Social Media is Dead. Long Live Social Media

Karl over at Experience Curve "tagged me" to weigh in on Steve Rubel's claim that Social Media is "No Mo".

From Micro Persuasion:

"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."

OK, Karl here is my 2 cents:

No, I don't think that the lines will blur to the point that the labels of Social Media and Mainstream Media  (MSM) become pointless or moot.  What my visual shows above is a clear separation between the two—however there exists a level of interaction that hasn't happened before in the past.  They now openly feed off of each other.  Mainstream media seems to no longer be ignoring  the Social Media movement.  They are, in fact  working in tandem with Social Media content generators—getting scoops, watching, reading, subscribing.  I know this because several MSM'ers have subscribed to my blog.

But does this mean that the lines blur and the distinction goes away?  Steve Rubel is a bright guy and he knows this space way better than I do, so he maybe taking a provocative position (or a long term visionary one)—but in my opinion we've got a long way to go before MSM and Social Media are indistinguishable.

Here's a few anecdotal first hand experiences to help illustrate the points I am making.

1. When I watch the news/listen to the radio, I still hear journalists speaking skeptically of Social Media even though they now openly reference it in their stories.  Plus, I’ve worked in Newsrooms in both print and broadcast years ago, many of the same people still remain in power at the top.

2. Most of the people I work with are vaguely familiar with my blog (some not at all) and usually only perk up when they hear about the BusinessWeek/Boston Globe mentions.  In fact, even though this blog has moved very quickly in a short amount of time, my actual work responsibilities haven't changed much since before I started the blog.

3. Many mainstream media outlets have their own versions of blogs, podcats etc. but this isn't Social Media—it's the MSM using technologies such as Podcasting, personal publishing or RSS to distribute content in new ways.  They are using the techology to innovate how their content is shared or even interacted with.

4. Whether we like it or not, us content creators are still fighting for credibility.  It's getting better—but we don't have the clout of a New York Times/WSJ piece etc.  There's a distinction there.  Sorry.  And lots of bloggers are in the midst of writing good old-fashioned books (Godin, Jaffe, Shel) etc.  Why?  Credibility—and exposure to those who still aren't participating (or even consuming user generated content).  Yes, for some if it's not in a book—it's not real.

So if I were to make a prediction for the next year or two, it wouldn’t be that the line between the two would dissolve and that Social Media as we know it dies (or the MSM for that matter) however,  I think a more probable scenario is that Social Media steadily begins to establish more mainstream credibility.  The MSM continues to be more open about leveraging their Social Media sources—we see more Vincent Ferarri's taking on AOL's and more video taping of Comcasts etc.

And here's a sign of the times.  Lately on the evening news I have noticed a new phenomina.   Many of the video clips that are being featured are pulled straight off of YouTube.  You see the logo and everything.  Is that blurring of the lines?  Well, it's getting closer to it—but it's not.  When we see Amanda Congden replace Katie Couric—well then MAYBE the lines have completely blurred.

OK, that was an exaggeration everyone.  :)

Comments

[Graham Hill]

David

I would agree with Karl and your positions. MSM and Social Media (SM) will become more intertwined but not to the extent that they become indistinguishable.

MSM is a long established tradition. There are tens of thousands of journalists looking for stories that help sell themselves and help sell their media. Stories go through an editorial process to check facts and to gauge likely interest to the public. The public (rather unbelievably considering the "mis-information" scandals in MSM of late) tends to believe what MSM produces. In a nutshell, MSM is all the news that is fit to print. And MSM decides what is newsworthy.

SM in contrast, although established since the beginning of mankind through storytelling, is a relatively new (electronic) phenomenon. There are tens of millions of bloggers looking for interesting stories that help sell themselves as interesting people. For the vast majority there is no monetary reward. Stories don't tend go through an active editorial process to check facts although most bloggers do assess the likely interest to the public. The public generally doesn't see SM unless it moves to MSM. The on-line public who do see it take what they see as personal opinion rather than corroborated fact and cross-reference it against other on-line sources themselves. In a nutshell, SM is all the news that is fit to discuss. And it is the on-line public that eventually decides what is news through a self-organised process.

Of course, there are already hybrids of the two like OhmyNews in South Korea. No doubt there will be many more examples as the two start to become one.

Maybe we are turning full circle as today's blogs become the modern equivalent of William Cobbett's 'Two-penny Register' that spawned modern tabloid journalism. See the excellent Economist article 'A Right Royal Scandal' at http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8401244 for more.

Graham Hill

[Greg Verdino]

I think the problem is nicely highlighted in the Wikipedia definition, and I think your points draw it out nicely (no pun intended.) Social media is about the creators, not the means of creation. Blogs, message boards, wikis, podcasts, etc are not the essence of social media; they are simply tools for the publication and distribution of content. Anyone, from a sole individual to the largest of the media conglomerates, is free to use the tools. But what makes media social is when it comes from the people. Yeah, I know, professional reporters are people, but even if they are blogging for their employer rather than writing an article for their print vehicle, there is a distinct difference between a paid media professional using a social media tool and a true citizen content creator doing the same for little to no direct reward.

[Valeria Maltoni]

I would beg to differ in one of the points Graham makes that:

"There are tens of millions of bloggers looking for interesting stories that help sell themselves as interesting people."

It is not a difference only in semantics. I think the successful bloggers, are *interested*. They become interesting people with their content and voice. There is a mindset of inquiry and true desire to discover, learn and reshape issues.

The other point I'd like to make is that when these interested, thus interesting bloggers publish, the community of readers helps them learn about the issues. So in that sense, SM edges closer to MSM because it is now beginning to be the acquired wisdom from the crowd vs. the brainchild of only one person.

Just like Wikipedia is constantly improving upon itself. I've seen Italian publications starting to integrate readers' blogs more and more in their online editions. The jump from citizen opinions to paid content creator is getting smaller and smaller.

DA -- wonderful visual.

[Mack Collier]

"however there exists a level of interaction that hasn't happened before in the past. They now openly feed off of each other. Mainstream media seems to no longer be ignoring the Social Media movement. They are, in fact working in tandem with Social Media content generators—getting scoops, watching, reading, subscribing. I know this because several MSM'ers have subscribed to my blog."

Bingo. I remember several weeks ago there was a story, may have been the You Tube-Google deal, but CNBC reported it as a 'rumor by a blog', and mentioned Tech Crunch. The added how 'we all know how unreliable blogs can be', and cautioned that we couldn't take the deal to the bank yet. Then it turned out that Tech Crunch was right, and Arrington had scooped MSM. You're right that blogs are slowly getting more credibility, and the level of interaction will only increase in 2007 as MSM is beginning to find ways to monetize that interaction.

Which isn't all good, but a natural progression.

[Greg Verdino]

DA (or anyone else for that matter) - did you happen to see last night's 20/20? All about CGM. This could be "blurring of boundaries" or it could be a proofpoint that MSM and social media are still two different things - otherwise one would not need to report on the other.

But here's what I found most interesting - the advertisers during the show ran adjacent to the same YouTube videos and racy college-kids-in-compromising-situations photos and commentary from snarky celeb bloggers that these same advertisers are afraid to run against online. Ironic...

A bit more on this at my blog (apologies in advance for the shameless plug, but I really do think this is on point): http://gregverdino.typepad.com/greg_verdinos_blog/2006/12/only_on_televis.html

G

[Marianne Richmond]

Although Steve's post makes good "copy", it is based upon the premise of either/or logic: everything falls into one category or another but nothing belongs to more than one category at the same time.

But it is a false assumption...even though it seems to be so common in so many discussions in this "space" as we seem to feel the need for definitional precision and the desire to declare a distinct end and a distinct beginning as if we were taking a test in Aristotlean logic instead of writing an ongoing narrative essay.

The problem is, this is evolution not revolution...i.e. the increasing level of interaction that you mention; the natural progression that Mack notes.

And Gregg's point about the creators (or publishers) not the means of creation (the technology or tools) is an important distinction; that ANYONE can create and publish is what has changed.

After all, MSM can use social media tools....and bloggers can be invited to the MSM platforms; its just that "invited" is the operative word.

Love your visual!

Marianne

[Marianne Richmond]

And the video of the Hussein hanging...uncut on Google Video. Not shown on MS TV....but lots of discussion about the Google video. I think that says something....besides ick.

[Asi]

David,

First, happy new year my friend!

a must read on the collision of old media and new (social) media is Henry Jenkins' book "Convergence Culture"

http://www.amazon.com/Convergence-Culture-Where-Media-Collide/dp/0814742815/sr=8-1/qid=1167820635/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-1724823-7286224?ie=UTF8&s=books

All the best
A.