In my quest to better understand why and how we use the term “social media,” I began at Wikipedia:
Social media is media designed to be disseminated through social interaction, created using highly accessible and scalable publishing techniques. Social media uses Internet and web-based technologies to transform broadcast media monologues (one to many) into social media dialogues (many to many). It supports the democratization of knowledge and information, transforming people from content consumers into content producers.
I can’t say the above definition is wrong, but it seems too narrow to me. The first questions that come to my head when I read that social media is just about publishing and broadcasting is “But what about Web 2.0 technologies? Where do they fit in? Aren’t they a part of social media?”
The Wikipedia definition of social media continues with:
Andreas Kaplan and Michael Haenlein define social media as “a group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of user-generated content.”
The definition continues to focus on content production, and I say that the narrowness of that definition is wrong. I see social media as being more than just publishing and broadcasting, and I think that the word “media” in social media may be misunderstood or misused.
What is Media?
In our haste to label things — in this case the tools we are using for communication and interaction — someone forgot that “media” has multiple meanings, so some of us took the term “social media” to mean one thing, while the rest of us understood it to mean something completely different.
For consistency’s sake, I went back to Wikipedia to check how it defined “media.” Of the multiple definitions, here are the ones that I thought applied to the word “media” in the term “social media”:
In communications: In communication, media (singular medium) are the storage and transmission channels or tools used to store and deliver information or data. It is often referred to as synonymous with mass media or news media, but may refer to a single medium used to communicate any data for any purpose.
A medium (plural media) is a carrier of something. Common things carried by media include information, art, or physical objects. A medium may provide transmission or storage of information or both. The industries which produce news and entertainment content for the mass media are often called “the media” (in much the same way the newspaper industry is called “the press”).
In this light, the limitation of the definition of “social media” to publishing and broadcasting falls apart.
A few years ago, I began using the following diagram to encapsulate the many media — or tools, platforms, channels — that made up social media:
The diagram above reflects the more expansive view of social media; using “media” to mean “the storage and transmission channels or tools used to store and deliver information or data.“
So is this wrong? If you are going by the narrow publishing and broadcast definition, then it might be incorrect to say that Cloud Working (by that I mean producing work using cloud-based SaaS tools), for example, is social media. But then again, to work in the cloud, one must publish something on the web that is consumed — or collaborated on — by others, often producing new forms of the original content, right?
And what about widgets and RSS feeds? These are tools for distributing content produced elsewhere, but they aren’t tools for actually producing new content. One could argue that these tools aren’t social. However, they are the conduits of content from social sources such as social networks and blogs. So are they social media tools or not?
How about a content rating site or bookmarking site? While Digg and Delicious aren’t exactly content production sites, they allow users to rate, comment on and aggregate content in a more “social” interactive environment so, in a sense, they are social media tools because there is “social” and “publishing” involved.
The Evolution of the Term “Social Media”
How did the term “social media” evolve, and how can there be different understandings of this globally-used term? I think part of the problem is that some people believe that social media “replaced” Web 2.0 as a term while others believe that social media is a “subset” of Web 2.0.
For clarification, Wikipedia’s definition of Web 2.0 is:
…web applications that facilitate interactive information sharing, interoperability, user-centered design, and collaboration on the World Wide Web.
If one believes that social media is a subset of Web 2.0, like this:
Then social media would be the social tools and channels that fall under the broader Web 2.0 landscape of tools. That would mean that we should probably still be using the term Web 2.0 (annoying as it is) to refer to the “not exactly social” tools we’re using on the web.
Alternatively, one could see social media as an evolution of Web 2.0 tools, like this:
But if social media is an evolution of Web 2.0, then what do we call the “less than social” tools we’re using?
So, which is it?
- Social media is a subset of Web 2.0, so anything “not very social” are still Web 2.0 tools.
- Social media is an evolution of Web 2.0, so its definition includes peripherally social tools or tools ancillary to social tools.
I continue to gravitate away from the definition that social media tools must involve publishing or broadcasting because it is too narrow.
Who Coined the Term “Social Media?”
In 2007, danah m. boyd of the School of Information at the University of California-Berkeley and Nicole B. Ellison of the Department of Telecommunication, Information Studies, and Media at Michigan State University, published the paper “Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship.” In it, the first mention of “social media” was in this sentence:
Furthermore, as the social media and user-generated content phenomena grew, websites focused on media sharing began implementing SNS features and becoming SNSs themselves. Examples include Flickr (photo sharing), Last.FM (music listening habits), and YouTube (video sharing).
By their definition in this paper, social media was focused initially and primarily on social networks.
In a February 2009 speech, boyd goes on to say this about social media :
Social media is the latest buzzword in a long line of buzzwords. It is often used to describe the collection of software that enables individuals and communities to gather, communicate, share, and in some cases collaborate or play. In tech circles, social media has replaced the earlier fave “social software.” Academics still tend to prefer terms like “computer-mediated communication” or “computer-supported cooperative work” to describe the practices that emerge from these tools and the old skool academics might even categorize these tools as “groupwork” tools. Social media is driven by another buzzword: “user-generated content” or content that is contributed by participants rather than editors.
What is really telling is when boyd explains how we got from “Web 2.0” to “social media:”
But for the last few years, everyone’s been a-buzz with the idea of “social media.” Right now, those who want VC backing need to bake the “social” into any Web2.0 app they create. There are many new genres of social media that have gained traction here: blogs, wikis, media-sharing sites, social network sites, social bookmarking, virtual worlds, microblogging sites, etc. These tools are part of a broader notion of “Web2.0.” Yet-another-buzzword, Web2.0 means different things to different people.
So perhaps we can blame — or credit — those who wanted VC backing on the convoluted use of “social” in everything that was formerly known as Web 2.0. At least we have an explanation for the (over)use of “social” in social media.
What do you think? How do you define “social media” and what tools do we use that are not social media tools?
Related GigaOM Pro content (sub. req.): Social Media in the Enterprise