Matt, this is helpful stuff. As you've accurately described, a lot of this flows around into and through more than one category. It's all sharing - sharing my creative production (blogging, photos, audio, video, etc.), sharing my status, sharing resources and my feelings about them, sharing contacts. It's give-and-receive networking electronically, that often leads to deeper collaboration, conversation, and face-to-face networking.
Matt J McDonald
· 1 year ago
@Steve Thank you very much sir. You're completely on when you mention sharing. I think that the new social technologies play perfectly off peoples natural tendency to want to share things with others. The more they can learn to harness that, they better they'll be.
Doug Meacham
· 1 year ago
Matt, I really like this! Boils all the Social whatevers down to what they really are and how they relate. Steve's comment about "sharing" is important and you should consider working it into the post. As for the graphic, nicely done. The only things you are missing to raise it to the Armano level are some swirly circles within circles and some bathroom people.
Matt J McDonald
· 1 year ago
@Doug Thanks! I was going for simplicity, because like the Wikipedia definition, I think it can get muddled slightly sometimes by over complication. Added swirly circles and bathroom-sign people to the checklist for next graphic.
Greg Verdino
· 1 year ago
Nice post, Matt. I like the graphic and the schema you're using - although I wonder if the top circle is 'socially created content' or 'consumer generated content' (to me socially created implies collaboration, which might be there in wikis but not necessarily in an individual blog) or something more along the lines of 'socially shared content' per Doug's suggestion (created by individuals but shared with, for and by the commmunity). I think your notion of 'socially highlighted' content is key - I talk about the importance of curation as an engine that makes the social mediasphere hum and be useful to a broader audience (don't show me everything, help me find the best, most relevant stuff for me - that's where something like digg or stumbleupon or even linkrolls really come in.)
As for Wikipedia's official definition - I use it all the time, but actually think it focused to much on the whats (social media is blogs, networks, podcasts, wikis, etc) and not enough on the whys (because people want to connect with other people.) You've done a nice job of capturing that important distinction.
Rock on, G
Gusf
· 1 year ago
Hey Matt, Awesome write up. I would probably put Twitter in the middle as well as I believe it can be used for Socially Highlighted Content. I've shared many sites on twitter with my friends and hell, I got to your site by a post on Twitter :)
Daniel Pyle
· 1 year ago
Great graphic I really like how you tied things together with the post. Yes the why is often neglected and most often leaves marketers wondering how the hell to work the systems. Personalizing business is the most powerful way to make money online or off line. Social Media allows a larger audience to view a very personalized message. The best is yet to come because competition has forced all of these sites to become smarter and more innovative. I can't wait to see what is next.
@Greg Now that's a solid comment. I'd agree that not everything is created by a group, but at the same time, most things are created for a group (or at least one other person) making it inherently social. I think that "sharing" is really one of the great foundations of everything that makes social media go.
For SHC I totally agree with you. I think that sometimes, it's better to let people, not an algorithm, tell you what's good/relevant.
Great stuff as always. Thanks for reading!
@Gusf I agree that Twitter can sometimes be used as a form of Socially Highlighted content (and I'm glad that's how you got here). But in terms of it's primary function, which I think we're still trying to figure out, is more focused on content creation and networking. I'm glad you've brought this up however because it highlights how mercurial a lot of social media really is.
Thanks for reading!
@Daniel I think "personalizing business" is a great way to think about it. Every time someone says "monetize" or "leverage" it makes my skin crawl. Where are those Social Media red and yellow cards when you need them? In terms of competition, I agree that it has spurred some innovation and am excited to see where we go from here. Thanks for stopping by.
mack collier
· 1 year ago
"Social Media is any new web tools or technology that connect people."
I'm not sure I completely agree with the 'new' modifier, but I like the fact that you are going for a simple definition. I think that those of us on the bleeding edge tend to forget that there are constantly people that are JUST NOT discovering this space. And I think that's hugely important, because they are bringing FRESH EYES and a fresh POV to this space and possibilities here.
We can learn a LOT from the 'newbies', and quite honestly, there are far more exciting to me right now than the 'early adopters' are.
mack collier
· 1 year ago
Whups, meant JUST NOW discovering this space.
Of course there are also some of us that are JUST NOW discovering the need to proofread comments before submitting...
Alan Wolk
· 1 year ago
This is a nice simple definition Matt, clean graphics.
You've just got to be prepared to answer the next question from your clients, which is "So what? How does this benefit me?"
And as you answer them, it's important to bear in mind that most people don't, nor will they ever, have blogs. Or very active StumbledUpon accounts. Or even Flickr accounts. To Mack's point, you've got to qualify your answer by noting that there will always be various degrees of activity and usage of the various social media and that most people will trend towards casual users rather than evangelists.
Matt J McDonald
· 1 year ago
@Mack The reason I use "new" in that phrase is to parse out things like chatrooms, IM, and email. I understand that "new" is completely relative, but had to divide it somewhere.
I agree, and I've written about it before, that many of us web pioneers forget that most of the people still a ways behind us. We need to focus on the POV of those we're trying to reach.
Thanks for reading!
@Alan Glad you like it.
I think it's important to make social media tools and tactics integrate with your larger marketing goals/strategy. I agree that many people will not ever have blogs or flickr pages, but they will still read content and look at pictures online. In fact, sometimes social media isn't right at all. If you make manhole covers or run an armored car service, it's probably a bad play. It's all about what's right for your target.
Thanks for the great comment.
dberkowitz
· 1 year ago
This is very good.
I think there's some room to amend it. For instance, Facebook is the world's biggest photo sharing site according to their numbers. And I agree with the comment that Twitter's also great for highlighted content.
Alan's thoughts are dead on too, but that can be the subject of another post and doesn't all need to be covered here.
Matt J McDonald
· 1 year ago
@David Thanks! The reason that I listed Facebook in the social network section is that social networking, to me at least, is it's primary function. Being the worlds largest photo sharing site certainly makes a case otherwise, but to me the mission statement of "connecting you to the people around you" stands for social networking.
I think it's important to keep in mind that these sites/tools drift in and our of each section constantly, and they really are whatever we make them to be. (it just would have made a really, really, complicated venn diagram!)
standubin
· 1 year ago
I was stumbled here. Very, very good post. Clean and clear. One question: what does the "FF" stand for in the middle of all three circles?
Matt J McDonald
· 1 year ago
@Stan Glad you stumbled by, and you like the post (bonus!). It just occurred to me that I didn't explain friendfeed, which I picked as the amalgam of all of the circles. It's a very cool "social aggregator" with a lot of possibilities.
Thanks for reading!
Becky Carroll
· 1 year ago
Matt, this is very clean and clear - bravo!
To add to the comments, the top circle may put some businesses off of social media. If we are taking the POV of our audience, a business that caters to other businesses doesn't want a "consumer" feel to their content. However, we usually hear more about "Consumer Generated Content" than we do "Socially Generated Content". Not sure a B2B would want to be considered social. However, they would want to have conversations with their customers. Perhaps the "shared" word is better, or how about "Conversational Content"?
Hmm, need to work on that one a bit, as all of these tools are conversational, and potentially many have great content.
Thanks again - I will most likely be taking up this debate with the social media class I am teaching at UC San Diego Extension!
Paul
· 1 year ago
That sounds pretty true to me. The three work together very well, and I'm fond of the direction the Internet is taking.
Matt J McDonald
· 1 year ago
@Becky I understand that a B2B company wouldn't want a "consumer" feel, but still other businesses are the consumers of their products/services. I think that B2B would benefit from seeing things from a collaborative point of view, and that is inherently social.
Really glad you'd be interested in sharing that with your class! Let me know if you'd like to talk about things further.
Thanks for reading.
@Paul Thanks, I tried to keep things fairly simple and straight forward. And yes, I'm looking forward to see how things develop too.
@Not Matt You certainly win in terms of simplicity. Touche!
Kris
· 1 year ago
Great post. Have you ever seen the preso called What the F*$% is Social Media? I think that readers who enjoyed this post, will also find it highly relevant and also entertaining. Now if we could just figure out a way to convince our brand partners the power of social media/networking/sharing, we would have an entirely new and different revenue stream! Check out the blog post I referenced here: http://tiny.cc/UR41s.
Jeff De Cagna
· 1 year ago
Matt, I really like this construct. Not only is it simple, but it emphasizes the social importance of these technologies and not just the technologies themselves.
I'm going to adapt it for my purposes by adding a fourth circle called "Socially Organized Content." While sites such as digg, StumbleUpon and Reddit are about serendipitous discovery, I look at Wikipedia, del.icio.us and Google (as well as tagging and linking in general) as tools for purposeful organization conduct in a social context. I think that's important element that should be included.
Thanks so much for creating this construct. It's been a big help in my thinking and I will certainly share (and credit you) in what I create.
BTW, how did you create this image? What application did you use? It's very attractive.
Matt J McDonald
· 1 year ago
@Kris Thanks! I have seen that preso and love it. Great info and just enough kick. I think we're on the right track. Thanks for reading
@Jeff Thanks Jeff, glad you like it. I think you make a good point about Socially Organized Content, but I feel that Digg, SU, and Reddit highlight content in specific categories making it more organized than just good luck. Glad you're looking forward to sharing it! Also, I used Adobe Illustrator to make the graphic per some advice from David Armano. Thanks again.
Knownhuman
· 11 months ago
Damn, I was doubtful from the post, but you really nailed the current social media standing. Bravo.
All Comments
Thank you very much sir. You're completely on when you mention sharing. I think that the new social technologies play perfectly off peoples natural tendency to want to share things with others. The more they can learn to harness that, they better they'll be.
Thanks! I was going for simplicity, because like the Wikipedia definition, I think it can get muddled slightly sometimes by over complication. Added swirly circles and bathroom-sign people to the checklist for next graphic.
As for Wikipedia's official definition - I use it all the time, but actually think it focused to much on the whats (social media is blogs, networks, podcasts, wikis, etc) and not enough on the whys (because people want to connect with other people.) You've done a nice job of capturing that important distinction.
Rock on,
G
Awesome write up.
I would probably put Twitter in the middle as well as I believe it can be used for Socially Highlighted Content. I've shared many sites on twitter with my friends and hell, I got to your site by a post on Twitter :)
Social Media allows a larger audience to view a very personalized message. The best is yet to come because competition has forced all of these sites to become smarter and more innovative. I can't wait to see what is next.
Great Post....Keep On It!
Daniel Pyle
http://rockuvme.blogspot.com
Now that's a solid comment. I'd agree that not everything is created by a group, but at the same time, most things are created for a group (or at least one other person) making it inherently social. I think that "sharing" is really one of the great foundations of everything that makes social media go.
For SHC I totally agree with you. I think that sometimes, it's better to let people, not an algorithm, tell you what's good/relevant.
Great stuff as always. Thanks for reading!
@Gusf
I agree that Twitter can sometimes be used as a form of Socially Highlighted content (and I'm glad that's how you got here). But in terms of it's primary function, which I think we're still trying to figure out, is more focused on content creation and networking. I'm glad you've brought this up however because it highlights how mercurial a lot of social media really is.
Thanks for reading!
@Daniel
I think "personalizing business" is a great way to think about it. Every time someone says "monetize" or "leverage" it makes my skin crawl. Where are those Social Media red and yellow cards when you need them? In terms of competition, I agree that it has spurred some innovation and am excited to see where we go from here. Thanks for stopping by.
I'm not sure I completely agree with the 'new' modifier, but I like the fact that you are going for a simple definition. I think that those of us on the bleeding edge tend to forget that there are constantly people that are JUST NOT discovering this space. And I think that's hugely important, because they are bringing FRESH EYES and a fresh POV to this space and possibilities here.
We can learn a LOT from the 'newbies', and quite honestly, there are far more exciting to me right now than the 'early adopters' are.
Of course there are also some of us that are JUST NOW discovering the need to proofread comments before submitting...
You've just got to be prepared to answer the next question from your clients, which is "So what? How does this benefit me?"
And as you answer them, it's important to bear in mind that most people don't, nor will they ever, have blogs. Or very active StumbledUpon accounts. Or even Flickr accounts. To Mack's point, you've got to qualify your answer by noting that there will always be various degrees of activity and usage of the various social media and that most people will trend towards casual users rather than evangelists.
The reason I use "new" in that phrase is to parse out things like chatrooms, IM, and email. I understand that "new" is completely relative, but had to divide it somewhere.
I agree, and I've written about it before, that many of us web pioneers forget that most of the people still a ways behind us. We need to focus on the POV of those we're trying to reach.
Thanks for reading!
@Alan
Glad you like it.
I think it's important to make social media tools and tactics integrate with your larger marketing goals/strategy. I agree that many people will not ever have blogs or flickr pages, but they will still read content and look at pictures online. In fact, sometimes social media isn't right at all. If you make manhole covers or run an armored car service, it's probably a bad play. It's all about what's right for your target.
Thanks for the great comment.
I think there's some room to amend it. For instance, Facebook is the world's biggest photo sharing site according to their numbers. And I agree with the comment that Twitter's also great for highlighted content.
Alan's thoughts are dead on too, but that can be the subject of another post and doesn't all need to be covered here.
Thanks! The reason that I listed Facebook in the social network section is that social networking, to me at least, is it's primary function. Being the worlds largest photo sharing site certainly makes a case otherwise, but to me the mission statement of "connecting you to the people around you" stands for social networking.
I think it's important to keep in mind that these sites/tools drift in and our of each section constantly, and they really are whatever we make them to be. (it just would have made a really, really, complicated venn diagram!)
Glad you stumbled by, and you like the post (bonus!). It just occurred to me that I didn't explain friendfeed, which I picked as the amalgam of all of the circles. It's a very cool "social aggregator" with a lot of possibilities.
Thanks for reading!
To add to the comments, the top circle may put some businesses off of social media. If we are taking the POV of our audience, a business that caters to other businesses doesn't want a "consumer" feel to their content. However, we usually hear more about "Consumer Generated Content" than we do "Socially Generated Content". Not sure a B2B would want to be considered social. However, they would want to have conversations with their customers. Perhaps the "shared" word is better, or how about "Conversational Content"?
Hmm, need to work on that one a bit, as all of these tools are conversational, and potentially many have great content.
Thanks again - I will most likely be taking up this debate with the social media class I am teaching at UC San Diego Extension!
I understand that a B2B company wouldn't want a "consumer" feel, but still other businesses are the consumers of their products/services. I think that B2B would benefit from seeing things from a collaborative point of view, and that is inherently social.
Really glad you'd be interested in sharing that with your class! Let me know if you'd like to talk about things further.
Thanks for reading.
@Paul
Thanks, I tried to keep things fairly simple and straight forward. And yes, I'm looking forward to see how things develop too.
@stan - ff = friendfeed.com
Glad you like it. Thanks for reading!
@Not Matt
You certainly win in terms of simplicity. Touche!
I'm going to adapt it for my purposes by adding a fourth circle called "Socially Organized Content." While sites such as digg, StumbleUpon and Reddit are about serendipitous discovery, I look at Wikipedia, del.icio.us and Google (as well as tagging and linking in general) as tools for purposeful organization conduct in a social context. I think that's important element that should be included.
Thanks so much for creating this construct. It's been a big help in my thinking and I will certainly share (and credit you) in what I create.
BTW, how did you create this image? What application did you use? It's very attractive.
Thanks! I have seen that preso and love it. Great info and just enough kick. I think we're on the right track. Thanks for reading
@Jeff
Thanks Jeff, glad you like it. I think you make a good point about Socially Organized Content, but I feel that Digg, SU, and Reddit highlight content in specific categories making it more organized than just good luck. Glad you're looking forward to sharing it! Also, I used Adobe Illustrator to make the graphic per some advice from David Armano. Thanks again.