In 2009, Social Media Will Be So Over
December 30, 2008 by Craig Stoltz
Back in my callow youth, in 1996, I was reporting on an “online travel” technology conference for the Washington Post. It focused on the breathtaking development that the Internet would soon let people actually purchase airline tickets and hotel visits online, without a travel agent or even a phone call!
It was heady stuff during a period when Windows 95 was a bug-riddled juggernaut and connection speeds were measured in “baud.” Brains were abuzz.
But I vividly recall one of the panelists saying something like this:
No offense to the conference organizers, but in five years there will be no “online travel.” The Internet will be fully integrated into commercial transactions and the term “online travel business” won’t mean anything different from “travel business.”
I think of this often as it applies to social media. I think by the end of 2009 what we now call “social media” will start to become just “media.”
The capacity for people to interact and collaborate with each other online–using social networks, instant message platforms, content sharing sites, ratings and recommendations tools, self-publishing communities and so forth–is becoming so commonplace that the concept of “social media” as a distinct entity soon will have lost its meaning. It’ll just become part of what people mean when they say “media.”
We’re already getting close.
Just about every news site publishes blogs and allows reader comments. Surely the site visitors who use those features don’t think of themselves as using a special kind of media with its own name. Having a Facebook and/or LinkedIn page is simply what web users do. Checking out a ratings and recommendations site to pick a restaurant or hotel has lost any feeling of exotic play at the leading edge. Online dating is simply one ubiquitous method of looking for partners, not a dangerous foray into geekland.
Facebook claims 140 million active users, and adding over half a million per month. [Squishy numbers, but still.]
Twitter is now on TV, Facebook supports candidates, candidates have Twitter profiles and any cause or business that isn’t integrating some of this social media into their overall marketing/communications plans and internal processes is in danger of marginalization.
According to the authors of the seminal book Groundswell, in October 2008 only 25 percent of online users qualified as “inactives” [no engagement with social media] while the group considered “spectators” [who at least consume others' social media] was about 70 percent.
With the exception of Facebook, more complete and active engagement with the social media is still fairly low. But if the rate of adoption continues in 2009 as it did in 2008–especially if the government begins to carry out 2.0bama’s plans for digital civic participation–one year from today the use of these “social media” will be largely integrated into a majority of folks’ lives.
In which case we may find that–to bastardize media near-futurist Jay Rosen’s manifesto on “the people formerly known as The Audience“–we may begin to think about “the media formerly known as ’social’.”
Craig,
Having spent 10 years consulting in the travel business while the transformation your mention occurred; I completely agree with your conclusion. As a matter of fact I think we’ll all be better off when we drop these tags (at least from the perspective of how businesses can utilize these tools). People (customers) don’t go “do social media,” they get on Facebook, etc. The more businesses can start seeing the world from their constituents eyes - and then act upon that observation - the less static will exist and the easier (or at least more effective) communication will become.
The lines between social media and just plain media are definitely blurring. But I do think that people will continue to distinguish between media and social media when it comes to news commentary. Citizen journalists are not the same as veteran reporters – which doesn’t mean that they don’t have the potential or insight to be one. There’s a certain kind of value and trust we’ve placed in veteran journalists like Edward Murrow, Tom Brokaw, or Christiane Amanpour that the latest “it” blogger will have to work hard to earn.
But when it comes to news headlines - Twitter is the new CNN ticker (RIP).
Strongly agree that “social” media will be dropped, and I hope that very shortly afterwards (if not before) the concept of a “social media expert” will likewise expire.
People with the skills, expertise, experience and track record helping others use these emergent technologies are NOT “catch all” generalists who are expert in all forms of social media. There are principles that apply across many of the platforms and practices involved, but as you point out, media and social media are merging, and what I think we will need (and yes, as a Twitter and microblogging specialist I am biased) is focused expertise to inform use of the strategies and tools at hand.
Media and communications has long been clear on the specialization of roles - you don’t have your graphic designer plan an ad buy. Your on-air talent is not expert at managing the control room and mixer. So why should anyone claim to be “expert” at social media in all its forms? (HINT: consistently, the people who really do know their stuff in this realm seem to *avoid* the “expert” word.)
Thanks for a great post.
This is the challenge we take up whenever we field a survey about social media — how do you ask someone about a technology that is wallpaper, or split hairs between text/IM/DM on Twitter/Facebook updates? The trick is to stay focused on our mission to study the social impact of the internet, not the uptake of this or that technology.
I agree, but actually think it’s part and parcel of a well-established phenomenon. For example, after a while, horseless carriages were referred to simply as “cars”, and steam trains as “trains”. Sooner or later, e-learning in the field of education will become “learning”, and e-assessment “assessment”. But it seems that we have to go through a period of semantic differentiation with every new variation on an old practice.
I think a good example here would be the New York Times. If you go to their main site, it’s “traditional” media - - print news, online.
However, if you look close you’ll see a little button that says “Try our EXTRA homepage”. Clicking that basically makes the NYT site more interactive, including blogs and other ’social media’ / commenting features.
Just an example of the always-blurring line.
[...] Read the complete article by Craig Stoltz [...]
All–Thanks much for the comments.
Doug Davidoff: Good observation about seeing business from a customer’s eyes. As I think about it, it seems most business problems rise from a failure to do this.
Termeh: I am just glad Edward R. Murrow died before he had to “blog the war.”
“Pistachio”: Yes, the fact that users don’t perceive a difference between “social media” and “media” doesn’t mean that there’s no need for skilled tacticians, advisers and extremely bald but highly qualified and reasonably priced consultants to help others use this peculiar, delicate form of media wisely. [BTW, Would love to hear where the great nickname came from. Remember when pistachios were covered with red dye?]
Susannah: Great point, that the blurring makes social media increasingly difficult–and unimportant–to measure.
Terry: Excellent observation about the persistence of cultural assimilation of technology over time. I wonder when “mobile” will disappear as a term to describe a certain method of communication?
Dara: Yes, good thought about the Times, and how it is currently so self-conscious about the distinction between “news” and “other stuff that isn’t really the news.” It betrays a sentimental self-regard that serves the folks of the Times far more than it serves readers. And speaking of self-regard, just FYI here’s my blog post on Times Extra: http://xrl.us/bea58e
I definitely agree with your analysis. And if 2009 is the year that social media becomes media, I predict that recommendation and aggregation tools will become even more important in tandem.
I could not agree with you more!
I am surrounded by colleagues who absolutely recognise that the ways of working have shifted dramatically. But if they hear that phrase just one more time….! So I talk of media, not social media and loving the web, not Web 2.0.Then they get on board free from jargon and grinding words.
Cheers
I love common sense so much, thanks for your article!
[...] media - that marketers no longer market, or sales no longer sell, or journalists no longer write. That just makes out social media to be more than it is. [...]