I Hate Social Media
July 9th, 2008 by JeremyNext to “Web 2.0″ it might be the most commonly used vaguely defined term I hear in technical and marketing circles today. I don’t like the fact that companies are chucking millions of dollars at people in the “social media” field, because they need a “social media strategy”. I love the new forms of online interaction and what they represent to a marketing organization, but why do we need to lump everything into a single nebulous bucket?
Here are some ‘working definitions’ of social media…
SocialMediaClub: Social Media is redefining how we relate to each other as humans and how we as humans relate to the organizations that serve us. While it is commonly represented by blogs, podcasts, vlogs, wikis, user generated content and social networks, it is not about those specific things as much as it is about what happens around and because of those things. This includes most notably the ability and desire to easily share with each other, to build upon that which is shared and to discover people, places and things that are of interest to you, because the sharing of these things with these new tools, is making visible that which was previously unknown.
Wikipedia: Social media is an umbrella term that defines the various activities that integrate technology, social interaction, and the construction of words, pictures, videos and audio. This interaction, and the manner in which information is presented, depends on the varied perspectives and “building” of shared meaning among communities, as people share their stories, and understandings.
Uh… dictionary FAIL.
Tamar Weinberg put together a blog post yesterday with quotes from many “social media experts” looking to define common traits. It’s a good, albeit long, read, but I can save you a bit of time. The most commonly used (relevant) words were: “social media, marketing/er, community/ies, audience, conversation, understand, relationships”. Over and over again, across numerous sites, it all continues to boil down to engaging in a conversation, yet we are lumping all these disparate methods and technologies into a completely inappropriate term.
Why does this bother me so much? First, I feel it “dumbs down” a fairly interesting topic. The same way any generalization creates issues (such as racism, elitism, etc), it creates a certain amount of sensationalism around something. And with any hype comes inevitable backlash (I find the Amanda Chapel twitter stream particularly interesting to follow), which will in turn cause incorrect behavioral shifts.
Today social media consultants can charge a boatload of fees to marketeers who are unfamiliar in the space. Fundamentally, many of their techniques will fail, not due to a lack of trying or expertise, but simply because there are too many round pegs being shoved into square holes (great example). The same way the bottom fell out of the “Web consulting” industry in the late 90s, those who have hung their hats on “Web 2.0″ and other nebulous terms will find themselves wondering how the well dried up so quickly.
So to my peers in the social media community who understand the conversation, consider narrowing your field into the area you are particularly good at. Community managers are needed, and will be for a long while. Blogger relations people are needed, and will be for a long while. Expertise is worth more money than generalism. Being able to easily and rapidly articulate your skills and the benefits you bring to the table will keep more food coming to your mouth long after this generation’s “Web producers” are still trying to sell untrackable, unmetricable, unfocused success.
July 9th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Also, David Brain posted a “What the f**k is social media?” deck: http://www.sixtysecondview.com/?p=712
July 9th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
I have to agree. “Social Media” doesn’t mean much to me anymore.
Let’s be more precise with our language. Social media is a blanket term for “web 2.0″ which is a blanket term for “the internet post 2004.”
So telling me you are a “social media consultant” just means “you work online.”
http://www.digidave.org/adventures_in_freelancing/2008/04/what-i-hate-abo.html
July 9th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
[...] Or maybe it’s not just me. Jeremy Toeman writes on much the same topic today. Filed under getsatisfaction, marketing and socialdesign. | var blogTool = [...]
July 9th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
“And with any hype comes inevitable backlash”. That’s it, that’s the biggest problem. It is possible for the wrong people to fight the right war. I’m no expert, but I do find the so-called web 2.0 tools potentially useful. But hyping them isn’t going to help, and you’re right: it leads to backlash.
Drama 2.0 is hilarious. Glad you worked in the link.
July 10th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
You’re absolutely right that most of the descriptions dumb down the whole concept of “social media,” but at the same time, it’s interesting to see how many diverse individuals agreed upon almost a single unified definition. Sure, it’s broad. Sure, it’s generalized. And sure, a small percentage of individuals talked about community management and blogger relations (which, to me, are still staple). Sometimes, I suppose, marketers don’t want to give out their biggest secrets. I wouldn’t be surprised if this was it — or the fact that those who responded felt confined to a short answer rather than a lengthy one due to the fact that it was just an interview question. It does make a good standalone post, though — and you do hit the nail on the head. Thank you.
btw, Dave Cohn, you disappoint me. I asked you this question via email and you never answered. Your feedback (especially one that is now perceived as a contrarian view) would’ve been totally insightful. Now write your comment on the post, dammit! :)
July 10th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
[...] been some discussion about marketing and ‘the Conversation’ in the making [...]
July 11th, 2008 at 12:33 am
You bring up some interesting points, and the comments are equally valuable in the conversation for sure. I have some of the same frustrations as you will see in my latest post: http://amandavegaconsulting.wordpress.com/. Being someone that has been in the industry since the onset (original employee of AOL) I’ve seen the struggle with definitions, explanations, and more importantly the ongoing influx of so called “experts” that seem to funnel in to any category related to interactive activities as a whole. Part of the problem is perpetuated by ourselves in that we cannot succinctly define our own industry. Partly because it changes daily unlike any other industry, and partly because there’s an ever growing need and possibility that you may indeed be able to coin a phrase that is everlasting.
Social media in my mind isn’t a new phenomenon at all. It’s just the latest categorical term used to describe what could be over 100 activities that happen to take place on the internet. But, the bottom line and the part that most miss, is that if you are not interacting on a social level: two-way or more conversations, then what you are doing isn’t social at all. My biggest complaint is the agencies and experts that post TV ads on YouTube and call it social media. So, if you are willing to take the time to engage over a long period of time, and offer true value, in a very open or honest way, then you are missing the point and are better off spending your marketing dollars elsewhere.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:06 am
I agree with Amanda – been a newsgroup junkie since way back and helped start a marketing strategy firm that uses social media as the raw material for developing actionable insight. Most of what is being passed off as social media are simply marketing stunts, a few initiatives are deep and real.
I think success in social media starts with listening – and it is not conversational marketing – but perhaps marketing informed by the new reality! Here is a great case study that begins with Listening:
http://tinyurl.com/5z3dbx
TO’B
July 15th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Tamar
Apologies – didn’t get your emails. Luckily we have Twitter which put us in touch despite the email blunders.
Not 100% sure what the question is. I will say this: I realize I am a bit of a nay-sayer on this topic, more than I need to be. Perhaps it’s my background: In j-school you are taught to be suspicious of anyone whose title (a. Is related to PR or (b. isn’t easily defined.
July 16th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
I agree with Amanda, too.
As an SEO by religion, I always think “social media” and “SEO” fall into the same hell; in that, the definition is somehow allowed to change depending on where you’re standing / what your needs and perspective are. Way too obtuse.
To some, SEOs are spammers (this can be true), and to others, SEOs are relevance marketers (and again, this also can be true even though they’re two statements on different ends of the spectrum).
Likewise, to some people, social media marketing can be defined as posting links that populate on friends’ networking pages, to others its the action of creating an active discussion. I just try to not use the term, and prefer to talk about the action on the level.
One thing is true about both – they’re also equally used (for evil) to confuse and scare a client right into your arms. “Oh, wow, I don’t get this at all – here’s $50,000 – make it all work… I’m heading for the hills before the obtuse monster eats me”.
From the article, I also dislike “Web 2.0″. It’s terribly obtuse too. SEO 2.0 is so far turning out to be a somewhat clear philosophy and strategic set. Sort of shocking, esp. for SEO. But nothing sounds nerdier than “2.0″. That part has to go.
July 16th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
[...] Here’s a relatively light-hearted post at Stage Two Consulting about what Social Media actually means. I enjoyed the frustration, because sometimes I feel like [...]
July 18th, 2008 at 9:57 am
I think, Social Media Landscape, that you’re trying in vain to rank for Social Media Landscape by writing comments on blogs that are not pertinent at all to the blog post at hand.
Did you even realize that these links are nofollowed?
August 24th, 2009 at 6:44 am
[...] The massive shift into self-publishing platforms (aka “the era of social media” – yawn) has radically enabled individuals to expose virtually every “truth” that’s out [...]