Social media's defining factor

Warning: this content is older than 365 days. It may be out of date and no longer relevant.

I posed a question on Twitter that cuts to the heart of all of this stuff:

What is social media? Seriously, what defines social media from any other form of media?

Lots of folks responded.

bigguyd: @cspenn interactions. SM is a two way street where traditional media is one way, typically.
comedy4cast: @cspenn We all wear colorful hats!
discordia77: @cspenn other forms of media have “experts” telling the information, social media is interactive between all elements involved in the story.
seanrehder: @cspenn asks “define social media.” Social = peer and media = information. Social media = information gained from our peers vs. “the man.”
sizzlemaker: @cspenn Media–such as newspapers or broadcasts–is one way. Someone producing content to give you. Social media allows you to interact.
tommorris: @cspenn Nothing. ‘Social media’ is a term used by marketeers for just about everything. It’s lost all meaning. It’s a pointless buzzword.
keithbooe: @cspenn higher level of real time (or near) interaction and direct user involvement than traditional media?
mlseaton: @cspenn the amount of people claiming to be experts or gurus! That is pretty much what defines it.
Ed: Essentially @cspenn Built in sharing. Conducive both by design, and user intent
JoyHaynes: @cspenn For me, real time conversation and connections to other people.
theelusivefish: @cspenn imho, there are 2 things distinguishing social media from the rest – low barriers to entry and the ability for any to participate
kristenmchugh22: @cspenn SM is both expression & engagement. There are some ppl wielding infl for good&selfish int., but not engaging on meaningful scale.
heykeenan: @cspenn the connection makes social media different from other media.

Here’s what I think defines social media apart from any other form of media: Metcalfe’s Law.

From Wikipedia:

Metcalfe’s law states that the value of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system (n2). First formulated in this form by George Gilder in 1993, and attributed to Robert Metcalfe in regard to Ethernet, Metcalfe’s law was originally presented, circa 1980, not in term of users, but rather of “compatibly communicating devices” (for example, fax machines).

Something can be termed social media when its core value relies on the network effect – Metcalfe’s Law.

For example, is a blog post a form of social media? No. The value of the blog post is the same whether one person reads it or one million people read it. Its value is inherent in and of itself. The same is true for a podcast, a TV show, a commercial, a newspaper, etc.

Contrast that with a bulletin board, a call-in radio show, Twitter, discussion forums, comments on a blog post, Facebook, etc. The core value that these forms of media deliver relies on Metcalfe’s Law – the more people who use them, the more valuable they are. The more social they are. The core value diminishes with fewer people and ultimately, the product or service has no inherent value.

When you need to develop an understanding of whether something or not falls in the social sphere, examine careful what its value is, and how the impact of more people changes its value. If the value of the item, network, service, or thing is independent of participation, if Metcalfe’s Law does not drive its core value, it’s not social – and that’s perfectly okay. A well-made hammer’s value is not reliant on the number of people who buy and use it.

If the same product, service, etc. has its value completely unravel if Metcalfe’s Law were applied in reverse – taking away people from it – then it’s social, and requires people to generate its value; the more people who generate value, the more value it has.

This also means that some aspects of “traditional media” are inherently social – call-in radio shows, the classifieds in newspapers, even a corkboard in the employee breakroom.

Three things for marketers to think about: if something isn’t social by design, that’s fine. Don’t try to force it to be social, because it won’t fit. A bouquet of flowers and a perfect sunset can’t Twitter, and never should. Instead focus your efforts on using a different marketing model that works with whatever the core value of your product or service is.

If something “traditional” is social by design in your work already, bringing it online will vastly accelerate its growth and value thanks to how easily socially-powered things spread online.

When your boss, client, friend, neighbor, or kid asks you to make something social (because social media is the shiny object of the day) ask them this: do you want to create something which [a] has no value of its own and [b] is solely reliant on the temperament of the crowd for its value, knowing that one screw-up can destroy everything and leave you with nothing of value?

Personally, I’d ask them instead whether they want to create something that has so much value inherent to it that others can’t help but talk about it and promote it for you in a social context.

What defines social media for you?

Did you enjoy this blog post? If so, please subscribe right now!

Social media's defining factor 1 Social media's defining factor 2 Social media's defining factor 3

Get this and other great articles from the source at www.ChristopherSPenn.com

Comments

14 responses to “Social media's defining factor”

  1. Robin Browne Avatar

    Hey Chris,
    Why do you say a comment on a blog post is social but a post isn't? When you say “the network effect” do you mean sharing? If so, isn't' an unshared comment as unsocial as an unshared post?

  2. Ed Avatar

    Anti-social media http://twitpic.com/6stgk/full Greed above gratitude

  3. Christopher S. Penn Avatar

    That's the core of the matter, Robin – commenting inherently has no value until others comment. A post has inherent value even if all you do is read it, and its value doesn't scale based on readership. If it's valuable to one person or a million, the value itself is still there.

  4. Justin Avatar
    Justin

    I really like your article, this was a great read. But I'm having trouble with the idea of inherent values.

    “For example, is a blog post a form of social media? No. The value of the blog post is the same whether one person reads it or one million people read it. Its value is inherent in and of itself. The same is true for a podcast, a TV show, a commercial, a newspaper, etc.”

    If TV shows and newspaper articles have inherent values, why do ratings matter so much? If the value of any kind of media is “in and of itself”, I'd have to question why there is so much mindless dribble on television. Although it is unfortunate, “value” seems to be placed on certain things by members of our society whether those things actually HAVE such value or not.

    It seems as though you're using a different formula to compute the value of a form of media.. I guess you could call it “I”, for inherent value.. but if that's the case, how is I measured? In other words, if you had to value your own blog post about this topic, what would you use to get an answer? Is the value of the post correlated to the number of readers/commenters (obviously making it dependent on something other than its own value)? You seem to believe that it isn't, but I'm not yet convinced. A hammer that has hammered down 30,000 nails has produced more than one that has hammered 3 nails. I can see the case where you could sell the hammers for relatively the same price, however, the value of what they have produced is very different.

    This is also similar to “if a tree falls in a forest and nobody sees or hears it, did it happen?”. If you wrote a book on economic theory that could change the world but nobody else in society valued it and it got thrown aside, what is its value? It produced nothing.. although maybe its value is still hidden inside. I'm no philosophy major so forgive me if this post is elementary.

    Thoughts?

    @russelcrowebar on twitter.

  5. Robin Browne Avatar

    Hey Chris,
    Why do you say a comment on a blog post is social but a post isn't? When you say “the network effect” do you mean sharing? If so, isn't' an unshared comment as unsocial as an unshared post?

  6. Ed Avatar

    Anti-social media http://twitpic.com/6stgk/full Greed above gratitude

  7. Christopher S. Penn Avatar

    That's the core of the matter, Robin – commenting inherently has no value until others comment. A post has inherent value even if all you do is read it, and its value doesn't scale based on readership. If it's valuable to one person or a million, the value itself is still there.

  8. Justin Avatar
    Justin

    I really like your article, this was a great read. But I'm having trouble with the idea of inherent values.

    “For example, is a blog post a form of social media? No. The value of the blog post is the same whether one person reads it or one million people read it. Its value is inherent in and of itself. The same is true for a podcast, a TV show, a commercial, a newspaper, etc.”

    If TV shows and newspaper articles have inherent values, why do ratings matter so much? If the value of any kind of media is “in and of itself”, I'd have to question why there is so much mindless dribble on television. Although it is unfortunate, “value” seems to be placed on certain things by members of our society whether those things actually HAVE such value or not.

    It seems as though you're using a different formula to compute the value of a form of media.. I guess you could call it “I”, for inherent value.. but if that's the case, how is I measured? In other words, if you had to value your own blog post about this topic, what would you use to get an answer? Is the value of the post correlated to the number of readers/commenters (obviously making it dependent on something other than its own value)? You seem to believe that it isn't, but I'm not yet convinced. A hammer that has hammered down 30,000 nails has produced more than one that has hammered 3 nails. I can see the case where you could sell the hammers for relatively the same price, however, the value of what they have produced is very different.

    This is also similar to “if a tree falls in a forest and nobody sees or hears it, did it happen?”. If you wrote a book on economic theory that could change the world but nobody else in society valued it and it got thrown aside, what is its value? It produced nothing.. although maybe its value is still hidden inside. I'm no philosophy major so forgive me if this post is elementary.

    Thoughts?

    @russelcrowebar on twitter.

  9. jlbraaten Avatar

    I'm pretty sure that just about every Internet marketer these days is running into “What is Social Media?” based on the flux in articles trying to define it. I think you really hit on its essence with your post.

  10. jlbraaten Avatar

    I'm pretty sure that just about every Internet marketer these days is running into “What is Social Media?” based on the flux in articles trying to define it. I think you really hit on its essence with your post.

  11. billhanifin Avatar

    For just a moment, shift the focus of the discussion from defining which tool can be labeled as social media to what objectives can be achieved with each tool and through combination of tools.

    For instance, when you say “the value of the blog post is the same whether one person reads it or one million people read it” I'm not so sure. The value of the post to readers will drive comments which taps into the power of network model you mention. The post is the spark that lights the fire. For a well known blog like yours or Chris Brogan, you can see that some posts really spark a big fire. If one objective of either blog is brand building as a precursor to business development, the bigger the fire sparked, the more valuable the post in the long run.

    The fun we are having now is sorting out how these tools can be used best. Our human nature drives us to create labels and categories for them. Working in Loyalty Marketing for many years, I tend to view the entire tool-set as new communications channel options that are replacing direct mail & catalogues, especially when aiming to engage with Gen Y.

    I recently used a sports analogy (my apologies in advance for that) to put the tools in perspective on my blog here: http://cli.gs/LTMLSM. It is probably not perfect but adds another viewpoint.

    Social Media to me: the tools which enable engagement and two-way conversations as never before. Twitter and Facebook count in that column, but so does a beach volleyball tournament. Creativity will decide on how best to put these tools to use.

    Thanks for sparking a good fire!

  12. billhanifin Avatar

    For just a moment, shift the focus of the discussion from defining which tool can be labeled as social media to what objectives can be achieved with each tool and through combination of tools.

    For instance, when you say “the value of the blog post is the same whether one person reads it or one million people read it” I'm not so sure. The value of the post to readers will drive comments which taps into the power of network model you mention. The post is the spark that lights the fire. For a well known blog like yours or Chris Brogan, you can see that some posts really spark a big fire. If one objective of either blog is brand building as a precursor to business development, the bigger the fire sparked, the more valuable the post in the long run.

    The fun we are having now is sorting out how these tools can be used best. Our human nature drives us to create labels and categories for them. Working in Loyalty Marketing for many years, I tend to view the entire tool-set as new communications channel options that are replacing direct mail & catalogues, especially when aiming to engage with Gen Y.

    I recently used a sports analogy (my apologies in advance for that) to put the tools in perspective on my blog here: http://cli.gs/LTMLSM. It is probably not perfect but adds another viewpoint.

    Social Media to me: the tools which enable engagement and two-way conversations as never before. Twitter and Facebook count in that column, but so does a beach volleyball tournament. Creativity will decide on how best to put these tools to use.

    Thanks for sparking a good fire!

  13. billhanifin Avatar

    For just a moment, shift the focus of the discussion from defining which tool can be labeled as social media to what objectives can be achieved with each tool and through combination of tools.

    For instance, when you say “the value of the blog post is the same whether one person reads it or one million people read it” I'm not so sure. The value of the post to readers will drive comments which taps into the power of network model you mention. The post is the spark that lights the fire. For a well known blog like yours or Chris Brogan, you can see that some posts really spark a big fire. If one objective of either blog is brand building as a precursor to business development, the bigger the fire sparked, the more valuable the post in the long run.

    The fun we are having now is sorting out how these tools can be used best. Our human nature drives us to create labels and categories for them. Working in Loyalty Marketing for many years, I tend to view the entire tool-set as new communications channel options that are replacing direct mail & catalogues, especially when aiming to engage with Gen Y.

    I recently used a sports analogy (my apologies in advance for that) to put the tools in perspective on my blog here: http://cli.gs/LTMLSM. It is probably not perfect but adds another viewpoint.

    Social Media to me: the tools which enable engagement and two-way conversations as never before. Twitter and Facebook count in that column, but so does a beach volleyball tournament. Creativity will decide on how best to put these tools to use.

    Thanks for sparking a good fire!

  14. billhanifin Avatar

    For just a moment, shift the focus of the discussion from defining which tool can be labeled as social media to what objectives can be achieved with each tool and through combination of tools.

    For instance, when you say “the value of the blog post is the same whether one person reads it or one million people read it” I'm not so sure. The value of the post to readers will drive comments which taps into the power of network model you mention. The post is the spark that lights the fire. For a well known blog like yours or Chris Brogan, you can see that some posts really spark a big fire. If one objective of either blog is brand building as a precursor to business development, the bigger the fire sparked, the more valuable the post in the long run.

    The fun we are having now is sorting out how these tools can be used best. Our human nature drives us to create labels and categories for them. Working in Loyalty Marketing for many years, I tend to view the entire tool-set as new communications channel options that are replacing direct mail & catalogues, especially when aiming to engage with Gen Y.

    I recently used a sports analogy (my apologies in advance for that) to put the tools in perspective on my blog here: http://cli.gs/LTMLSM. It is probably not perfect but adds another viewpoint.

    Social Media to me: the tools which enable engagement and two-way conversations as never before. Twitter and Facebook count in that column, but so does a beach volleyball tournament. Creativity will decide on how best to put these tools to use.

    Thanks for sparking a good fire!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Shares
Share This