes you just baffle me. Because all media is getting more social, there's no need to call it social media? Perhaps you forget the impact of a media that is social. Perhaps you just got to caught up in the rating, rankings and A-List bullshit, so much that you forgot the meaning of the words MICRO persuasion. It's about the conversation... aw shit. I'll just post why I think what you have written here is just horse shit.

[tish grier]

My gosh, Steve...like Rafat said, get out of your bubble. Don't believe the hype.

[Jake McKee]

Steve, I get what you're saying (at least at the core, foundational, underlying argument), but there's still value in using a term of distinction between social media and simply media. We have a LOOOONG way to go before this is just "normal" stuff. For every paper that allows comments on their site, 10 more don't.

Remember when we all said the same thing in 1999? "Hey everybody! The Web is normal! Every business has a web site, and everyone in the world surfs the internet!"

Let's learn a lesson from that foolishness and remember that not everyone is doing all the stuff you're doing.

[Jake McKee]

By the way, Lee at CommonCraft.com had a great quote in an old post:

“Men like to substitute words for realities and talk about the words.” So said radio pioneer Edwin Armstrong.

Very relevant to this discussion.