When I first got onboard social media in a serious way, back in November of 2008, I thought the expression “social media” was stupid.
Media, in this sense of the word, are always, by definition, social, if by “social” you mean something like “involving more than one person.” To transmit information, at least two people need to be involved. Indeed, in the age of mass media, information often flows from some people to many people and, for awhile there, to almost all people.
Clearly, like assless chaps, social media is a redundant expression.
Or so I thought.
As a matter of fact, the expression “assless chaps” refers to a particular use of chaps — that is, when chaps are worn over clothing that have no ass and, generally, for fetish purposes. Yes, all chaps are assless but only some chaps are worn with no pants for the purposes of sexual titillation.
As more and more people embrace the expression “digital media” rather than “social media,” as more and more people use these online tools to broadcast to already existing and familiar audiences, and after finally consulting a dictionary, I’m reminded that there are important and relevant meanings associated with the word “social” that are usefully added to the word “media.”
Yes, all online tools are digital but not all uses of those tools are social.
Newspapers, once upon a time, were social. TV too. Publishing houses, academic presses, theaters, and universities. Yes, they were all social and, at some point, the social dimension was abandoned. Arguably, the people who controlled these tools even started using them in an asocial fashion.
Social media isn’t killing old media. The people who control old media are killing old media because they forgot something our ancestors understood and acted on every time a fire was lit to draw a crowd.
The real power of these tools — old or digital — is to create, organize, and inspire new and unexpected community. If you can’t do that, if you can’t attract new people, new ideas, new directions, you’re community is already dying.
Online digital tools can help you avoid this slow death, but only if you’re ready to use them socially.
Von Allan
April 12, 2012
I think there’s a regional bias with old media, too. Newspapers in North America, for instance, are in decline. My understanding is that this is not true for newspapers in the Scandinavian countries (it’s hard to find a good current link to back this up but I did find an older one at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0304422X9290009R and a more recent one on the growth of newspaper sales in Asia at http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-06-02-newspaper_N.htm). The profit model is part of the problem. I kinda wonder what a newspaper like the Ottawa Citizen (which I haven’t bought in many years) would be like if it was priced at, say, 25 cents and with a far more in-depth reporting philosophy than what it currently has (I try occasionally to read an article here and there online and I’ve basically stopped. The writing is not, in my not so humble opinion, good enough). How to make that work financially? Well, profits would have to be cut back. Are the owners keen on doing that? As far as I can tell, no. As a result, there’s a diminishing spiral of sales, prices and revenue (revenue and readership falls and the only “possible” answer is to raise prices. Which further cannibalizes sales and readership. Rinse. Repeat). Even their special offers (https://contests.canada.com/ottawacitizen/subscribe/index.html) are way more expensive than I’d be willing to pay ($16.10 per month for 7 day per week delivery? That’s roughly 54 cents per paper. Not gonna do that).
A very cheap paper with outstanding reporting is something that still has relevance today. A newspaper that drones on about nothing, repeating old news that can be found online faster and for free, and newspaper columns that double as press releases is not something I’m interested in.
Sterling Lynch
April 12, 2012
Thanks! Great response and thanks for the links.
Having read a history of the early days of newspapers in Canada and having been alive for much of the downward death spiral of the newspaper business, I support your analysis.
Historically, newspapers were daily touchstones of local political community. They were a means for a local community to know and communicate with each other. You bought the paper because you had to buy the paper to be a part of that community. You advertised in the paper because you wanted to support the community (often a political community).
In a drive to become more efficient,newspapers cut staff, centralized editorial capacities, and basically neutered the local quality of papers. Why read a light version of the National Post? Why read the National Post if it provides a fairly predictable spin on news that’s available everywhere. And so on.
There are certainly political advantages to having an efficiently bland and predictable media machine (easy to broadcast your message, easy to avoid talking about things you don’t want to talk about) but, as far as making money goes, it’s a sure path to an early bankruptcy. Take away the tax break businesses get for advertising in Canadian and only Canadian publications and I bet most of our esteemed papers would be long dead.
I saw more than a few tweets along this line the other day:
“551-day-old Instagram is worth $1 billion. 116 year old New York Times? $967 million. #Crazytown”
Whether or not you agree Instagram is worth a billion, I totally think it’s worth more than the NY Times. Why? Because it’s relevant to a broad and growing community on a minute-by-minute basis. The NY Times is relevant to a shrinking and barely engaged audience. There’s no value without valuers and many valuers value Instragram a whole lot.