Debate: the real definition of social
I’ve been locked in a debate with Joe Koufman and Raghu Kakarala for the past week on what exactly social media/networking is.
It started by me claiming that video chat is inherently social. Two (or more) people interacting over a digital medium (in this case video), to me is the epitome of “social”. Joe and Raghu disagree. My contention is that they are locked in the paradigm that says “Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, ShareThis” are “social” and therefore things like video chat and instant messaging aren’t “social”. I feel like they need to step outside of that box and realize the true reach of “social”.
Some of the dialogue went like this (btw this was over text msg, which I would argue is also social):
—————————————————————————–
Joe: Live video is not social. Shareable is social.
Me: Social interaction via digital medium sounds like social to me.
Joe: True, but if you and I are on a video conference together, then I consider that social with a little s.
Me: Maybe, but hitting “share this” on a website is also a little s.
Joe: Nope can share it with all my friends unlike a video connection w a few people.
Me: What you’re missing is yes, social allows for easy sharing, but social itself is the interaction of people via digital. In your definition, refer a friend email is big S.
—————————————————————————–
Rather than pontificate further about why I think sharing doesn’t make something social but is rather a by-product of social and the true meaning of social is the ability to interact with others over a digital medium, I figured Joe and I could continue the debate with you guys and see where this takes us.
I think you both make good points.
I especially see Jeff's point because Gmail offers video chat. I consider email a social experience because you can share information and interact with multiple people at one time. Also, with iChat, you can video chat with more than one person at a time.
As for Joe's point, posting a video on Facebook is obviously social to me. When you upload a video to a “social media” website, so many people have access to it. Does this kind of hit Jeff's point of “1 to 1 to many?”
I guess I consider video, whether live or shareable, a social experience. You are interacting through something other than a traditional method like face to face convo or the telephone.
This is a great topic to be debated in one of my grad classes. We have had similar discussions in my New Media class. New Media is subject to an individual's interpretation of what “media” actually is. We (my classmates and I) have come to the conclusion that new media is is anything that incorporates interaction between man and technology as a means of communication. That brings me to the above debate. What is considered communication? Is something considered communication if there is only one person communicating? Or does communication require the interaction of two or more people? In other words, does posting something for the public to read “social” or does it become “social” when the public responds? Hmmm.
Social is when I care about something enough to share.
Defining things is tricky business. “Social,” especially, is muddled due to its recent inception and ongoing evolutionary nature. I see Social (capital ‘S’ !) as interaction between more than one person in a digital forum *that* has value to others outside of those directly involved. An opportunity for others to become engaged must exist – whether it be through sharing, discussing, or joining in on communication via video. So, along those lines, I wouldn’t immediately see a closed video-phone call as Social, but I could think of a live videostream of something like a podcast as such – its Social-ness being derived from the interest of onlookers.
Personally, I think that the term social can mean everything from talking face-to-face with someone to digital communication, in this instance video chat. The definition of “social” has been magnified greatly by new technology, but as long as it meets the basic definition of sharing information with another person, it's social.
Is that social or advocacy?
Exactly, that's why this is such a tough debate. I'd love to hear back from you if you are able to get the debate to happen in your grad class. Heck it might even be fun to do a video conference where your grad class and the group I lead at Engauge debate the topic!
Funny you should mention that. I just got an email form my professor this morning saying that the curriculum for our class does not include a lot of social media info so she is going to supplement material. I just forwarded her a link to Mashable and another site Kathleen told me about. My prof linked all my classmates to the Old Spice campaign too. I would love to have video conference. That would be really cool. I will run it by my prof and see what she thinks :-)
Our difference in opinion on this is based on my difference in definition of Social with a big S (Social Media) and social with a little s (interaction with another or others). When we exchanged text messages about this topic it was social with a little s. Yes, we were interacting with each other, but a one-on-one interaction is not the point of Social Media. Many interacting with each other or one sharing with many is what defines Social with a big S.
I think you can consider video as Social Media and not social with the the little s. I think this because, with live video you can interact and answer questions with people via other social platforms such as twitter, facebook, chat clients and answer questions in real time. For it to be social to me there has to be two way communication in real time. Its can't be just push the message out. As more and more social platforms are getting intertwined Video is going to be a big part of it.
Example: You can get on Ustream, set up a time for people to meet up do a talk or just take questions and answer them. You can also share it live on other social sites. I have seen Gary V do this from time to time, just gets on an chats and responds to the comments in that room or questions.
By your definition of Big S (or Social Media), forwarding an email to a friend would be Big S. Additionally sending out an email newsletter would be Big S.
Do you want to further clarify that definition?
Forward to a friend does not fit my big S definition, as it only allows for one way communication (from sharer or sharee). So yes, I guess I would add that the big S definition includes the opportunity for two way communication.
Jeff, is a plain VOIP phone call social, by your definition?
I think video is on it's way to becoming social with Google TV – but that's because all our social networks will be in the TV and integrated with TV programing.
If I forward an email to 2 friends, its Big S social in your definition, no? And how does email not include the opportunity for 2-way communication? It is as 2-way as Twitter is.
Maybe you should put out a refined definition of what you think Big S and little s social is…
I agree with you, Jeff. By the way, I'm surprised that we agree on this, since you typically take the viewpoint that anything old isn't cool and therefore nothing involving email or text could be considered Social.
The next question for me is: Why does it matter? Why is it necessary to come to a common, shared definition?
And if you do come to a common, shared definition – does that make it a “social” definition of Social? I forget – which side of the argument was “shared=social” on?
GASP – let the record show that the infamous TS, for the 1st time ever, has agreed with something I put on this blog…at least for the first part of his comment :)
You bring up a good question on why it matters and the easy answer is, it doesn't. It's actually a good thing that people disagree on this because it makes you stop and really think about what the space means.
I'll tell you the reason it has come up is that “social” gets thrown around with little regard to what it means, particularly by agencies. “Hey, here's this great campaign our advertising agency came up with, can you make it social?” or “We're great at social, look how many Facebook friends we have” or in this particular case, “How can we make this live video chat a social experience?”
Clarification. Socializing something I like enough to evangelize (vs. advocacy) to friends, family, or anyone. I could care about and evangelize a brand's product, a party's political view, a niche passion like otaku, whatever makes me care and then share. See it even rhymes. Can argue with rhymes.
So is live video Social, is texting, is chatting with someone on the street? Maybe, as long as I care about the content being delivered.
“Social interaction via digital medium sounds like social to me” – ok, Mcdonalds has been using digital transfers for their drivethru squeekbox for a while. Ordering a Big Mac. Social? If it isnt, because the relationship is transactional, then Twelpforce, using social as customer service, et al. isn't social either.
Problem isn't with the definition of Social – its with not having a clarifying taxonomy (set) for all of these platforms. We use “social” because as marketers we have to merchandize the offering.
Interesting debate. But I think in the new media world, if it is not spreadable, its not social. So if its simply a one on on video chat, not social. If you record and post it somewhere where others can access it, its social.
I can start to buy that “sharability” is something required of social, maybe, but I still question that being the ultimate definition. I'll challenge you in the same way that I've been challenging Joe, why then by that definition wouldn't an email that I forward to 5 friends be “social”?
“We use “social” because as marketers we have to merchandise the offering.” I think you're right about that Dan. By the same token, however, we clearly define digital in a way that would preclude the McDonald's squeekbox from being labeled as digital. However if I magically could order a Big Mac, standing in front of the counter, on my iPhone via the Facebook app, you're damn right that'd be called “social”. Can you imagine, “I just ordered a Big Mac through Facebook!” It'd be the social media story of the year (second to the Old Spice dude of course, which I'm soon going to argue was 99% a badass creative idea/execution and 1% a social experience, even though its lauded as the best social campaign since Subservient Chicken…but I digress).
But you are getting to the heart of the matter, we as marketers use the word “social” and it carries with it a definition or meaning. Too often I hear people thinking they can slap a “share this via Twitter” button on something and proudly clarify, “This is now social.” This debate started because that same statement was made at the same time as saying that people using live video on the web to talk to each other through a website is not a social activity, and therefore we needed to find a way to “make it social”. I might as well slap a “forward to a friend” on something and POW its social.
I call BS on that.
It is Jeff… it is.
I think I could make the case that this is not Social Media also:
https://mashable.com/2010/07/25/royal-family-mon…
If you're saying that having a “forward to a friend” in an email newsletter is considered social media, then I think I just won this debate. The ability to pass information from one person to many is absolutely not social media in my book.
Based on what you've said in this post, if I send a text to 2 people, that's social media. And if I send a text to only 1 person, its not social? I have to hear that explanation.
Aside from the fact that you are a master-debater, Jeff, my argument is merely that video between two people is not Social, but is social. There are many other forms of sharing content including forward to a friend.