everwas

There is no such thing as “Social Media”

For the past several years I have hitched my name to the phrase social media. I used it as a handle to describe the mix of blogs, photos, status updates, and other methods of personal broadcasting that I used to get the word out and solicit feedback on new ideas. In the past, there was a clear distinction between media produced this way, collaboratively, often by amateurs, and that which was popularly referred to as mainstream media.

We’ve reached a tipping point. In my mind the lines between social media  and other types of media are so blurred that it’s not even useful to distinguish the two, just drop the “social” because all media is now social. Take these examples from just the past few weeks:

Along with others, I first heard about the crash landing of US Airways Flight 1549 in the Hudson via twitter. I was also amazed to see the twitpic photo featured on the network news stations – quality of composition was trumped by a camera phone that was in the right place at the right time. While the first reports were from twitter, more comprehensive coverage was to come later from the professionals but the twitpic and reader comments made up an important part of the overall package.

For the inauguration yesterday, CNN and Facebook shared a single URL. On the left side was a live video stream from CNN while on the right side was a stream of comments from Facebook.

cnn.com with scrolling facebook comments (via Steve Garfield)

While the video was very compelling, I have to confess that the real-time commentary from the peanut gallery on the right was absoultely captivating. If you measure media by the amount of attention given, most of my time was spent on Facebook feed. Mashable’s got more details on the numbers but it would be interesting to see a heat map of where people collectively spent their time on this page.

A couple years ago I asked how to define social media. In that post, Stowe Boyd said that is was defined by the, “annotations or social gestures left behind by active readers, such as comments, tags, bookmarks, and trackbacks.” Based on that definition, what we saw on CNN yesterday, and the ease with which people can create, reference, and annotate all media, it’s no longer useful to segment out something called “social media.”

There is no such thing as social media when all media is social.

Posted

in

by

Ian Kennedy

Tags:

,

Comments

20 responses to “There is no such thing as “Social Media””

  1. Richard Becker Avatar
    Richard Becker

    Hi Ian, I agree with you that it’s all media, but many people want the emphasis to be on social. (Except business, of course, which sometimes calls it real-time communication.) I think what is amazing here is that participants really want to distinguish what they do as opposed to what CNN does. All my best, Rich

    Reply
  2. Richard Becker Avatar
    Richard Becker

    Hi Ian, I agree with you that it’s all media, but many people want the emphasis to be on social. (Except business, of course, which sometimes calls it real-time communication.) I think what is amazing here is that participants really want to distinguish what they do as opposed to what CNN does. All my best, Rich

    Reply
  3. iankennedy Avatar
    iankennedy

    All media is making the shift to be more inclusive. From the texting of votes on American Idol to the broadcasting of twitter IDs on CNN, it’s a new world. I just wonder if the print newspapers can make the transition. Letters to the Editor are a tradition but the news cycles have trained us for more immediate feedback.

    Reply
  4. iankennedy Avatar
    iankennedy

    All media is making the shift to be more inclusive. From the texting of votes on American Idol to the broadcasting of twitter IDs on CNN, it’s a new world. I just wonder if the print newspapers can make the transition. Letters to the Editor are a tradition but the news cycles have trained us for more immediate feedback.

    Reply
  5. Julian Cole Avatar
    Julian Cole

    Hey Ian, I had this exact same thought but I thought that media has always been inherently social, it is only now that a third party now can see the social side of the media. here is my post which is better at explaining what I just tried to say!
    http://adspace-pioneers.blogspot.com/2008/10/all-media-is-social-media-first.html

    Jules

    Reply
  6. Julian Cole Avatar
    Julian Cole

    Hey Ian, I had this exact same thought but I thought that media has always been inherently social, it is only now that a third party now can see the social side of the media. here is my post which is better at explaining what I just tried to say!
    http://adspace-pioneers.blogspot.com/2008/10/all-media-is-social-media-first.html

    Jules

    Reply
  7. jhstrauss Avatar
    jhstrauss

    Excellent post. But while I agree with everything you wrote, I think you may have gotten carried away with a little rhetorical hyperbole 🙂 As Julian says, all media is (and always has been) by definition social. I think the blurring exemplified by the CNN/Facebook and newspaper/TwitPic examples is that of the legacy (and artificial, I might add) line between “conventional” or “mainstream” media and “new” media. However, I think this is more a matter of new media maturing to a point where it can deal meaningfully in the currency of conventional media (i.e. eyeballs). When you think about the fact that Facebook now has 50M US users, that CNN is partnering with them doesn’t really sound all that revolutionary. IMHO, the more concrete distinction that will continue to remain for a while is that between passive and participatory media. While passive media (e.g. feature films, broadcast tv) is generally associated with “conventional media”; companies and participatory media (e.g. blogs, youtube videos) is generally associated with “new media” companies, it is a matter of correlation not causation. “Conventional media”t; companies will continue to explore participatory media as “new media” companies will foray into passive media (e.g. MySpace “Quarterlife” and “Roommates”). I fully agree with you that the intersection of the best of passive media (e.g. production value) and participatory media (e.g. community) holds immense promise of which the CNN/Facebook integration is only a preview. But for the foreseeable future, I believe quality content will continue to be produced at both ends of the spectrum.

    Reply
  8. jhstrauss Avatar
    jhstrauss

    Excellent post. But while I agree with everything you wrote, I think you may have gotten carried away with a little rhetorical hyperbole 🙂 As Julian says, all media is (and always has been) by definition social. I think the blurring exemplified by the CNN/Facebook and newspaper/TwitPic examples is that of the legacy (and artificial, I might add) line between “conventional” or “mainstream” media and “new” media. However, I think this is more a matter of new media maturing to a point where it can deal meaningfully in the currency of conventional media (i.e. eyeballs). When you think about the fact that Facebook now has 50M US users, that CNN is partnering with them doesn’t really sound all that revolutionary. IMHO, the more concrete distinction that will continue to remain for a while is that between passive and participatory media. While passive media (e.g. feature films, broadcast tv) is generally associated with “conventional media”; companies and participatory media (e.g. blogs, youtube videos) is generally associated with “new media” companies, it is a matter of correlation not causation. “Conventional media”t; companies will continue to explore participatory media as “new media” companies will foray into passive media (e.g. MySpace “Quarterlife” and “Roommates”). I fully agree with you that the intersection of the best of passive media (e.g. production value) and participatory media (e.g. community) holds immense promise of which the CNN/Facebook integration is only a preview. But for the foreseeable future, I believe quality content will continue to be produced at both ends of the spectrum.

    Reply
  9. iankennedy Avatar
    iankennedy

    Strauss you know me too well! This post was a grain of sand slipped into the oyster, something meant to generate some discussion. Let’s come up with a better label than “participatory media” though – it sounds like an ailment!

    Reply
  10. iankennedy Avatar
    iankennedy

    Strauss you know me too well! This post was a grain of sand slipped into the oyster, something meant to generate some discussion. Let’s come up with a better label than “participatory media” though – it sounds like an ailment!

    Reply
  11. Kevin Sablan Avatar
    Kevin Sablan

    Watching inauguration coverage with coworkers gathered around a laptop recreated the feeling of a viewing party or family video night in the living room. We watched and commented out loud. More often than not, our thoughts were echoed by the stream of Facebook comments. When Obama got out of the limo during the parade, we were all concerned for his safety. But the FB friends let us know that we weren't the only ones also nervous for the secret service. CNN and FB must have learned from the social chatter during past events. Everyone on Twitter was talking about Blitzer's hologram interview on election day. And yesterday, CNN and other mainstream web sites were Dugg and linked to from Twitter more than blogs. I took a look and gathered it into a couple of lists … http://almightylink.ksablan.com/2009/01/cnn-makes-top-inaug09-links-on-digg-and-twitter/

    Reply
  12. Greg Tavares Avatar
    Greg Tavares

    Hey Ian I view the term and the associated technologies as still being valid and distinct from the traditional broadcast media. Social media enables the distribution of person to person communication in a way the traditional broadcast media can never do. I think what broadcast media is doing is merely trying to capture what is perceived as a sweet-spot demographic. IMO what CNN did was not social media. When comments are broadcast on TV it is no social media that is the broadcasting of social media My view of social media has to do with the social groups and people I am connected to. That is why I use social media to connect with groups and filter out the noise. Now when the CNN feed is able to allow me to only see my friends comments that will be a closer new world. I do not feel that the media is trying to be more inclusive I see american idol using text votes as well as call in votes primarily as a tool for measurement. This iReport trend as a way to get free content , a possible scoop on the competition, and to measure the traction on topics. Do not loose the faith. Social media has, is and will continue to connect people in truly meaningful ways.

    Reply
  13. iankennedy Avatar
    iankennedy

    Hi Greg, Great to hear from you! I would agree, broadcast TV is not social at all until it is brought into an environment where "social gestures" such as comments and annotations can be added. Hulu is an attempt to do this but not really because you can’t remix it. The tipping point I was referring to was cnn.com which added Facebook Connect so that you could see a stream of comments not only from the Facebook community but also a filtered view of just your friends on Facebook running alongside the broadcast of the inauguration. The live event was something that you wanted to share and this setup made it natural. Kevin below sums up the emotional experience perfectly. I haven’t lost faith. To the contrary, I think that “social media” is such a washed up term that it really has lost its meaning. Jonathan Strauss below suggests that “participatory media” is a better term which I agree. I just hope we can come up with a better label!

    Reply
  14. Auf den Punkt gebracht | bluelectric.org Avatar
    Auf den Punkt gebracht | bluelectric.org

    […] There is no such thing as “Social Media”. […]

    Reply
  15. Greg Tavares Avatar
    Greg Tavares

    How about “Dynamic Media” as a label?

    Reply
  16. “All media is social, All social is media” « Practicumpioneers’s Blog Avatar
    “All media is social, All social is media” « Practicumpioneers’s Blog

    […] February 3, 2009 · No Comments While “Twittering,” my eye caught a post by mashable – it said, “All media is social, All social is media” and included a link. The blog, by Steve Rubel, discusses how important bloggers are and how interactive media is rapidly growing in popularity. He says, “…we’ve seen time and again that social networks like Facebook, Friendfeed and Twitter are now essential sources of news and information for millions. This is particularly true around big events and breaking news.” […]

    Reply
  17. adthinktank. » Blog Archive » Is it time to drop “social” from media? Avatar
    adthinktank. » Blog Archive » Is it time to drop “social” from media?

    […] It’s clear that the integration of social media tools with conventional media is occuring with lightening speed. Steve Rubell recently spoke to this point on a 2/2/09 post on Micro Persuasion. He makes a good case that all media is social and all social is media. A report from the Bivings Group clearly shows that 58% of Newspapers in the study are using some form of user-generated content on their Websites. Steve also makes the point that social networking sites are being used to distribute news. […]

    Reply
  18. What is Social Media › The Ayman and Naaman Show Avatar
    What is Social Media › The Ayman and Naaman Show

    […] lured me out with this one, claiming that all media is now “social media”: We’ve reached a tipping point. In my mind the lines between social media  and other types of […]

    Reply
  19. Mor Avatar
    Mor

    Good post. Wrote some more about it <a href="http://www.ayman-naaman.net/2009/02/16/what-is-social-media/&quot; target="_blank">here</a>.

    Reply
  20. Mor Avatar
    Mor

    Good post. Wrote some more about it <a href="http://www.ayman-naaman.net/2009/02/16/what-is-social-media/&quot; target="_blank">here</a>.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Richard BeckerCancel reply