DISQUS

Jo-Ann · 1 month ago

Agree that the term "social media" is still required. It is different than just "media" as it is a 2 way conversation flow - hence social!

Peter Flaschner · 1 month ago

Dave, I quite like this definition:


Advertising = paid media (space you buy)

PR = earned media (space you deserve)

Interactive = owned media (space you create)

Dave Jones · 1 month ago

The first two are thrown around a lot in the Marketing/PR biz. The last one I have to give full marks to Matt DiPaola at Proximity for letting me know about. I never would have thought of it that way.

Amanda Laird · 1 month ago

I don't think we're ready to give up "social media" just yet. I would, however, vote for "interactive media" if it came down to a name change.

David Jones · 1 month ago

I like the term "interactive", but it's been co-opted by web-design firms since the early days of the browser-driven web. Like "media" it means different things to different people.

hummingbird604 · 1 month ago

You know I agree with Sean Moffitt in saying that all media should be social, but I also understand why the distinction.

I'm probably insane, but I agree with the both of you :)

Dave Jones · 1 month ago

It's not just media. Everything we do is social. That's what a society is. Over the years, organizations have built walls between themselves and the public for a variety of reasons. Dialogue has been removed from most interactions and when it's required it gets done is as inexpensive a way as possible vs. most effective.

Ian Sohn · 1 month ago

Hi Dave. Thanks for the link to my post. The genesis of my post was not so much that I don't think "social media" properly describes the medium. Rather, it's that the term "social media" has been so overused, co opted, corrupted, etc. It's certainly an interesting debate ...

Dave Jones · 1 month ago

Your post and a few others had been discussed out of context and seemed to be leading toward the idea of dropping the "social" from "social media." I don't think you were advocating for that. My interpretation of your post was that the catch-all nature of the term will lead us to determine that if everything is be social media, then nothing is social media. And that will be too bad.

I'm not giving in. I'm fighting for the term.

tamera · 1 month ago

I like the term the social web, since that's what the original premise was. But I'm old fashioned.

I still use social media tho' since it has brand equity and puts people on the same page.

Dave Jones · 1 month ago

I use social web a lot too. It's a bigger tent in my mind: social media, social networks, social bookmarking, consumer-generated content.

Ari Herzog · 1 month ago

...and social parties? Are those Tupperware(TM) parties or tweetups?

John Patella · 1 month ago

This is definitely a conversation worth having. Those of us in the communications trades must deal in more precise categories of the word 'media', but the rest of the world does not. And what chance to we have against the rest of the world?

The book Trust Agents, which I happen to be reading right now, boils the term 'media' down to an even more basic essence by going back to the view of Marshall McLuhan (the "media is the message" guy) who describes a "medium" as any extension of the human body. (Don't even go there.) So, in this view, wheels become a medium because they are extensions of our feet. Money is a medium that extends power. And social networks are a medium because they extend human relationships.

Social networks, the book points out, have made McLuhan's vision of media as an extension of ourselves truer than ever.

To me, our default understanding of media as "mass media" seems pretty inadequate as a starting point for wrapping our brains around the manner in which people communicate today. Maybe we need a whole different word. Let's make one up. How about "mimsy", or "jubjub."

Dave Jones · 1 month ago

That's an interesting take. We do need to provide some form of
relativity in our terminology so we can get the point across quickly.
Web 2.0, new media, social media, etc. are all just labels. But they
are successful brands because they connect with us immediately.

They may prove to be limiting and trite in time, but we need some
common ground at the early stages of this new communications era.

Mike Klein · 1 month ago

I love the term 'collaborative media'. I'm going to use that!

I truly believe that the power of 'social media' is rooted in the power of groups and the actions that they can take (vote in a new President, fight poverty and climate change to name a few).

Thanks for the great post!

Dave Jones · 1 month ago

I agree that social media tools are fantastic for enabling communities
of shared interest -- you can inform, engage and take action all from
the same place.

Brennan · 1 month ago

Hi Dave,

As a new PR student, I would say the new car smell has worn off for many people, but even people in my class are usually at a loss as what to do with social media, even though I know pretty specifically the ways they use it daily.

I guess what I'm saying is that I know that in the PR and communications area we are all pretty used to social media as our new 'thing.' But there are people in my age (18-28) who actually resist and don't use social media. Which is interesting because a lot has been written about Generation Y in that regard being 'super connected.'

So, while it may be the new normal, I still think it's new. It's worthwhile to keep the name for a while. Not everyone knows it yet.

Dave Jones · 1 month ago

another vote for keeping the name! Thanks.



David Jones
Hill & Knowlton
416 413 4604

ed lee · 1 month ago

so are we saying social media is an intersection of paid, earned and owned? all three coming together in beautiful symphony and harmony?

Dave Jones · 1 month ago

That's my theory. What do you think?



David Jones
Hill & Knowlton
416 413 4604

ed lee · 1 month ago

in retrospect, think social media is shared media. so then you have:

paid
earned
owned
shared

that works quite nicely for me...