What’s your definition of social media?
April 4th, 2008By Cathy Dunkin
The engaged group of students, faculty and St. Louis businesspeople who came together Thursday for a social media symposium at Washington University heard from a passionate panel of four experts. The group energetically covered everything from the future of news and journalism to Twitter and Second Life.
In preparing, panelist Jason Fiehler of full-service interactive agency infuz confessed he and his team had changed their definition of social media just before the seminar.
Jason’s original definition was:
Social Media - An umbrella term that defines the various activities that integrate technology, social interaction, and the construction of words and pictures. This interaction, and the manner in which information is presented, depends on the varied perspectives and “building” of shared meaning, as people share their stories, and understandings.
New definition (4/3/08):
Social Media – A publication model in which there is no distinction between audience and author.
Jason says, “I used this definition in the presentation because I decided the original definition didn’t get to the heart of the matter.”
To illustrate, Jason presented a list of well-known brands he feels are Social Media or NOT Non Social Media (according to the new definition):
Social Media
eBay
YouTube
Twitter
Digg
Wikipedia
Not Social Media
Amazon.com
NBC, CBS, etc.
Yahoo Instant Messenger
CNN
MapQuest
Do you agree with Jason’s definitions and examples? What’s your definition? I’d love to hear your thoughts on the subject. Also, if you were at the symposium, what did you think?
Thanks!
April 4th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
I think the book reviews in Amazon could definitely be considered social media. I always thought of instant messaging as “social” as well. In fact, I don’t think it belongs in the “not” category at all, even under Jason’s definition.
April 5th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Jason did point out that his examples of “non social media” organizations almost all have some features that qualify.
April 5th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Marijean, I (and I assume Jason) would have to disagree with you. I think the primary focus of each outlet is in question. The primary focus of Amazon is retail; to sell stuff. The primary focus of CNN is for the CNN folks to provide news. And the primary focus of Yahoo! Messenger (or AIM or Google Talk) is for two-way communication between a closed group of people. The difference between these brands and “social media brands” is that social media brands’ primary focus is universal collaboration or universal access to the sharing of information.
April 5th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
I agree with Marijean about Amazon.com’s book review function, I think that is an example of social media.
My definition of social media would be different from Jason’s. I would say social media is a web technology where the audience or members of the website have the ability to participate and contribute.
Probably one of the most comprehensive definitions of social media is Tim O’Reilly’s definition of Web 2.0. I believe he has seven factors in his definition of the term. I often think that social media is used by business people, PR and marketing people. While the programmers, technologists and VC people use Web 2.0.
You find different communities on the web using different terms for the same practice. Though there are differences between Web 2.0 and social media, I think they are close enough.
Interestingly, there has been a debate about the use of social media optimization and social media marketing. SEO people appear to use SMO, and a broader array of people use SMM.
April 7th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
I like to think that social media means using social objects (be they free videos - in the case of youtube, or 99 cent+ books - in the case of amazon and so on forever,) to foster communities online.
While I agree with Jason’s statement, it did make me go hm. What I like most about New media is what happens (or doesn’t happen) when you’re applying it to old media — so I don’t like to say “You’re in or you’re out” when it comes to that sort of thing.
Loved the conference, so grateful to Susan for telling me about it - but would’ve really been excited to see more (one?) women speaking up there on that panel.
April 7th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
What I liked about Jason’s definition was its simplicity; what I like about the follow-up conversation is that I agree that the subject isn’t a simple one. There are so many great opportunities to get involved — for businesspeople to technology experts. By any definition, social media is open and inclusive.
To Lori’s point, if Washington University plans a future panel, being inclusive of another woman’s voice to join mine is a great suggestion.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
I think Social Media is like obscenity. I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
[…] distinction between publisher and consumer” definition of social media seems to have caused a little to-do locally. This entry was written by Hans, posted on April 6, 2008 at 8:07 am, filed under asides, […]