There’s a slide from a keynote I did three years ago that compared the Wikipedia definitions for the terms Web 2.0 and Social Media. Three years ago what was interesting to me was that the definitions for each centered on the human interactions of sharing and idea exchange (discussion and collaboration) and the change I noted then was that the terminology had merely changed. Web 2.0 had moved mainstream enough, that people needed a less geeky (& more meaningful) moniker to call it by.
But tonight, in updating my slides for my DMSW talk tomorrow, I discovered something much more interesting and I might add slightly disturbing. Take a look at the opening definition of social media now.* It’s no longer centered on human connections and conversation. The definition has taken on a definitive marketing slant and touts sm as the use of technologies to "transform broadcast media monologues (one to many) into social media dialogues (many to many)." Yup, simply put, it seems that Social Media = Social Marketing.
Anyway, here’s my updated slide with a new comparison of the definitions.
I labeled this image file "scary.jpg" What do you think? Do you agree?
Related Posts: Social Media, Snake Oil & Community Gardens
* Wikipedia editors note that this article has multiple issues including references, validation and slants towards personal reflection. There's definitely a lot of discussion on this topic and it's easy to see why.
Actually, I think the 2010 definition is pretty good and not scary at all. I don't equate it to Social Marketing.
Well, I think that the 2007 definition of "Social Media" was incorrect, probably because the whole social media area was still poorly understood at the time. The 2007 definition of "Social Media" should have actually been the definition for "Social Networking." The media is the platform/tools that enable networking. Social networking is the human action.
I think it's good to define the differences between tools and the actions they enable and inspire. The ways people find to use tools -- especially simple or lacking ones -- far surpass the design intents of most software designers.
Thank goodness, or else library types like us may have become irrelevant early on in the information explosion. Fortunately, we tap into both the tools and the actions to create content environments that facilitate the creativity, learning, and productivity of our customers/patrons.
I like your slide a lot. Use it proudly!
I agree with distortiongirl...I think the new definition isn't scary, but is a better definition of social media. I don't see marketing anywhere in there. (Even in between the lines.) I like the words "highly accessible and scalable" since that's what FB, Twitter, are, and they are media that disseminate through social interaction.
But the change in wording is fascinating--did web 2.0 definition change from 2007 to today?
Am loving getting tweets from DMSW.
3 years when we talk about technology is a very long time that you'll find many changes through this period.
I think that social media is under the branch of social marketing, since there are lot's of ways to market things.
Post a Comment