What I believe about social media today
social media May 28th. 2008, 2:30amI believe in the potential of the little guy and that can easily justify the need for social media.
I believe that big is getting to be far too big.
I believe in influencers AND having the right environment to make an idea spread.
I believe that being famous is like wearing a target 24/7/365.
I believe that name recognition is a conversion factor.
I believe that the vast majority of large publicly traded companies will never get social media because they shy away from risk and must quantify ROI.
I believe that social media will look very different in two years.
I believe that a lot of what Seth Godin writes makes sense, but lumbering giants don’t die easily.
I believe that social media is a pyramid scheme (of sorts) AND that it can be a rising tide that lifts all boats.
I believe that technology is just a set of tools.
I believe that a lot of people want fame or recognition, but they don’t know why, nor do they have a plan to use it when they get it.
I believe that social media works best with a healthy dose of cynicism and practicality
I believe that social media has to move beyond selling things and focus more on sharing things (the original intent).
I believe that social media is changing the world, a tiny bit each day.
If you're new here, welcome! Please consider subscribing to my RSS feed to stay up to date with my latest posts and articles. Thanks for visiting!
Other posts that you might enjoy reading:
On FriendFeed, this post was liked by 1 person and commented on 0 times hide
May 28th, 2008 at 5:15 am
Nice piece. Some particularly worthwhile insights there.
Interesting you note the belief that large, publicly trading companies won’t “get” social media properly. I tend to agree (wrote about the difficulties on my blog a while back). But one of the other issues is content creation. Stems from the inability to judge RoI I guess, but companies are never going to encourage staff to really develop the regular and relevant content that’s necessary to add value to the social networks.
On a criticism side of social media, I also believe that too many people are saying the same thing in only slightly different ways. But guess that’s the nature of the beast.
Check out Where’s The Damn Paparazzi? from Robin Cannon
May 28th, 2008 at 5:44 am
@Robin - I do think that some publicly trading companies do get social media, but that’s a conscious decision and investment of time on their part.
Regarding:
is SM really much different from any other area of interest? There are always popular topics and acceptable things to say on any topic.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:12 am
Oh sure, but rather taking social media as the medium rather than the topic of discussion. Because it expands the discussion (of any topic really) so much and is so open to new input - which is generally a good thing - does mean a lot more repetition.
Albeit it’s something that’s arguably self-solved by submission sites that help evaluate (even if imperfectly) the best of the bunch in terms of new content.
Check out Where’s The Damn Paparazzi? from Robin Cannon
May 28th, 2008 at 6:52 am
@Robin - can you give me an example of these submission sites that you’re referring to?
May 28th, 2008 at 7:32 am
By submission sites I mean the likes of Mixx, Sphinn and (as a less qualitative example these days) Digg.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:50 am
@Robin - OK, I see what you mean
May 28th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Regarding:
I’ve been online now since 1989, and you are quite correct that the original intent of the Internet was to share things online. I see alot of bloggers internalizing in what they share (witness the zillions of free Wordpress or Vbulletin etc. plugins you can find online).
Data points,
Barbara
Check out 21 Days to a more profitable blog - Day 9! Add Amazon to your Wordpress blog sidebar from Barbara Ling
May 29th, 2008 at 2:08 am
Nice brain-share, thanks.
You mentioned that you’re not sure why “a lot of people want fame or recognition” — I know why. Television.
In the centuries before, only a relatively few wanted to be the tribal storyteller, or on the stage, or later in the movies. But when we’re raised with and co-parented/schooled by TV from Day-1, a bazillion times more people become wanna-bes because we’re hard-wired to naturally ape our “parents.” Just a guess… from a late-boomer in that industry… Current civilizations less interested in fame? Probably NOT having 3 TVs in every home…
May 29th, 2008 at 5:09 am
@GirlPie - I think you may have misinterpreted my comment. It’s not that I’m not sure why people want fame or recognition. I think that a lot of people want fame and fortune BUT they’re not exactly sure why, nor do they necessarily know what they would do with it once they got it. Sure, there’s money and there’s recognition, but is there really a plan with most people to use it effectively after they get it?
There’s no doubt that television has a huge influence in people’s thoughts, opinions, etc. but I wasn’t really thinking of TV in this context.
May 29th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Thanks for clarifying, I HAD misinterpreted. You’re right that there’s no plan (at least with many of the wanna-bes that come to me for help to achieve this idea of fame/fortune), but I think that speaks further to the idea that they’re unthinkingly aping what they’ve been shown by the TV.
Theater, movies, concerts and sports events are still major social media players, but TV has reduced their reach (even as it tries to widen a shows’ ‘community’ with TM-voting.)
But the 3rd screen, this computer monitor, is changing social media ever more as it takes solo viewers and lets them build a far-reaching audience (as you have done so well with your blog.) Great discussion, thanks.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
@GirlPie - Aw shucks. If you had a blog, I’d go join your audience!