I’m a dreamer, too. But when Steve Rubel says, “All media is social and all social is media,†it’s time for respectful disagreement – or clarification. Most of the debate in response to Steve’s plea to “kill the phrase social media” took place through commentary on his post, which is worth checking out if you haven’t already.
Yes, social media qualifies as media. In the U.S., bloggers more or less have 1st amendment support on this, as noted in my breakdown on last September’s FEC ruling.
But no, not all media is inherently social. It should be. Even so, we’ve long drawn lines in the sand around our professional territories and tools for concrete reasons.
- Starting with the medium itself. For example – and you’d think this would go without saying – print and broadcast are not always conducive to two-way exchanges. So while both channels are effective in their respective spaces, neither is intentionally “social.â€
- Each medium is unique, further differentiated through targeted approaches via PR, marketing and advertising, but also has the potential to be fluid. Yesterday’s report and subsequent press release are today’s blog post and Reddit hit. YouTube takes an ad to new heights using both broadcast and social media. Other ads, bolstered by SEM, can take social strategies further (and vice versa). These are solid practices still unknown to and unused by – gasp – a lot of people, including too many practitioners.
Horses for Courses
“Social media” is not limited to a tool set, nor is it a phenomenon exclusive to the Internet. The online and offline, digitally kind can and should be tucked into other forms of media to foster community, comment and sharing. All these forms – print, broadcast, digital – fall under media relations.
We’re still a long way off from being universal in our social skills. Rather than belabor medium, find the mix that touches all relevant avenues to [insert your goal here].
Marking terrain and seceding based on boundaries of medium is a strategy-killer. And we all know what shoddy, segmented strategy leads to – anemic, pointless tactics.
Until we all settle on a better way to be (and a better word for) “social”: What’ll it be? Isolated or Integrated media?
I like your take on this. The term social media is broader than its individual tools.
Thank, Leo. We agree that just because someone is using a “social media tool” (e.g., a blogging or bookmarking platform) there’s no guarantee that the resulting product will produce a social experience. Not all blogs have readers/commentators, not all social networks have friends.
Interested article. I believe the only social media market is among the crowd 22 to 14. I teach a class to a local junior high school about sales and marketing. They truly use instant messaging, video, myspace and web for their social media. With that being said, corporations are planning out ways to adverstise in Social Media sites like blogs, you tube, ect….
Just because something looks like social media and smells like social media-does not mean it his true social media.
I’m almost at the point where social media is more of a philosophy/strategy than a set of tools/technology. It comes down to an organizational belief of: “do we really, truly want to have a conversation with our customers/prospects?” or would we rather “control the message” and ‘broadcast,” b/c those pesky consumers burn too many cycles.
Is customer service a cost center or a profit generator? Questions like that tell you about a company’s organizational bent re: ’social media’.
Hi Jimmy – I love that line, “Just because it looks/smells like social media…”
@jer979 – You are right on, Jeremiah. Hope you’ve been following Geoff’s recent threads on two-way conversations. Customer Service is Always Right.