CONTACT INFO:
MY LAST 3 TWEETS:
« Old Media Islands Will Shrink But Won't Disappear Overnight | Main | Social Media Engagement Tips: Twitter Alone is Not a Strategy »
Saturday
Nov212009

The Curse of Popular Terms like "Social Media"

By Dennis D. McDonald, Ph.D.

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’

I use the term “social media” all the time. It’s one of the terms listed in the index banner at the top of this page. Besides, development of “social media” strategies and tactics are an important focus of some of my current consulting clients.

Lately, though, I’ve become aware of some of the term’s limitations, based on my client work and what I see as potential problems caused by a failure to ensure that we are all speaking about the same thing.

I’m not the only person concerned about the term; others are thinking about the meaning issue as well. One issue is the word “social” itself. Distinctions between “social” and “professional” communications are difficult if not impossible to make when it’s so easy to use online networks to communicate about so many different topics. Plus, there is the tendency of some — still — to denigrate the term “social science” in comparison with engineering and harder sciences.

Finally, when concerns about government policy and responsibility are added to the discussion, simplistic terms like “social” and “professional” become even harder to distinguish when one is trying to convert legislative language and public policy into guidelines for communication environments that are inherently difficult to control. Consider the issue of “public” versus “private” social media tools. Public networking platforms such as Facebook and Linkedin offer varying degrees of privacy and access restrictions to different member categories. Defining such networks in terms of simple terms like “public” and “private” isn’t that helpful.

Thinking we can get rid of the term “social media” is probably just as fruitless as getting rid of the term “web 2.0.” As a consultant, for example,  I have to concern myself with the needs of my clients. If they insist on using terms such as “web 2.0” and “social media” I shall comply. At the same time, I have a responsibility to make sure my clients understand the meanings and implications of using such terms. For example, I have the responsibility to ensure that clients understand that there is more to social media than Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter.

Fortunately, none of these potential points of confusion is impossible to address clearly and openly. You don’t need an advanced degree to understand the different functions that different types of online social networking tools support. But you do need to be clear about your goals and the types of one-way and two-way communication you’re trying to facilitate. Once you do that, differentiating among the different “social media” tools that can support communication and collaboration becomes much simpler, and the possibility of confusion around terminology is likewise reduced.

Copyright (c) 2009 by Dennis D. McDonald

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (5)

Maybe we should be marking this distinction and starti referring to professional social media. Thereby differentiating between those that use it for pleasure and those that use it for work.
November 21, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterHilary_b
One problem is that there are instances where it's difficult to separate "pleasure" from "work"!
November 21, 2009 | Registered CommenterDennis D. McDonald
What a nice problem to have - but at least you would be differentiating between pure pleasure and work/pleasure.
November 21, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterHilary_b
Dennis -- thanks so much for a fascinating post -- and, as I've written, I think it is more then just a semantic question.
http://federalnewsradio.com/?nid=150&sid=1816571

The term "social media" and "social networking" ends up being inaccurate in an enterprise setting -- organizations simply aren't interested in socialness and I'm not sure these tools are really a media. In a government setting -- and more broadly -- I think the "social" terminology ends up allowing unenlightened leaders to block them altogether... to discount the importance of information sharing and of collaboration. That, in the end, hinders an agencies ability to potentially tap tools that let them do their jobs better.

So I think you for keeping the conversation going. If nothing else, it spurs people to focus on the real task of these tools -- helping organizations to carry out it's mission.

Again, thanks for the post.. and thanks for the link.
November 22, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterChristopher Dorobek
Chris - I definitely agree this is about more than just semantics. Since terms like "web 2.0" and "social media" won't go away, it's up to us to be more specific about their meaning. "Collaborative technologies" is definitely a step in the right direction but we need to be specific about "which technologies."

Going back to what I've learned in consulting, it helps when discussing social media issues to be specific about people, process, and technology -- which people, which processes, and which technologies. Then you have to relate the proposed changes to your goals and objectives.

There's nothing magic about that type of approach, but it certainly helps to make clear that we're not just talking about online networks, software, and cloud based applications.

Thanks for your comments!

- Dennis
November 23, 2009 | Registered CommenterDennis D. McDonald

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.