Overhyped, oversold, over here ...

The first post from our new guest blogger: Paul Massie, Chair of CIPRInside (the internal communications group of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations.)

Overhyped, oversold, over here ... that's my view of the current social media fad. Welcome to my first blog, and given my views on the social media craze it will probably be my last - I don't suppose Sue or Liam will invite me back again!

Come on, be honest, with people complaining about email overload can you seriously tell me that people have time to read blogs, let alone write them? And as for podcasts - have you heard the rubbish that's out there? It's like wading through treacle trying to find something half decent - is it really worth the effort? The reality is that social media is just another way for the chattering classes to get broader exposure to their views - but who cares? It's not as if their views are representative.

The overwhelming majority of people either do not have a computer or do not know how to use it, a pre-requisite for this type of communication. Social media, far from being socially inclusive, is socially devisive, emphasising the difference between the computer literate and the computer illiterate, the haves and have-nots, the time rich and the time-poor - not to mention those who have something to say and those who don't but want to say it anyway!

Take some traditional channels, sprinkle a bit of technology dust on them, give it a sexy name and hey presto, you've got a marketers dream. I've lost count of the number of so-called gurus, conferences and articles all encouraging us to jump on the bandwagon, and if we don't we're out of touch. Tosh. That's not to say that social media doesn't have its place amongst other channels - but that is all, so let's not hype it all up.

Go on, tell me I'm wrong! If just one person out of you millions of web users out there thinks I'm mistaken, let's hear from you (Sue/Liam, this doesn't include you!). Silence will just prove my point - you either agree with me or you haven't read it, in which case, what's the point?

Comments

[Timm]

I agree that there is a lot of hype out there, and many people have no idea what they are talking about when they use terms like Web 2.0 and social media. Still, I think you are mistaken in your view that the new social media are traditional channels with a little technology dust on them. One of the differences between new social media and traditional ones is that they can actually help with reducing the information overload by decentralizing the task of structuring and distributing information. If there is a paper equivalent to an RSS aggregator out there that automatically cuts out my newspaper and magazine articles and glues them together on one big page, I'd like to know about it. Also, I don't know any existing way how a large number of colleagues can not only rate the quality of a, let's say, manual, but pre-categorize it for me with keywords as social tagging can. My point being - social media is not about new channels, it's about how the audience can structure, connect and customize content.

[Liam]

Dangerous ground Paul - I've been saying for ages that I think this particular emperor may not be as well dressed as some people think.

But I'm agnostic, rather than an outright aetheist on this one. I think social media is going the change stuff, but I don't know how and I'm suspicious of people who prophesise big changes!

As someone who grew up in the 1970's, the golden age of TV Sci-fi, I'm still waiting for my meals to taken in pill form and for us all to walk around in cat suits made out of shiny material! Yum yum

Liam

PS Welcome to the world of Blogging!

[Matt O'Neill]

Man, that was a funny post.

Were you laughing to yourself whilst writing it?

People will participate in social media so long as it provides value for them. Facebook signups are in the hundreds of thousands per day. Why? Because they perceive it'll enrichen their lives in some way. For many (or some), it probably does.

M

[Tom Abbott]

Hmmmm - ok, let's have a think about this.

There are hypes and there are trends. We must not confuse hype around a particular technology or application with an underlying shift in behaviour or media environment.

Second Life, for example, is to me a good example of an instance of hype, whereas World of Warcraft demonstrates a significant behavioural shift in the way that one audiences, gamers, interact with their community of interest.

Likewise, whether the latest poster child is MySpace, Bebo, facebook etc etc, the changing way young people use the internet to organise and manage their social networks *is* a fundamental behavioural shift.

The emergance of podcasting again is one representation of a major change in the way people approach the way they consume media. The music industry was revolutionised by the shift to a digital environment and the same will happen in other industruies - BBC iPlayer, Universities delivering course materials through podcasts and so on.

We should also recognise that the potential in social media lies not with the current generation in work, but the next generation. At the moment there are barriers to entry in the way that setting up a website in 1998 was tricky, but now is a breeze. Device convergance, the portability and connectedness of mobile platforms and the simplification of web services means that barriers to access are falling all the time. It gets easier and easier to do this stuff and embed it in your life.

And let's think about that 'rubbish' at the moment - sure, in terms of professional production values etc etc they may be termed as 'crappy' - for the small (often 1) audience that may be perfectly fine. 99% of the podcasters/bloggers out there are probably not hunting the mega-audience numbers of the few A-list providers, but that's fine, as long as they and the people who do care about their content are satisfied. Many of the finest journalists of the current media mainstream cut their teeth in the world of amatuer writing, fanzines and student papers - those earlier efforts might have been ropey, but laid the foundations for the media heavyweights of today (Julie Birchill, Tony Parsons being two examples.)

And a final note on social divides. Any disruptive technology created divides - the flint spear against the sharpened stick, the steam engine against the water wheel - that's the way progress works and eventually it all evens out. Now, do we say we shouldn't support emerging tech because it potential divides people - ugh, that's the worst sort of luddism. If you're uncomfortable with the shifting digital environment then that's fine. I am sure that the 13 year old kid who in a few years time will be Chair of CIPRInside will be perfectly conversant with the digital world and won't see the distinctions you currently do.

[Richard Dennison]

The fundamental, seismic change that has happened with the advent of social media is that the technology is becoming invisible ... we are no longer trying to drive behaviour and culture change with technology, but letting new behaviours and culture change drive the technology.

OK ... there's hype - but this change really is fundamental and rather than create a 'division' has democratised content production and ownership. There's no way back from here ... :-)

[Ken Kozielski]

Interesting commentary... there is one point, though that no one has mentioned that leads me to believe "social media" will be a key marketing driver in the future. I don't think it has anything to do with people's enamour with "technology," nor is it in their ability to extract "value" from the channel.

Much more fundamental... it is the channel through which people can fulfill the one thing everyone loves the most - their own ego. For the first time in history, clicking a button can achieve exposure and instant recognition. Until the meal pill we all swallow solves for selfishness, social media will flourish as a perfect economy of self-promotion... the human driver.

Allow me to use Paul's logic as proof of my premise. I chose to respond to his blog... and I am a late technology adopter... and I get too many emails also... they just steal time away from surfing.

[Alison]

Either you are having a laugh, trying to be controversial or you are seriously out of date (not a good thing for a professional communicator).
People are changing the way they access and use information and changing how they communicate with each other. Blogs are but one aspect and, yes, there are plenty of bloggers out there with no readers, but there are others that have active communities of interest. Paul, you need to get out more. Get yourself a second life because times have changed and you need to catch up.

[Alex Manchester]

Alison I have to say that suggesting to a social media sceptic that they should get a second life is asking for trouble! Chances are they will come back to the real world laughing their heads off.

On the wider topic I agree with the majority of comments here. I don't think social media is a "fad" at all. There's a massive amount of hype on the topic, true, but I don't believe in two, three or four years time that the underlying concepts of social media tools will have simply disappeared and people will have stopped with blogs, uploading audio and video and connecting via evermore improving social networks. I'm much more of the opinion that they'll have become firmly embedded in every day communication.

The hype will pass eventually, but the ideas and capabilities are here to stay and evolve again. After all, are all of these things not simply evolutions of preceding communication methods?

[Liam]

But isn't Paul saying:
- Who's got time for this stuff? (When you spend your life driving teenage kids around you see the world like that?)
- Exactly how representative are the views of the people who chatter away on these things? (er who's going to argue that one???)

I don't agree about access to computers (or indeed the penetration of broadband) but I don't think Paul's anosognosia is as bad as we all seem to think...

Liam

[Tom Abbott]

- Who's got time for this stuff? (When you spend your life driving teenage kids around you see the world like that?)

I saw a very interesting presentation that suggested that teenagers are more than capable of multitasking to an incredible degree and can fit a huge amount of activity into the same timeframe that we oldies seem to struggle with.

And also on that point, I think you make a mistake by suggesting that it's an either/or scenario - the significant thing is that this kind of communications channel is just part of what people do - it's not an option, it's an integral part of how the digital world and its inhabitants operate. I don't believe people will see it in such a compartmentalised way any more. When every TV is networked you won't see the distinction between a podcast, a streamed radio programme and a TV programme - it'll all just be part of the furniture.

- Exactly how representative are the views of the people who chatter away on these things? (er who's going to argue that one???)

How representative are the view of the Daily Star, or the Guardian? How representative was Piers Morgan, yet he had editoral control over a publication read by millions. Understand the long tail model - it may be relevant to a small number of people, but for that small number it's vital. Do we challenge our journalists to be impartial or representative in the way you seem to want to challenge bloggers?

[Sue]

Social media isn't a fad, it's here to stay, and we're in danger of being left behind as IC professionals if we don't learn about it, try it out (at least outside work) and have informed opinions about its uses.

But! That's not to say social media tools are right for every business/communication strategy or every organisation. My best friend is a nurse who (no exaggeration) didn't know how to switch a computer on until the drugs system was computerised at her hospital 6 months ago. Paul's organisation employs thousands of people with no access to computers at work.

Using social media tools well (or deciding not to use them at all) starts with setting out what you want to achieve, understanding your audience and the corporate culture and working back from there. But you need knowledge and experience of the tools to be able to able to judge whether/how to use them. (back to my first point.)

[Robin Crumby]

There is definitely a lot of experimentation with different social media going on right now, some will stick and some will slide. There is no consensus on which will survive, but you would have to say that tools that reduce the clutter like RSS have already found their place in working life.

Giving these web 2.0 tools a group name is also part of the problem. It's like someone asking whether web sites would catch on 10 years ago. Some will, some won't.

The next generation of workers won't think of social media as social media (I suspect the average teenager would look at you blankly if you used the phrase), they will just expect these tools to be on offer and thoroughly integrated into the way we do things, rather than something separate.

And it's only by experimentation with these tools now that we'll find the ones that will prove indispensable in a couple of years time.

And as corny as it sounds, social media is fun! Well to a sad work-aholic like myself anyway!

Robin.

[Tom Abbott]

Wow - social media might make work fun. Kill it Kill it!

If it's fun, they won't have to pay us anymore.

[Liam]

Tom - you may have missed my point about teenagers. They may be great at doing lots of stuff - that's because we have to drive them around and keep their bedrooms clean! That leaves other people little time for surfing or indeed getting out into the fresh air.

On the representative point - remember that social media is probably still in the early adopter phase which means the vast majority of the world is still miles behind using it. And as early adopters have often very different characteristics to the rest of the world - anyone who relies on their opinions about the shape of the world is on shaky ground.

Finally, at least newspapers try to maintain balance and the better ones back up their stories with evidence... which I think is a good argument in support of Paul's original point.

Liam
(it's nice to see a proper debate breaking out!)

[Timm]

Liam- I agree, it's great to see some debate here! To side with Tom, I would argue

a) on time constraints that Web 2.0 technology and social media in fact helps you save time: RSS as an example to collect news items is an obvious one; another one would be music services such as last.fm which help you find new artists without having to look for them, review services like metacritic.com that save you time reading multiple movie/book/other media reviews to help me decide if I want to see/read/consume them; metastructuring services like deli.cio.us that help you circumvent lengthy Google search processes to get to the real interesting links about a topic. I'm not saying that there aren't many Web 2.0 services that also let you *waste* a lot of time (YouTube, for starters), but I see those more like options for new hobbies, if one needs them. And those are usually not the technologies I would choose to implement in companies.

b) on representation that there are lots of social media out there that are already mainstream and not dominated by early adopters only - for example amazon reader reviews / star ratings. I would also think the millions of teenagers on MySpace/Facebook (blogging how great it is to be chauffeured around by their parents) are pretty representative for their age group.

[Liam]

Re Pt 2 - fair enough...

Liam

[Richard Hare]

The next generation of employees will have grown up with social media and will be used to having multiple ways to connect with each other.

How is this going to change the landscape within the enterprise? How will it change the way work is done? Will it determine who the employers of choice are in future?

[Connie Wilks]

FINALLY. A sane voice on this subject. Will you marry me?

[Liam]

I had an interesting conversation a few years back with a senior manager in the IT division of one the world's biggest companies where they were spending $2bn a year on IT as they integrated companies after a major merger.

His problem was proving that the $2bn made a difference to the corporation's bottom line and he said that they had invested massively in reserach and consultancy to help them. Their conclusion after much work?

You can't prove a link between investment in technology and individual productivity. You can use it to replace people and remove redundant processes. But at the end of the day people did the same amount of work that they always did no matter how web-enabled they were and the quality of their email servers.

However, where they did get a return was in the field of innovation. Because people had tools to play with they came up with new ideas. Their reserach wasn't that there was value in connecting people, it was that natural human inventiveness somewhere along the line found a use for the tools being provided - which was a significant leap of faith when you're shelling out all that dosh.

So my take is that fundamentally how we work and communicate may change, but can we expect the evolution of some sort of democratic workplace nirvana when everyone is fully involved in business decision-making? Can we expect leaders to embrace a lack of control?

I'd like to think that we're on the verge of a social revolution on a par with the one that was triggered by the invention of the printing press. There is much I'd like to see change in the world - like the gap between rich and poor.

But at the end of the day, we'll still live in a world where markets need to operate and capitalism will ensure that control is still concentrated rather than diffused. That's why I don't see fundamental change coming any time soon.

Now where did I put the shiny silver suit?

Liam

[Paul]

Thank you for some interesting, amusing and thoughtful responses – even if in one or two cases they were verging on attacking the person and not the argument. But I won’t fall into that trap of responding in kind.

Ok, ok, I concede I might have been slightly OTT with some of my assertions, and I happily accept that blogging can be fun. Clearly there is a lot of potential with social media tools and those who are actively engaging in it are already getting a lot out of them.

But please consider this – before we all get carried away with the hype (and I do believe that there is a lot of hype) “social media” has been with us a long time now – it’s just we hadn’t given it a name. I’ve been contributing to forum’s and message boards for over 10 years now. I’ve taken part in chat rooms and instant messaging equivalents over a similar period of time. I’ve been using video on the web for five years and Skype to ‘phone’ family who are overseas for the same amount of time. And of course I’m not the only one and I’m sure there are others who’ve been doing it a lot longer.

So I’m afraid I don’t subscribe to the seismic change theory. Change – yes, growing– yes, seismic – I think that’s over-egging it somewhat.

Please also remember that while there are many people who use and enjoy the tools that social media provide, there are a large number of people in this country who have neither heard of social media, can access it nor could use it if they were able to. Just leaving aside those people who simply don’t have the time or are just not interested in it, in my last two companies a large part of the audience were blue-collar of which a number could not read nor write, let alone use a computer.

Of those who could read and write and had a computer in the home a significant number were scared to use it and too afraid to admit it. The Office of National Statistics 2007 Social Trends report reveals that only 29% of households in the lowest income group owned a home computer and 17% had an internet connection (95 per cent and 93% respectively for the highest income group).

So we have to be very careful when we say “this kind of communications channel is just part of what people do” or “The next generation of workers won't think of social media as social media [snipped] they will just expect these tools to be on offer and thoroughly integrated into the way we do things, rather than something separate.”

Which people, which workers?

As for the time poor: I’m afraid that all the RSS feeds and Web 2.0 technology in the world won’t make a big difference to those who are having to juggle many more things than their blogs.

And for those who are looking to the younger generation to lead the way: even among the early adopters the cracks are beginning to show. Julian Thompson from Ipsos Mori Horizons, when referring to the Mori Tech Tracker report, said to the Technology Clinic in April this year “Teenagers [are] starting to resent the burdens of maintaining their social networking sites and the unanticipated consequences they bring. If you don’t nominate and link to the right friends, they might not be your friends for much longer, not to mention the new scope the technology has created for outright bullying”.

So for those of us who are privileged in the sense that we have all the skills, education, wealth, technology, time and enthusiasm to use these wonderful tools we still need to keep our feet on the ground and remember that it is not for everyone. Sue is so right when she says “Using social media tools well (or deciding not to use them at all) starts with setting out what you want to achieve, understanding your audience and the corporate culture and working back from there.” In other words, message, audience then channels.

And before I start taking myself too seriously I’m afraid I have to leave it there. I’ve got some urgent CIPR Inside business to attend to (a small matter of organising a conference on “how to get the best from Social Media” – could I be a convert?), help my kids with their homework, take my daughter to her friends before dashing out to coach a bunch of testosterone fuelled teenage boys on how to play rugby – not to mention giving my wife the love and attention she deserves. So why restrict yourself to just two lives when you can have three or more!

Finally, in response to Connie, thank you so much for your words of support – and given yet another life I would happily marry you, but for now, I’m afraid I’m washing my hair this evening!

BFN.

[Liam]

Paul - injecting facts and citing research is a dirty trick and a low down way to behave in the blogosphere where opinion is cheap.

BTW - you don't have any data do you on technology penetration outside the First World do you?

Thanks!

LIam

[Marc Wright]

Paul Massie has started the conversation,but now chooses to bow out?
"before I start taking myself too seriously I’m afraid I have to leave it there."
Communication is no longer parcelled-up pieces of wisdom spun and polished for the adoration of a submissive public.
Sorry, Paul - you can't leave it there any more. You're either part of the conversation or you're irrelevant. The fact that your initial post has generated such a reaction proves the value of your point of view, but you can no more end it than you can exit a car on the fast lane of the M4.

[Liam]

"Sorry, Paul - you can't leave it there any more"

But I thought he just did! Don't you naturally wander off when you have lost interest in a conversation - which is the other strength of new media. You can't lock people in a room!

Liam

[David Phillips]

Wonderful! To get down and dirty, I did post a (web 2.0) slide show of facts that may influence your thinking here: http://tinyurl.com/32wz7s.

Attention deficit (too busy to do email and social media and use the Internet etc.) has plagued managers for as long as I can remember even when the dead tree society reigned.

I liked your reitteration of Colin Farrington's view about blogs. Which seem to be self serving, badly written content for tiny audiences. I offer you this from Professor Howard Rheingold who wrote “When you claim to be sceptical of the authenticity of online socializing and advise enthusiasts to "get a life," who made you the authority on what a life ought to be?”

But once you have got over this Sir Martin Sorrell set the scene this year when he said: "One of the interesting thing is that the new technologies, the blogs, the development of Web sites, the development of social networking sites, is .... giving a new driver to public relations and public affairs.

Then there is £8 bn worth of PR work awaiting you in addition to the current work load. There is the £10 bn retail in sales looking to social media to give it the boost it needs (my post today).

On the day MySpace reach its 10 millionth UK user (yes - that's 10 million in the UK not world wide), it seems a bit odd for CIPRInside to be blissfully unaware of what employees do when they communicate at work and at home about what they do all day (its called Internet Porosity according to the CIPR Internet Commission).

And then we come to what is happening inside companies. Companies like IBM, Microsoft, Barclays Capital, and which use blogs and wiki's and podcasts internally.

Even better than this we can tune into discussions about using social media inside organisations because its there. Try this one at Hill and Knowlton: http://tinyurl.com/2nhz5p.

There is a great case for the PR profession to ignore all this stuff. Its peaceful, and there is be ample opportunity to get over attention deficit.

But, before you go lets see how Online PR is and will change the PR craft into a management discipline of the first order: http://tinyurl.com/3365ct

[Mike Z.]

This demonstrates that, as with life in general, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

As with any technology and/or medium, its evolution is driven by how we choose to use it. Email, for example, began as a novelty, gradually evolved to a "must-have" tool embraced by the masses, and now is showing signs of rejection as those with more nefarious motives (e.g., spammers) attempt to hijack it, while others give up trying to keep up with it.

I tend to be slow to travel newer paths, as I'm wary of anything that initially is void of definition or maturity. But by observing from the sidelines, I can decide if, when and how to adapt, and while I'll rarely be on the "leading edge," I'll be more comfortable that the time I do invest is worthwhile.

So is this all overhyped, or have we barely scratched the surface? I think it's still too early to say. Large numbers of people jumping in mean nothing -- but how many stick around means everything. It's all about sustaining the model... if it's really "that good," it will survive, and so will we.

So, in the spirit of "same time next year," let's re-examine the landscape in a year or two and see whether this is, indeed, hype -- or something more profound that will reshape how we mortals interact.