Doc Searls says Scoble is full of it about “social media”

Heheh, Doc Searls takes 349 words to say that I’m full of it when I talk about what the term Social Media means. Well, actually, he didn’t even name me or link to me, but the gesture is the same when he says he avoids using terms like “Social Media” and “Web 2.0.” UPDATE: I should have noted that Doc is actually replying to Brian Solis post about “what’s wrong with ‘social media’?”

Remember rule #10 on the Corporate Weblog Manifesto? That still applies.

But, since Doc didn’t give us a good name for this new media collection (blogs, wikis, Web 2.0 voting sites, etc) then I think we’ll just rename it all to “Doc Searls Media.”

I don’t care what you call it. Something is going on here and I’m a simpleton and love to have a name for the bag of things that are happening.

64 thoughts on “Doc Searls says Scoble is full of it about “social media”

  1. In my opinion, Henriette and Lee have helped clarify.

    Much of blogging, web 2.0, “social” media uptake has been led by technologists and geeks and quasi-geeks, tho’ the blogging and other related conferences have helped show that some of them are also able to practice some degree or other of interpersonal, social skills.

    And, this is a bit of a mirror for where we’ve been, are at and are moving to. Info technology is getting easier, simpler, faster, more integrated .. web apps, web services, inexpensive, etc. The last 30 + years have been mainly about the technology, with a (very) gradually growing emphasis on usability.

    Now, doing many things .. making and posting visdeo clips, ditto podcasts, rivch blogging, etc. has become much easier than even 5 years ago.

    The next thirty years is all about the sociological and anthropological changes we will and must face as we come to terms with a new set of (hyperlinked and integrated) conditions we humans have never seen before.

    Social media is well named in my opinion, because it helps people be or want to be more “social”, more participative, more engaged-in-ineraction, than most of the forms of media wrapped into the term enabled even a short ten years ago.

  2. In my opinion, Henriette and Lee have helped clarify.

    Much of blogging, web 2.0, “social” media uptake has been led by technologists and geeks and quasi-geeks, tho’ the blogging and other related conferences have helped show that some of them are also able to practice some degree or other of interpersonal, social skills.

    And, this is a bit of a mirror for where we’ve been, are at and are moving to. Info technology is getting easier, simpler, faster, more integrated .. web apps, web services, inexpensive, etc. The last 30 + years have been mainly about the technology, with a (very) gradually growing emphasis on usability.

    Now, doing many things .. making and posting visdeo clips, ditto podcasts, rivch blogging, etc. has become much easier than even 5 years ago.

    The next thirty years is all about the sociological and anthropological changes we will and must face as we come to terms with a new set of (hyperlinked and integrated) conditions we humans have never seen before.

    Social media is well named in my opinion, because it helps people be or want to be more “social”, more participative, more engaged-in-ineraction, than most of the forms of media wrapped into the term enabled even a short ten years ago.

  3. I use the term Social Media day in and day out. The audience I am talking to operate better with a straightforward term to which they can attach meaning, and I can give them that meaning. These are typically non-tech managers in a non-tech company. So in a pragmatic way, it works for me.

    That said … I have been playing with the idea that this thing we are talkinig about is not a thing at all but a process. Therefore maybe the term we use to label it should be a verb and not a noun. I first thought of “Media Socialization”, but unfortunately that carries other connotations, so I have switched to the “Socialization of Media”. For me this simply describes the process of what is happening, without applying a label that will soon be out of date or inappropriate.

  4. I use the term Social Media day in and day out. The audience I am talking to operate better with a straightforward term to which they can attach meaning, and I can give them that meaning. These are typically non-tech managers in a non-tech company. So in a pragmatic way, it works for me.

    That said … I have been playing with the idea that this thing we are talkinig about is not a thing at all but a process. Therefore maybe the term we use to label it should be a verb and not a noun. I first thought of “Media Socialization”, but unfortunately that carries other connotations, so I have switched to the “Socialization of Media”. For me this simply describes the process of what is happening, without applying a label that will soon be out of date or inappropriate.

  5. I think we should call it the transition because it’s heading from the web path to mobile, and then into 1st life again…

    I have been declaring web 2.0 dead since lift07 because it’s not about the tools anymore, it’s about social. it ‘s not about blogging, it’s about the community…

  6. I think we should call it the transition because it’s heading from the web path to mobile, and then into 1st life again…

    I have been declaring web 2.0 dead since lift07 because it’s not about the tools anymore, it’s about social. it ‘s not about blogging, it’s about the community…

Comments are closed.