Social Media is Wrong

“Social Media” is wrong.  There, I said it.  Now, if you’ll kindly give me just a marketing minute, I’ll tell you why.

I was reading a thought provoking post by Eric Flethcher, ”Conversations, Relationships and Renaming Social Media,” over on The Social CMO (excellent blog – I highly recommend it) that got me thinking about this.  Eric raises many good points in his article regarding some barriers to companies accepting/embracing social media - corporate fear of losing control, executive fear of engaging in a “conversation” (being “forced” in this direction), etc. 

Eric does a nice job of reframing the issue, and the opportunity.  One of his final suggestions: come up with a new name for “social media.”  He has his reasons, but this thought resonated with me for a different set of reasons.  Actually, it’s a thought I’ve been struggling with for some time.

  
Misleading and Limiting
"Social Media" as a term is wrong on a number of levels.  Primarily, the term is misleading and limiting – it creates misperceptions, conjures up thoughts that narrow the outlook, potential and application of these new technology tools on behalf of an organization.

For most, the word “media” is associated with the communication channels we’ve all grown up with and which continue to sprout up around us.  Per the dictionary, the noun “media” is most commonly defined as "the means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, and magazines, that reach or influence people widely." I think in today's world we can add online, and even some social networks, to that definition.

Certainly, one can argue that this IS one way that these new social networks, tools and technologies can function.  They certainly CAN be used as communication and/or promotional conduits for our messages.  No argument with that. 

 "Social" is NOT Just "Media"
But, that’s only one usage and potential application of these powerful tools.

• Is asking the opinion of hundreds or thousands of people in your target community for input or feedback on your new product concept, new flavors, features, etc. really “media?”  IMO, not really – that’s marketing intelligence, real-time feedback, research...not "media."
• Is paying close attention to customer comments and/or complaints on the Internet through the use of sophisticated “listening tools,” then swiftly responding to them really “media?”  Not IMO – that again feels like real time market intelligence with a good overlay of customer service on top.

I could go on, but the main point is this:  “Social” is not just “Media,” at least not in the way that the overwhelming number of people (including business and marketing types) think of it.  It is so much more.

What's Wrong With This Picture
This mislabeling can have two (at least!) potentially negative effects:

• It encourages the wrong set of actions – Companies and executives are too quick to only view these tools in the context of a marketing communication channel, and may therefore rush out to stake their claim in this new form of media.  That can lead to what I call SNOS, or “Shiny New Object Syndrome.” It’s not strategic, it’s not integrated or related to the organization’s objectives and it could lead to serious disappointment, wasted time and money...you get the idea.
• It limits strategic application of very powerful tools – Today’s tools have many uses for the savvy business executive and marketer.  From product research to consumer insights to evaluating brand perceptions/saliency to customer service…and, yes, to the more prevalent ways we think of these tools for marketing communications and relationship building.  Right now, many companies are struggling with social because they are only looking at a small portion of how they can utilize these tools (Twitter accounts, Facebook fan pages and promotional activity, etc.).  That’s a tremendous opportunity lost, in my estimation.

One can (and many probably will) argue that all of my above examples are still forms of "media," that it all leads to building better, more productive relationships no matter what an organization does (as long as it is engaged in these conversations and building these relationships).  Some may say we're dancing on the head of a pin here.  I can understand these perspectives; but, I don’t fully agree with them. 

 In a world of short attention spans, limited time and a tendency to be reactionary rather than strategic, little things like “names” can be very powerful signals that lead us in one direction or another.  And, I’m of the belief that using the term “social media” is sending the WRONG signals and making it MORE difficult for those who grasp the potential of these tools to make headway in helping their companies fully leverage these potentially powerful technologies.  As much as the old term “Web 2.0” was derided and lacked clarity, it did allow for a broader platform of potential application and uses.

So, I’d like to see another name.  I’ve been using the clunky term “social tools and technologies.” It will not win me any prize for brand naming brilliance, but it more clearly describes what I’m talking about and allows me to focus on the objectives and strategies of an organization and how we might use these tools to further those goals.

What about you?  What would you do if you were to rename “social media?”