I’ve been thinking for a while that there are waaaay too many social media / web 2.0 sites springing up. While many people group web-based applications with these sites, I distinguish these sites from social media / web 2.0 sites because I regard web-based applications as a little more focused on a task.
Social media / web 2.0 sites focus on human interaction with one another and after reading blogger and web designer Shey Smith’s post on why We Need Social Media Interpreters, Not Evangelists, I thought that I would point out my perspective from an online marketer’s standpoint or perhaps just marketing in general. I don’t necessarily consider myself an evangelist as Shey points out, but I do take on some aspects of evangelism by promoting the use of particular social mediums for marketing purposes. At the same time, I also do a lot of what Shey points out as interpreting.
Part of my job (and probably a lot of it) involves tracking and monitoring online trends. Sure, management hears about Facebook and blogs all the time in the mainstream media nowadays but they still do not necessarily understand the underlying basis for all of these mediums — they are still trying to catch up with classic question of: How does the internet impact our business model?
So what do I do? I act as a filter — in fact that’s how we all act more or less to some degree. I don’t need to tell them every bit of detail about the Internet and social media. Most of the time, people tell me to stop talking because their head is hurting from all the information!
5 Questions I Ask Before Telling Management About (Yet) Another Web 2.0 Start-up
1. Would any user would even bother with this?
2. Is there something else out there that does just as good or a even better job?
3. Is there a point for any business to get involved?
4. How? How? and Really … How? I want steps outlined.
5. Is it simple enough?
This is really just touching the surface of the whole issue but I guess my question about simplicity is focused on the general purpose. Just as web-based applications exist for a purpose, what is the purpose of social media / web 2.0 sites? Human interaction is the reason I often receive.
I hear review after review of social media aggregators such as friendfeed and socialthing! The purpose of these sites are to bring together all of our social networking data into one place but from what I can see after I begin simplifying the whole idea down to its underlying role — these sites do exactly what almost all other sites already do — draw data from other social mediums and place it on their own. Everyone is trying to become a social media aggregator! The only difference is in presentation and interaction of that data. Aside from early adopters like myself who may leap from one site to another, I don’t see how that helps most users who remain on a few.
Image from Dion Hinchcliffe
The only aggregator of a user’s online social networking data should be the user, not another web 2.0 start-up. I’m mainly pointing at the failure of social aggregators to actually do something useful, but if you want to read more about them, Dion Hinchcliffe has a very thorough article on social aggregation online.
Emphasis on Consumer Control (aka. The USER)
Those who regard social media aggregators as the key to dealing with the problem of so many web 2.0 sites are seriously mistaken. The whole social web/2.0 idea was never about the centralization of data, it was about decentralization and sharing. I think human interaction is a lot more complex and that the social media aggregators are not focusing on those linkages, but rather the the information and data that is flowing from these people through different social mediums.
The first step towards social simplification is data portability. While not the ultimate solution, I think it is important for any user to be able to take his or her data with them and decide what to share or not share — it is integral to any social medium and it will be a defining point for the marketing industry.
The next step is for everyone to have their own “website” where they can define themselves online. The public policy side of my brain (from working in government) asks … does that mean all citizens have the right to an online presence of their own? With data portability — I think the possibilities are available.
At this point you maybe wondering, “And how does the topic of social media interpreters relate to social media aggregation?” — simple: as individuals, we are the aggregators and we are the filters and we are the interpreters. If we want to control our lifestream, it begins with where we decide to interact. If you are a web worker like myself, our lifestream begins on our own website or blog. Forget the aggregators, what better system is there than one that is open source and that you can completely customize on your own?
Now the major question would be: HOW can we help people who aren’t as web-literate to do the same?
I think many of us are “reviewing” these sites on entirely the wrong terms. Namely, the “usefulness” or “value” as defined by the developers - not the end users.
As I’ve argued before, the majority of end users are “late majority” users. As such, they regard themselves as “consumers” rather than “stakeholders” of any new technology. They are not aware of their power and so they accept what they’re given. Case in point: the inability to delete or remove content from most new social media tools. Along with Opt-out models, limited user controls are coming to define the norm thanks to the lack of critical response from late majority users (something developers can bank on).
There are quite a few of us who are trying to advocate for two things: A) to help late majority users see themselves as stakeholders and influencers of better paradgims and B) to define our own terms of service for social media data:
http://melaniemcbride.net/2008/01/26/our-data-ourselves-the-users-bill-of-rights/
Thanks for commenting Melanie. I don’t know if we’re necessarily reviewing the sites on entirely the wrong terms. From my perspective in marketing, I can honestly say that I am looking from the outside at usefulness as defined not necessarily by the developer, but according to what I deem as a valued interaction between the user and a brand or product.
I also believe that greater success in marketing will be achieved when businesses/developers do not impose restrictions on its users or customers (i.e. not being able to delete or remove content), but rather provide options. I know that businesses may not necessarily agree with this standpoint so I think the role of the early adopter isn’t necessarily to influence the “late majority”, but to influence the developers.
It’s hard for businesses/developers to let go of data since they are technically offering a free service. Social mediums are now what newspaper subscriptions used to be. The model continues to be “provide content/service to user with advertisement”.
While I think that through the data portability group, there may be a slight change in how users can wield their data, but until a social network officially starts to promote themselves as a medium where users have the freedom to do what they want with their data, and as an online community that does not place an iron grip over all user information — there will continue to be that tremendous reluctance to let go of user data by major developers like Facebook and Google.
They stand too much to lose to one another unless someone beats them to the game by being more open. That said, Google is sharing the social graph but not in the way we want it… yet.
Melanie makes a good point — the inability to opt-out and delete content is a big issue; however, in a way is anti-social media.
The paradox is getting users to accept the open culture of web 2.0 while still giving them the privacy and security options they desire.
Hi,
Wanted to email you, but could not locate your email address on the blog. We have 2 cool widgets ( a slideshow widget and a content widget) which can help enhance site interaction and reader’s experience. Please contact me at ashishbaldua5@gmail.com to know more.
Thanks
Ashish Baldua
I think for the most part people have accepted the open culture of web 2.0 with the exception of many traditional businesses. That said, I think we are still in the mindset of an EITHER/OR situation where we can choose to be open or not.
We’re moving away from that very slowly but I think the future is ultimately focused on widgets or portable modules that allows users to mix and match what they want on their own site. Walled cities (http://tinyurl.com/6hzs5m) such as Facebook will be forced to open up regardless because the idea of a social graph that is actually accurate and effective is in reality, free forming — and that requires open space.
Just to clarify: re; reviewing on wrong terms (not you!) but most others are simply reviewing “features” - bells and whistles - rather than the more critical matters of privacy, user controls, granularity.
There isn’t a lot of sophistication except from social media theorists - who take a deep view of all of it in relation to culture, politics, ideology, surveillance, privacy, democracy, power and etc. Those are the issues that escape many end users (who, again, do not regard themselves as stakeholders).
I agree with Shey about the paradox - indeed. What is fundamental about open source is open and transparent and changeable terms. This is very, very different than the sneaky, sleazy, opt-out and proprietary behaviours of those corporations making supposedly web2.0 tools. I say supposedly 2.0 because the philosophies that inspired the participatory nature of 2.0 tech are all about many to many, sharing and etc. Facebook, in particular, has taken all the technical capacities of 2.0 and redefined them in entirely proprietary terms. This is the very behaviour that the early bloggers, community builders and open source creators (the people who created SOCIAL MEDIA - the Howard Rheingolds, for example) were trying to create alternatives to.
Up until the early days of virtual community and emergent social media (again, COMMUNITY based) the primary models of business were top down and proprietary. Advertisers, marketers, media and corporations TOLD US what to think and how to think about things. Along came the internet and tools for citizen media and finally the people really had a voice. “No, I DONT like your product. NO this news story is NOT balanced. NO these ideas of my race/gender/socialclass/identity are not reflective of reality … ” etc. Response, response, response. Many to many.
Public intellectuals like Henry Jenkins and others are calling attention to the freedoms we’ve achieved and trying to ensure that young people do not let these achievements slip out of reach.
What’s happening right now - right at this moment - is a full on war against the user and the open source movement. Corporations are working very hard to regain a *control* they never properly had.
click on my “website” link for more …