Social media is way too smurfy these days.
by that damn redhead on January 12, 2010
in Etymology, Rants, Social Media
[If you know me in person, chances are you've heard this before, but I'm at the point now where I feel it just needs to be written down.]
I hate the term “social media.” Really, I do. Why? Because it’s too hard to define. I’m definitely not the first person to blog about this, and I’m sure I won’t be the last. But here’s the truth:
All media is social media.
Media, at its very ethos, is social. Cavemen didn’t paint cave paintings and not talk about them. Egyptians didn’t carve hieroglyphics just because they were pretty pictures — they told stories. Radio never really was one-way — it encouraged interaction with people calling in. TV may seem one-way but do people not sit around the TV and watch it together? Do people not talk about their favorite shows with each other?
All media always has, and always will, encourage social interaction. Whether it’s immediate as what we understand “social media” to be nowadays or not is a different story.
The only difference between “traditional” media and “social” media is that “social media” makes two-way (or one-to-many, or many-to-many) communication a helluva lot faster. And let’s just face it – this is simply the way the world communicates now.
However, like those folks I linked above, I understand that there is no one, true definition of “social media,” and that alone is a problem, illustrated by a story a few friends of mine relayed to me recently:
A colleague of ours, a rather big name in the “social media world” and a bigwig at a rather large, world-famous company, was to speak about social media at a local event. I did not attend said event, but my colleagues did, because they wanted to hear what he had to say about how he’s used “social media” in/for his company. Based on the questions from the audience, however, it became more of a Twitter 101 class, and my colleagues admitted they were a little embarrassed for him. This was not a marketing fail, as the event was promoted appropriately. Or was it?
My colleagues’ definition of social media was and is much more complex than that of the audience. They were expecting how this guy applied “social media” for marketing/PR purposes. The audience was apparently expecting how to use a tool or two, which is a lot different.
Social media is the new smurf.
Smurfs used the word “smurf” for just about anything, and it was understood without question. Or they used it when they couldn’t think of any other word for something, which is where we are now with “social media.” Hell, any kind of interaction via the internet or mobile now can be considered “social media,” and I can’t believe that for a society as chatty and as articulate as we are, we can’t think of any other words for what the heck we’re talking about.
We need to expand our vernacular.
I was taught that you shouldn’t complain about something without proposing a solution, but honestly? I don’t have one. What I do know is that the more we use “social media” as a term for just about any kind of communication these days, the more confused people get, and the more smurfy things become. I like to be more specific when I speak of expedited communication through ever-changing technology, but I realize that sometimes it’s easier smurfed than smurfed. I know that many times, I still go over peoples’ smurfs and they still don’t smurf what I’m smurfing about, even when I think I’m smurfing on their level.
So what do you smurf? Is “social media” too smurfy these days? Should we be more specific and throw that term out the smurf? Or is it fine and smurfy? Leave your smurfs in the smurfs.
Clearly, the answer is more smurf. I’m really smurfed you didn’t think of that on your own.
Do you really smurf so? Frankly, I was up a smurf without a smurf when I wrote this!
You can probably come up with a more defined name for it when you come up with an actual use for it. Otherwise, the term “Social Media” is working as intended for people who are largely using it as a social network with no other function than to add people in attempts to become relevant in a bubble of mingling self-interest.
In other words, it’s the social interaction without the actual content provided by any of the examples you used in that simplistic comparison to traditional media. And that’s not going to change, because social networking was never about delivering content.
It sounds like you had a bad experience and I’m sorry to hear that. While I don’t agree with your comments I respect them. However, many in my field would argue that “social media” is different than “social networking,” but for you to say social networking was “never about delivering content” makes me more cognizant that no, many people still do not see the value in it. I won’t get too into an argument because frankly that’s way too exhausting and beating a dead horse, but there are plenty of folks that focus on content delivery through social media/networking as their very business that would probably be more than happy to enlighten you, such as David Meerman Scott, Brian Clark and the folks at Copyblogger, and my friend Dan Eizans at Campbell-Ewald. Thanks for stopping by and I hope that in the future you do find some value in social media/networking.
HAHAHAHA. PR people really do live in their own quaint little world.
Be more passive aggressive. Really. Us plebes in the non-marketing circlejerk really are too stupid to see it when you turn a simple statement into sour grapes, condescend with a form letter cliche, weasel-word behind numbers to avoid making any point on your own as to the actual value, further insinuating that anyone who doesn’t “get it” is missing the obvious and needs to be enlightened, and stop at naked disingenuousness.
With communications skills like that, it’s a wonder how anyone outside marketing could ever think you’re a makework field made up of raging incompetents who’d have to find something useful to do if they weren’t desperately propping eachother up.
While I don’t agree with this post, Jon R, you are an accomplished flame warrior. Tips hat…ducks out.
The last intended use of most who created the tools or use the networks is to add lots of people, Jon R. If anything, what you’re describing is what most real and regular users rebel against.
I personally love it when people use social media not to promote social media, but to enhance and connect with other people for their passions, whether it be business, hobby, or informational.
Maybe you should steer away from the promotional side.. and go looking in the categories of things you actually like to do that you connect with. That’s where you’ll probably find the most value. That’s where I ALWAYS have found the most “for me.” In some ways, social media is simple to manage – you tend to find what you’re looking for, whatever it is.
good point about how all media is social…
Twitter Comment
“Social media is way too smurfy these days.” – [link to post] from @damnredhead. Smurfin’ stellar analogy.
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Twitter Comment
here, new post: Social media is way too smurfy these days [link to post]
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Twitter Comment
btw, new post: Social media is way too smurfy these days [link to post]
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Twitter Comment
SMURF! This is spot-on. | RT @damnredhead: here, new post: Social media is way too smurfy these days [link to post]
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Twitter Comment
WOW I seem to hv attracted an anti-marketing, embittered commenter on my last blog post [link to post] I love it!
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Twitter Comment
@mjayliebs Thank you for the RT (the good smurfette in me says). And Yes Social Media Is Smurfy!
– Posted using Chat Catcher