Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Social media is media (and the opportunity for the PR industry)
Social media isn’t media. It’s social. So says Mark Earls (@herdmeister). I discovered Earls’ blog yesterday (thanks to Robin Grant (@robingrant), MD of We Are Social).
Earls is the author of Herd: How to Change Mass Behaviour by Harnessing Our True Nature. Here’s what he says.
But Earls is spot on in his belief that the social element is the most important within a network. I’ve just done a quick review of my Twitter feed and I reckon that 15 to 20% of Tweets could loosely be defined as media content. The majority are self promotion or social detritus. But that’s okay.
The media aspect of social media is leading to the rise of the individual as media owner. Collaborate Marketing discussed the emergence of the personal media platform on its blog last week.
Where the media definition does eventually breakdown is when it comes to the use of social media as a promotional vehicle. The ad model simply doesn’t work as Mat Morrison (@mediaczar), head of digital strategy unit at Porter Novelli wrote in a comment on Grant’s original post on his blog.
New mechanisms are emerging to create influence. It’s a great opportunity for the PR industry. And until someone comes up with a better description lets stick with the social media.
Tags: markearls, matmorrision, robingrant, socialmedia Permalink |
Social media isn’t media. It’s social. So says Mark Earls (@herdmeister). I discovered Earls’ blog yesterday (thanks to Robin Grant (@robingrant), MD of We Are Social).Earls is the author of Herd: How to Change Mass Behaviour by Harnessing Our True Nature. Here’s what he says.
Social Media - blogging, tweeting, facebooking and so on - is NOT [primarily] about information (what we write, say or read - just as advertising and all those things we criticise are not either); real communication is gestural in nature - it's about what you do and what you see others doing.Earls goes as far as saying that it’s not media at all. I disagree. People are creating, recording and sharing content. That’s media by my definition.
But Earls is spot on in his belief that the social element is the most important within a network. I’ve just done a quick review of my Twitter feed and I reckon that 15 to 20% of Tweets could loosely be defined as media content. The majority are self promotion or social detritus. But that’s okay.
The media aspect of social media is leading to the rise of the individual as media owner. Collaborate Marketing discussed the emergence of the personal media platform on its blog last week.
We share items with our social networks and enjoy what have they have to offer back. All of which means fun for us, juicy relevance for our network and kudos for those serving up the best digital goods.Thanks to RSS aggregator applications such as Bloglines and Google Reader and customisable web pages such as iGoogle and Netvibes we’re all creating our own media platforms, sucking in data and content from trusted sources across our networks and the web.
Internet Explorer may still have a stranglehold on the market, but its death-grip is loosening since Mozilla’s Firefox and Google’s Chrome entered the fray. Both options are accessible, powerful tools that allow people to pick from a massive palette of apps, filters, alerts, feeds, blockers, search options, streams, plug-ins, widgets and tabs. These apps allow us to build personal media platforms around our unique passions and preferences.
Where the media definition does eventually breakdown is when it comes to the use of social media as a promotional vehicle. The ad model simply doesn’t work as Mat Morrison (@mediaczar), head of digital strategy unit at Porter Novelli wrote in a comment on Grant’s original post on his blog.
One reason that I dislike the term 'social media' is because clients hear the word 'media' and believe that it's brand-able; that you can buy space like you can on any other medium.And so I’m back to where I started. Earls is leading an experiment for marketing and PR bloggers to stop using the word brand or the b-word as he reckons that it’s sloppy and no longer has a place within a network.
New mechanisms are emerging to create influence. It’s a great opportunity for the PR industry. And until someone comes up with a better description lets stick with the social media.
Tags: markearls, matmorrision, robingrant, socialmedia Permalink |
Comments:
I dunno. I think I'm with the anti-'media' label camp. I might be able to create my own media (my Netvibes page instead of the BBC news page), but (as you - and others - say) that doesn't make it 'brand-able'...
The majority of this stuff is interesting is because its a bunch of communications networks - like the phone or wotnot... tools for telling, sharing, gossiping, etc, etc. And that's hard (wrong) to put a brand imprint on in any sensible way.
'Social Tools' would perhaps be a better label than Social Media. (Perhaps - I just made that one up.)
Then maybe trad marketers would have the bright idea of just sponsoring them rather than trying to hijack them....
The majority of this stuff is interesting is because its a bunch of communications networks - like the phone or wotnot... tools for telling, sharing, gossiping, etc, etc. And that's hard (wrong) to put a brand imprint on in any sensible way.
'Social Tools' would perhaps be a better label than Social Media. (Perhaps - I just made that one up.)
Then maybe trad marketers would have the bright idea of just sponsoring them rather than trying to hijack them....
Thanks for the comment and the links.
But suspect you might be missing the main point: the whole SM ecosystem should not be thought of by our industry as media in the same way that TV, Print, Radio or Posters are - ie as primarily media or "channels" down which we send information-based messaging to the people out there.
The thing being these are gestural networks (as per Roger's comment) - they allow us to connect, listen and be influenced by each other, and - as you acknowledge - they are definitely not ours to command!
Hope this clarifies
But suspect you might be missing the main point: the whole SM ecosystem should not be thought of by our industry as media in the same way that TV, Print, Radio or Posters are - ie as primarily media or "channels" down which we send information-based messaging to the people out there.
The thing being these are gestural networks (as per Roger's comment) - they allow us to connect, listen and be influenced by each other, and - as you acknowledge - they are definitely not ours to command!
Hope this clarifies
I think that as PRs, yes "social media" is an opportunity. Especially as so much of the traditional media is closing down as we speak.
But can PR's be trusted not to roll out the usual "fluff" to blogs and on social media platforms?
We must adapt and understand that social media is more about voice and conversation. Bearing this in mind it must be as genuine,believable and focused as possible.
To summarise most bloggers hate round robin advertorial style press releases. You have been warned!
Social Media = Social interaction online.
Post a Comment
But can PR's be trusted not to roll out the usual "fluff" to blogs and on social media platforms?
We must adapt and understand that social media is more about voice and conversation. Bearing this in mind it must be as genuine,believable and focused as possible.
To summarise most bloggers hate round robin advertorial style press releases. You have been warned!
Social Media = Social interaction online.
