What Did We Do Before "Social Media"?

The more I connect with people who identify themselves with all things "2.0", the more I wonder—what did we all do before "social media"?  The thing is, that it's absolutely fine to be providing a service where lots of people need help figuring things out, but as I look at business cards and meet and greet—it tells me little about what's really your core passion.  Or even simply where you came from.

I'm terribly excited by the mainstreaming of social networks.  I consider it to be THE innovation of our time.  It has global implications—it's significant.  It's transforming how we connect, relate and even do business.  And it has downsides too.  But I have to ask, are we losing ourselves to the word social?  And if we are, what's next?

What did we do before "social" became such a desirable word to be attached to?  Were we writers, analysts, designers, etc?  Maybe before starting that blog—you dreamed of doing something that never even included thew word social in it.  What did we really care about before "social" entered our vocabularies.  It's worth thinking about if nothing other than this perspective. What we did before "social media" took over tells us a lot about the things we care about and what abilities and skills we have to draw from.  These are the things that help define what we do—more so than "social media".  So if I run into you at a future event—don't be surprised if I ask you what you did before social media rocked your world.  It'll make for an even better conversation.

Before I went social, I was a "creative director".  What did you do?   

Comments

[Rachel Clarke]

I'm re-reading Henry Jenkins at the moment, examining fandom before social media, looking at how there was still a community but it was a lot harder to connect. You had to be really passionate to share.

'Social media', starting with newsgroups to where we are today biggens up the behaviour, making it faster, more people, far mere reactionary - but still, in a lot of cases, the old behaviours on a different stage.

What happens now and next is the really interesting bit. As Shirky says, the technology is getting boring, so the change moves to behaviours.

[francois gossieaux]

David,

I think that on this one you may be comparing apples and oranges. Maybe what we were craving was to be operating in a world based on social norms instead of a world based on market norms. After all, we have been hardwired with social norms for millions of years and only been conditioned to evaluate things based on market norms for a few hundreds/thousands of years...

In that framework, maybe the person never related to "being" a paid writer - but does relate with being a recognized advocate for the environment in the social media world.

All that being said, I agree with you that a vast majority of the 2.0 people should give more info/context about themselves and their background...will you help me leverage 2.0 stuff as part of marketing, new product development, customer service or as part of not-for-profit health advocacy programs. Without understanding the underlying processes that you will apply 2.0 stuff to, you cannot really help me.

So I guess I just did a 360 and agree with you :)

[Paula Thornton]

While we are champions of this stuff I think we're even driven more by our own personal need to leverage these technologies (or anything like it, until brainwave exchanges are available). But we still have a particular focus as we come to the grand convergence. It turns out that, in many cases, we all have similar arrows within our quivers. We just may have different targets we're aiming them at.

It has always been the convergence that has fascinated me. And for anyone who was involved in trying to bring the common elements together in a more 'formal' manner -- we all learned quickly that the 'formal' aspect was just too much variance. These technologies allow us to join together in 'dabbling', picking our own colors along the way.

[Mike Arauz]

funny, i was thinking about this earlier this week - maybe a response to BS08?

anyway, i was a theater director and actor before i fell into graphic and web design which then led to brand strategy. and here i am now a "social media" strategist.

but, all along i've always had a passionate curiosity about how people communicate with each other. this was always the lens through which i approached these various disciplines. and i think that's been the connective thread for me.

one of the things i like most about how social is evolving, is that it's not bound by specific skill sets or professional disciplines. it's simply an environment in which we can continue to pursue our personal creative and intellectual passions, where ever they may lead.

[jon burg]

We've always been social.

Before the world of professional, digital, social media I was "in media" both agency side and at a non-profit.

[Gavin Heaton]

Before social media we really just played on a local scale. Sure there were ways of working and collaborating with those overseas, but those connections were difficult and expensive to change from a working to a personal relationship.

To me, social media has transformed the way that we work and also the way that we interact with one another ... but it is still far from mainstream. Watch the power of this transformation over the next 3-5 years.

[Ike]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I am just a communicator. That's all.

[David Armano]

Gavin, that's great. But you're still a writer at heart. And I like it when you talk about storytelling.

What if all you did was talk about "social media"?

[Alan]

Social media has made it possible for people like us to get a voice.

As I've written before, blogging became people because people were fed up with traditional media outlets which they found to be corrupt. I mean the very existence of a phrase like "spin" shows the extent that PR can control the media.

So bloggers offered something big media didn't/couldnt: an authentic voice.

Most people aren't very good writers, so the combination of authentic voice + readable style was necessary for success.

The lack of official gatekeepers though means that anyone can rise to the top and (as Perez Hilton, of all people, is proving, with his newly announced radio, movie and TV deals) make the crossover to traditional media.

Which means real cash money for what we've been writing for nothing.

[Tyler]

I was in the chess club. I was in a band. We hung out with other bands like us. At university I got around with other English students and the guys I lived with. Then the people who worked at the campus radio station with me. Then I used a lot of email, newsgroups and message boards.

"Social media" isn't really an innovation. It's just he next step in building your own social circle.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9Qdyj_r3l_U

[Mack Collier]

"What did you do?"

Something not nearly as interesting with people that weren't nearly as interesting.

[Toby]

I was a marketing person who built strategies. Going social .. I can have an internet radio show, a TV/video channel and even a publishing 'division.' I'm my own media co. Benefits - reaching my community in ways *they* want to receive information and how *they* want to (oh oh here's the "e" word) engage and further build relationships. Going social .. it's a wonderful thing!

[daria]

we've been no more less but social...probably we talked more on the phone and spend more time in bookstores.
As far as I remember I was social. Before facebook I was sociologist researching the old good java chatrooms. Before that I was teenager and studen with no computer, spending time on parties and long philosophical discussion with my friends on the state of humanity. Nothing changed in me as person, my technological extentions developed...I have more "friends" with whom I share interests.

[David Armano]

Toby,

I feel my background made me a better participant in "social media". Adding value through the visuals etc. How about you?

[Crawford]

Storyteller.

[Crawford]

Actually, to elaborate little, co-author of stories. Users/customers co-authored with me.

[Garret Ohm]

Communicator. When I'm not being a husband and a father (to my dog), I'm either participating in social media or being a marketing director. Basically a brand steward for a design + communications firm in Maryland. My job is to make people want to work with us.

[Toby]

David - wish i had a bit of your graphic talent. love your visuals (when is the book coming out?). for me it's exploring through words. you might say that my background in research/interviewing has helped me contribute to the industry.

[Tyler]

It just feels to me like you're being to "wow" about it. Social media is THE innovation of our time? Really? That's the best we've got? Especially not impressive when you consider McLuhan said electronic media would lead to tribalization, what, 40 years ago now? Actually not tribalization, but rather RE-tribalization. It's just a bigger tribe, and we've been working towards it throughout our entire history. (And, it's worth noting that "social media," while pushing us a step closer, still isn't creating a truly global network. I mean, how many people in third-world countries are on Facebook or reading blogs?)

Anyway, I'm off track. Questions:

"But I have to ask, are we losing ourselves to the word social?"

Well, some of us seem a bit hung up on it. It actually seems that by asking the question, you're answering it.

"And if we are, what's next?"

A slightly more advanced version of this that will undoubtedly seem as revolutionary as the printing press, television or "social media" at the time, but kind of predictable and logical in retrospect.

"What did we do before "social" became such a desirable word to be attached to?"

More importantly, what will we do in two years when it's an undesirable and dated word to be attached to?

"Were we writers, analysts, designers, etc?"

We still are.

"What did we really care about before "social" entered our vocabularies?"

All the same things. Well, for a lot of us. For people who spend a great deal of time talking about "social media," well, you tell me.

"Before I went social, I was a "creative director". What did you do?"

Do you really introduce yourself as a "Social Expert" or something like that? We can't be friends. ;)

Anyway, that was a really long way of saying that I was a copywriter then and I'm a copywriter now. Yes, I pay attention to social media because it's relevant to my job, but that doesn't change what I am. Actually, now that I think about it, I don't think this question was at all intended for me, but I've written too damn much here not to hit "Post" (not to mention I should be around the character count that will look like a massive block of text most of you won't read... I mean seriously, who reads?).

[Tyler]

Shit, almost forgot:

http://www.gapingvoid.com/0711socialmedia1.jpg

[mookie]

can someone please tell me what media that is digital in nature is not "social"?
i asked this in a past post and don't believe i really received an answer.

my thought, anything you can 'link to' is social. and for me, that covers everything digital. not online, but digital.

example? bluetooth enabled bus shelter ad. i get a piece of content sent straight to my phone that provides some sort of utility that i then shoot off to my friend and it's on its way.

have link, will travel.

the thought process that one goes thru to digg a cnn article the like or save it to their delicious account is so seamless that there really isn't even a process that takes place. it's a natural action (ok fine, you need to think in order to consider it valuable enough to share, but that is more about the content than about the behavior).

if you agree with this thought, then really at the end of the day, why is digg "social media" but cnn.com not? why are only "2.0" experiences/applications/technology considered "social"? the impact that social media has had on digital experiences has woven its way so deeply into digital behavior that it is all SOCIAL.

note: i'm thinking as i'm writing here, so fully welcome the debate.

[Jennifer Laycock]

Is Social Media really new? Or is it just a new name for something we've been doing for ages?

Before "Social Media" I helped small businesses learn how to market themselves online.

Today, I help small businesses learn to market themselves online.

I just have a new word to use when describing it.

I got online in '92 back when everyone was using SIG and Usenet. It was about conversations. Then everyone learned how to build web pages and it was about talking AT people. Now the emphasis is on the conversation again. Kind of came full circle.

Glad to see that it did.

[Steve Woodruff]

We're Communicators using ComTools (communication tools) - which can range from the printed word, Twitter, TV, YouTube, blogs...whatever.

All people are communicators; some simply use a far more limited set of ComTools.

That label should give enough flexibility for the various means to evolve...

[mookie]

Sorry, not a big fan of the term ComTools. Might as well say we're using different Blow Horns.
If you're familiar with this blog then you're familiar with David's pov on the Conversation Economy - http://darmano.typepad.com/logic_emotion/2007/04/the_conversatio.html

I'm sure you're saying the same thing, but 'ComTools' for me is too impersonal and one sided to represent all that is at our finger tips to connect with others.

[Mario Vellandi]

Yeah, the 'social' adjective is great, but standing alone it gives no insight into the person's background and experiences from which they draw upon to give life to their passionate interests, while helping others understand their unique POV. At BS08, we were able to uncover those unique experiences and interests among us. Whereas truly social situations allow us to reveal ourselves in this way, we should try and be cognizant that our presentation-of-selves across various touch points, goes beyond the vague, common, and trite (no matter how passionately we express it). We owe that to ourselves and others.

[Gavin Heaton]

Agree, Mario! This is where the blogging/writing connection comes in too. You see, with writing, we can't help but reveal ourselves. It is subtle. It is a trick of language -- and even if we hide behind our icons/images or even our pen names, the truth of our experience shines through.

How brightly exposed we allow our writing selves to be depends entirely on how brave we are. Think back on BS08. How many people did you feel you knew already? How much had they shared of their life, ideas, vision, despair?

Take a look at the comment above yours from "mookie" who doesn't like the term "ComTools". There is no link back to him or her. Just a complaint about communication not being personal enough. Sure these are tools, but they can also powerfully emotional, engaging and drive us towards action and connection. You just have to push it (and yourself).

[Stephen Land]

Last year at SXSW Interactive, many panels seemed to be about video. Video banners, video sites, sharing video, compressing video, video codecs, etc.

This year at SXSWi most panels seemed to revolve around social networks in one way or another. And of course, the big show was the Facebook kid. Standing room only.

I guess what I'm saying is that when it comes to the internet, there's always a next big thing. Last year, video. This year, social networks. Next year, ?????? That's what makes our jobs so interesting and challenging.

Next year, I hope to take a few clients to SXSWi so they don't think I'm just making this crap up. It changes that damn fast.

[CK]

Great post ;-).

Before social media? I was a marketer who was passionate about my markets (and creating strategies and programs that resonated with them). After social media? I am still a marketer who is passionate about my markets...I just found another way to create strategies and programs that resonate with them (and a MUCH easier way to listen to them).

But my title was and remains a marketing specialist--the only thing on the biz card that has changed is that I include my blog URL in addition to my website.

(and before web 1.0 my title was marketing specialist...guess I'm getting old--but at least I'm adopting the new technologies)

[Patrick Sullivan Jr.]

The essence of death is isolation.

Therefore the essence of life is the opposite -- connection, relationship.

As jon burg commented, "We've always been social."

I agree. We're built for connection. And the most impactful technologies all do one thing: they remove the friction between connection.

The first technology? Spoken words.

Second technology? Written words.

These remove the friction between connection.

Twitter? Google? Blogs? Email? Yep. Connection.

Consider this metaphor: Women's suffrage came about NOT because women were bitching to their husbands, "Hey, why don't I get to vote in elections? This is bullshitake!" Susan B. Anthony and others had been bitching for 70 years.

But not until the widespread use of the telephone in the 1910s were housewives (finally) able to *connect* to other housewives and thus organize marches.

The point? I'm sure that after the 19th Amendment was passed in 1920, there were quite a few politicians who had real trouble adjusting to the new electorates.

THE *REAL* POINT? In 2008, how many of our friends, co-workers, bosses, employees, don't realize that women can vote now?

(Btw, I wish I was smart enough to have figured all this out myself, but I'm an idea-catcher...and I caught this one from Roy H. Williams at Wizard Academy in Austin. :)

-Patrick Sullivan Jr.
theEditweapon

[mookie]

Gavin,
funny you should mention no link back to me. i noticed right after i posted that i was basically the only one in the comments without one. but that brings up an interesting question, am i not socially 'connected' unless i am willing to allow everyone & anybody in at all times?

sure, i'm on facebook and linkedin and a not-so-up-to-date twitter. but if i wall that garden to my liking, am i not getting the full value of what social media has to offer? are you not able to respond to me in this social forum unless you can "see" who i really am? do i not even warrant a response? these aren't rhetorical questions, i'm really interested to hear what you and others that have fully embraced social think.

i don't know, maybe i'm participating in the wrong conversation here. i don't blog. don't think i ever will. but i have learned a ton in the few short months since i found Logic + Emotion (thank you David). it has opened the door to the rich discussions happening everyday about a space that i'm passionate about (thank you everyone else). i have commented on articles and shared them many times over with colleagues. and i can already see how it has affected the way i approach developing solutions for my clients. so... am i connected? am i part of the community even though my name doesn't link you to my full bio with photo?

i think so. and in some cases i think "I" am the most important part of the marketing equation. the semi-social. the larger audience who we are trying to reach (whether indirectly or directly).

[arvino]

David,

Before social media, I think we are still the same connected human social being. We are the "same person" who we are: Social human being by nature.

The difference probably is: through the help of today's 2.0 tools and technology, what we think and speak about is now can be heard farther and more outloud than before. It is simply being amplified quickly, globally and perfectly through the 2.0 linked network that we all increasingly had.

- arv

[Tamara]

Yes, I agree that people have always been social, and our voices always have been heard but passing through filtration and issue framing. Now it reaches without any distortion... or almost without...

[Tamara]

Yes, I agree that people have always been social, and our voices always have been heard but passing through filtration and issue framing. Now it reaches without any distortion... or almost without...

[Gavin Heaton]

mookie ... this is for you http://www.servantofchaos.com/2008/04/a-small-gift-fo.html

[Matt]

I'll agree we've always been social. Social tools have included watercooler, bottle of wine, pub/bar. Facebook is another tool with more reach.

I am a Copywriter. I delivered content that was AT customers. Now, as a social media guy, the content can be a little more with people. Of course, the brands we work with have to take a step back and let things happen a little more passively.

Marketing and passive. Two words that rarely went together.

[Des Walsh]

Fascinating discussion. Good question. As I write from here on Australia's east coast I reckon that, unless we coincide at a conference, the odds are long for you to be able to ask me face to face. So I'll respond now. Social media - as understood in a Web 2.0 context - has (have?) enabled me to play more effectively than was practical previously, on a global field. Before I was a social media advisor I was an evangelist for business blogging (still am, akshally) and before that (and still) a business coach .. a networker...a teacher...: the continuing thread is a facilitator of communication between people. Just that with the technology now available and so much more *accessible* it's a wonderfully bigger game, with more people. Very social :)

[geddon]

I used to fancy myself a Software Designer before I started designing User Experiences. As of late, it has has been hard to resist the appeal of Social Media and all things 2.0.