In a recent
blog, No More "Social" Media: It's Knowledge Media, Andy Krzmarzick proposed to change the name Social Media
into Knowledge Media. In a following
post, Gov 2.0 moves beyond ’social media’ — and why it’s more than semantics, Chris Dorobek wrote: “But the term
“social media” is, in fact, dangerous because it gives people the opportunity
to discount there very powerful tools with a broad brush… At the end, the power
of these tools comes from their inherent ability to enable information sharing
and collaboration, not from the social aspects”.
These are valid suggestions and concerns. I have, however, some thoughts about the effects of terms we choose to describe things and I would like to suggest an alternative.
Working on
visuals for years has taught me a great lesson about metaphors (visual, verbal,
and otherwise). A metaphor could be extremely valuable in explaining some
aspects of a phenomenon or an object.
But, as people tend to generalize (or sometimes to stereotype), they could
perceive the metaphor as a sole representation of reality, or even worse, as
reality itself.
Hence, when
we say social media, some people might think that it is the only aspect of the
beast. If we call it knowledge media, people might perceive that it is all about sharing knowledge regardless
of the social aspects. So, what is a good name for this medium or media? My preference would be to use a "neutral" name like new media.
Even if we use the neutral term of new media, we still need to relate to the real role of the social aspect. In his post, The Golden Triangle,
Fred Wilson rightfully pointed out that “The three current big megatrends in the
web/tech sector are mobile, social, and real-time.” In that
statement, it seems to me, all parts of “the three megatrends” include information
sharing and collaboration- not just in the social one. However, the social
aspect is the proponent for sharing information and collaboration and it is not
just a tool. The mobile and real time aspects, however, are facilitators in many (but maybe not in all) cases.
To me, the
main aspect of the new media (or whatever you would call it) is indeed the
social. We are herd animals and are “programmed” to like to associate with one another (unless there are some roadblocks…). People like to share things with their friends and acquaintances- a meal, a gift, a
favor, feelings, and, yes, information.
Before new media, as many have pointed out, writing (including newspapers),
TV, theater, film, and billboards were some of the main possible ways to share
information in a larger scale than a few people. They were mainly one-way
streets. We, the audience, were the recipients and by-and-large, were not able
to respond. Now, the new media has allowed us to participate in the information
creation and dissemination processes.
This has
social consequences. In the wild,
people share photos, status information, etc., and they “aggregate” with one another
as they like. These resulting communities usually grow spontaneously and
organically.
Within
organizations, however, the implementation of social media could be different. From my experience, one usually needs
to work extra hard to convince people to open their personal gates at work, to
traverse organizational boundaries (or even break them), to merge organizational cultures, and to establish a
community. Afterwards this is done, one needs to continue working to maintain the community
so it will get stronger and not just fade away. If all works well in this organizational environment, one
would see a dramatic increase of information sharing and even collaboration.
Another important aspect of this new media is that it could increase the number of people within and outside your organization who know you or about you, and as Mark Drapeau points out (quoted in Gov 2.0 moves beyond ’social media’ — and why it’s more than semantics): "It used to be about who you know. Today, it's about who knows you- and that, increasingly, the people who are the most connected are the most influential".
Some
managers might object to the word ‘social’ in social media for a reason. They do not wish their employees to
start exchanging information about their social lives outside work or they are concerned that the new freedom will break the traditional organizational
boundaries and thus endanger their own positions. Sometimes, sharing of some aspects of a one’s private life
is necessary to start conversation and networking stressing that this person is
a human being and not just a robotic entity in the office. Employees might be empowered to exercise
their own best judgment when to stop or some appropriate guidelines could be
established and implemented. From my experience,
managers could be educated about the advantages of these new environments. The rewards could be enormous.
