Is this really called Social Media? Yes!
January 31, 2007 by Chris Heuer
Jeremiah Owyang is one of the brightest and most influential commentators on Social Media and Web 2.0 today (I know because I track these things with BuzzLogic, a company I advise), but he writes in a post this morning that he hates [has been challenged on the use of] the term social media, and asks that you help come up with a better term [if you have one]. The discussion on his blog is insightful and very helpful in bringing more people to an understanding of this issue, and the proper usage of the term - something that has gotten way out of hand with regards to the term Web 2.0, with some enterpreneurs calling every piece of software Web 2.0 regardless of how true it is. This is a conversation I appreciate, and one that I had with Mike Hudack of Blip.TV back at Portable Media Expo 2006, which you can listen to here in this ‘Beercast’ entitled “What is Social Media Anyway?” He also felt the same way as Jeremiah, but changes his mind after our conversation - perhaps in part due to the level of beer consumption before noon that day.
As with many other commentators on the naming of Web 2.0, I not only have a problem with the 2.0, but also with the simplification of using only the term Web. If you look really closely, that term is completely wrong on many levels, but that did not stop it from being widely spread as a defining phrase of our era. The thing is, “AJAX Internt Applications for Communications and Collaboration” just does not roll off the tongue as easily - nor does it allow for much individual interpretation that creates personal relevance - it makes it hard for people to ‘own’ the term and its wider meaning. When talking about Web 2.0, I get to the heart of the matter, and it is not much better. I often talk about the idea of Web 2.0 (or Web 2.2 if you were paying attention in November) as the Live Web, Open Web, and Social Web - and so much more. Memes are seldom perfect usage of language, they are really just symbols of a deeper meaning - a linguistic iconography if you will.
The language wars (like that we went through around the broader idea of what I have been calling the Social Media Release) are a part of what we go through in conversations and deliberations to get to a deeper, and more widely accepted meaning. This process is good to a degree, as long as good intentions are at play and people are focused on supporting one meaning over another rather than predatorially attacking and pushing down another. Unfortunately, there are still smart people who resort to slinging mud and derogatory aspersions at those who disagree with their view on the world instead of being engaged in the longer discussion required to come to an understanding of the real points of disagreement. Personally I feel that if it is that important, people should take the time to consider and discuss all viewpoints of other respectful participants - as I am doing now, even though I am serving as Conference Chair of Content Week in San Diego at the moment.
To get back to Jeremiah’s concern though, I do think the key word is Media [definition 2, noun specifically from that link]. What makes this era and this medium different is not possible to perfectly encapsulate for everyone’s agreement - becuase what is different is unique to everyone based on their socialization and prior experience. It is really some different versioning of the broader concept of media - which can only be called Media 2.0 because of the broad acceptance of Web 2.0 and its wicked sisters. How about “New Media 49.5″? Perhaps we should take into account cave paintings, Guttenberg, the penny press, radio, television, interactive and all the other versions of media we have experienced? Yes, what makes it different is the interactive nature - the read/write Web - the conversational media - participatory culture through media - knowledge sharing - collaboration in the commons - blogging - podasting - convergence and so much more. But aren’t these all just subsets of the broader term already?
The phrase that is gaining wide acceptance amongst real people (not just early adopters and technologists), is indeed Social Media - I saw this sometime ago actually, registering our domain name in March of 2006, watching it gain wider acceptance with each and every passing day since. While I appreciate Chris Saad’s perspective (most especially his insights around the importance of attention), I feel that Media 2.0 is a term that appeals to a technical audience more so than my grandmother, and is only practical because of the success of the meme for Web 2.0, not because it would stand on its own. It will work for some people and I am sure it will gain traction, which is fine, and the Media 2.0 Workgroup will be successfull (with such bright writers, it darn well should) but the reality is that the phrase Social Media ecompasses the key aspects of the deeper meaning we are speaking to, for the broadest group of people. It is a medium for communications between people - this is about bringing people together through communications and collaborations tools within the context of the different passions and interests they care most dearly about.
I came to the naming of Social Media Club through looking at the brilliant insights of branding shown by 37 signals and their approach to the symbolic use of language through widely understood terms, rather than nonsensical words which needed meaning created for them. BaseCamp, where we come together to prepare for our journey and organize our stuff. BackPack, where we keep our stuff to take with us wherever we go. CampFire, where we gather with colleagues for warmth and conversation. Wow - they are smart aren’t they!
In regards to whether or not this is a buzzword, or a meme with legs, I think it is here to stay. For some it replaces the use of the term Web 2.0 - for others it represents something completely different. David Blumenstein talked to me about Web 2.0 being the tools and technologies and Social Media being the content (can you please chime in here David). To an extent, it is the content produced within different forms of Social Software, but again it is so much more, and we could debate that term for quite some time as well, but let’s not just yet - after all, we do need to get some work done between these deep conversations from time to time…
Community Marketing could work well - but again, only to a degree and only for certain people. I am sure this will be discussed widely at the upcoming Community 2.0 Conference if you are interested in that conversation (BTW, I am speaking there and will be blogging there occasionally). In a sense it is related to the idea of using the word ‘audience’ to refer to people. It is the view of the world seen from inside an organization looking out, rather than looking at the world as a whole which is an important underpinning of this era - with the people inside organizations, participating in the communities, interacting with other people, realizing their common ground and working together for their collective benefit.
Besides, we also know that “Social Media” Club is adaptive once all media is digital, we live in a 3 screen world and have fully realized persasive connectivity with very rich read/write tools through integrated hardware/software solutions like that I imagined for sharing and annotating television programs in my post on Twitter from a few weeks ago. As the term Social Media loses prominence in a few years, the pronunciation merely changes to “Social” Media Club. The focus on media however, is a part of our roots and our desire to bring all media producers together to understand the Importance of Social Media.
What do you think? Am I on target here, are we going to be ok a year from now known as Social Media Club? Or is Jeremiah right, and we are still in need of a better term?
[update - just heard from Jeremiah, and we are in general agreement - he is merely responding to challenges he is getting from those against the usage of the phrase, with a challenge to them to find a better one]
This is the third of my weekly columns we are calling “A View From The Middle” - it is still in its birthing phase, so the format might change a bit, but they are generally deeper posts about the important things I see happening, not on the fringes, but in the middle with everyone else. You can subscribe to the feed for these posts here which will be my specific musings on Social Media, Social Software, Web 2.0 (uggghhh) and the broader socioeconomic transfromations that are underway.
Great points, very well thought out.
I need to clarify my post, which I didn’t do a good job with.
I use the term Social Media a lot, in fact, it’s my preferred term.
Other folks have been telling me they don’t like that term “social media”, so this post was a challenge to them to give me a better term.
If you look at my tags/categories on my blog, you’ll see I’ve devoted quite a few posts to the term social media.
Could you please update this post to reflect my stance on the term?
Jeremiah = prefers the term “social media” until a better terms arises.
Ah - thanks for the clarification - I guessed as much, but wanted to support that we feel (most obviously I think) that it is the right term and provide some insights on my thinking about this matter. I don’t feel there is a better term, but am interested to hear those different perspectives…
Oh thanks Chris.
Perhaps you may want to update the text post above to clarify to readers that I actually do NOT hate the term “social media”.
I updated my post to provide some clarity.
I apologize for being confusing.
I really like how thought out this is, Chris. I have recently been thinking about the same topic, especially since I am proposing a research project around this and have not been able to come up with a more fitting term than social media. It does capture and include a lot.
I have also been thinking about the word “Club” in the title here, and wonder the history of the thinking behind that.
[...] Jeffrey Keefer asked “I have also been thinking about the word “Club” in the title here, and wonder the history of the thinking behind that.” in the comments on my post about why I think the term for the industry/movement/era is ‘Social Media’. I was so focused on the term Social Media, that I neglected to explain the reason I thought it best to call what we are doing a ‘Club’ instead of an Association or something else. It really follows the same pattern of thinking I referenced in looking at 37 Signals and is reflected in my third post to this blog, Building the Social Media Clubhouse and the first post The first rule of Social Media Club is… [...]
Hey, great post, Chris. Personally, I like social media because it says what it is (i.e. is not a nonsensical term that requires definition to every person who hears it) and it’s also less inside joke, tongue-in-cheek than web 2.0.
However, just in case the masses don’t agree, we’re prepared to convert to the acronym “SMG” on all our letterhead
[...] Once again, the use of the term Social Media is under scrutiny by some of the loudest voices in the blogosphere. Robert Scoble’s post “what is social media” seems to have reignited a thread that Jeremiah Owyang started a couple of weeks ago that I responded to with my post, Is It Really Called Social Media, Yes!. Yes Dare Obasanjo is right, the Social Media entry in Wikipedia is woefully lacking, and there are many other very insightful points to consider in that conversation which point out reasons to be vigilant. Rather than diving in to a tit for tat on everyone’s points which would take me all day, I had a great conversation with Brian Solis this morning about a post he is writing which lead me to write this comment for Robert’s blog, which I decided to post here as well… [...]
[...] Is this really called Social Media? Yes! | Social Media Club Starting to put together a set of links around the discussion of what is social media that kicked off in early 2007. Much of it is not resolved still, but the phrase has obvious staying power… (tags: branding marketing media socialmedia smp whatissocialmedia) [...]