Should social media be about the group or the individual?
The term social media suggests an emphasis on groups or communities rather than on the individual. After all, attempting to be social with just yourself would be pointless. Media are constructs designed to communicate or deliver things to multiple people or destinations.
At the same time, groups and communities are composed of individuals with their own wants and needs. Group membership and activities must have some benefit to the individual or else the individual won’t contribute to the group. This benefit could be purely emotional or intellectual instead of being material.
A few days ago, I posted a short message on Twitter asking if social media should be about the individual instead of the group. Here’s a sampling of the responses that I got:
Different people had different opinions, as you would expect. Some had a strong position one way or another, others didn’t.
My own thoughts: I’m biased towards the individual.
Let me explain.
I don’t necessarily mean that social media is about creating “stars” or cults of personality. I don’t mean that social media should be about making a small number of people rich and famous.
I do mean that social media has to have some benefit to the individual participant. It’s about providing the answer to the dreaded question: what’s in it for me?
If there isn’t something for the individual (and I mean something concrete and tangible, even if it’s knowledge or a good feeling) then it’s not going to go anywhere, no matter how much good it does for “the community”. Group membership and belonging can be very important, but the individual has their own needs.
I believe that social media, group membership, movements, tribes, etc. will ultimately fail if they don’t deliver something meaningful and important to their members. Because we’re human and flawed like that.
What do you think?
bill:
Appropriate tension between the two seems most appropriate. Unfortunately, that doesn't make for a sexy discussion. I'm guessing there may end up and be a strong correlation between people's politics and their opinion on this matter.
9 December 2008, 9:30 amMark Dykeman:
Politics as in socialism vs. capitalism?
9 December 2008, 9:42 amCarolina:
I think its probably a symbiotic relationship. It's definitely about the individual in the sense that you say, that if the individual doesn't get anything out of it, it wont last. But at the same time belonging and group membership are things that human being need, and thus fall into the category of what an individual gets out of participating. It is about the community in the sense that if the individual will only be able to get out of it as much as he puts into it. I think it has a lot to do with the point of this article from TwitTip about being useful to your followers and thus increase twitter's usefulness for yourself: http://tr.im/21mq. So while social media is about being social, communicating, and thus being part of and adding to a community, those things are essential to the individual as a social being, and if s/he is not getting the benefits they want from their involvement, the community, as you say, wont last.
9 December 2008, 9:56 amAccuConference:
I think that there is definitely a good balance to both and agree completely with what Carolina said.
How a group is viewed by an individual will ultimately affect it's ability to provide what the individual needs. In social media, there are a thousand different aspects that go into something as simple as (take Twitter for example) following someone back who is following you. What will an individual get out of this particular relationship? Is it a company/group/organization that you are interested in? Do you really wish to know what they have to say?
I think without question there is a push and pull relationship between the two as you said, if the individual is not getting something out of it, then what will become of the group?
9 December 2008, 10:22 amMark Dykeman:
I see a number of comments about tension and symbiosis, whereby both the individual and the group have a stake in our participation. That does make a lot of sense. However, I think that “what's in it for me?” might be slowing down social media adoption. Does that make sense?
9 December 2008, 11:49 amrobdiana:
Well, the “what's in it for me” can be an initial driver for many people. The problem is that if you do not support the group/community, then people will ignore you the individual. However, much of social media is the discussion and the networking. These are longer term ideas compared to individual benefits.
9 December 2008, 12:42 pmMark Dykeman:
There are rare examples of people who do thrive by not supporting a community, but in reality they wind up creating their own like-minded community of the disgruntled, but I digress.
Other than that little nit, you have a good point.
9 December 2008, 1:29 pmSocial media loners and outsiders are real | Broadcasting Brain:
[...] number of weeks ago I asked whether social media was about the individual or the group. Many of the responses indicated that they thought the group was the important part. But what [...]
25 February 2009, 1:07 pm