Social Media is Not Dead

Rather than address the blogosphere with brilliant rhetoric and clarity regarding the Ferrari Incident, instead, Steve Rubel has declared Social Media Dead.

Perhaps he's merely tapping into the power of social media to spark controversy to displace the conversation on Techmeme, or, just maybe, he really does believe that "social" or any other category preceding the word "media" is dead.

Jeremy Pepper calls it "Crisis Blogging to Defeat a Meme."

Open the Dialogue captures it with, "What strikes me most is the deafening silence from Steve Rubel. Instead, he's declaring this, that or the other thing "dead."

They're right on target. As for me, I'm here to say that Social Media, as a term and a channel, is far from dead.

Just last night, I held one of the greatest conversations I've had in a long time on the subject with Greg Narain, where we concluded that social media is part of the greater landscape of social tools, which is redefining the way people communicate - and its opportunity has only started to materialize. So to call social media dead in a thinly veiled attempt to mask the conversations about Edelman and Microsoft is absurd, reckless and premature.

In his post, Social Media is No Mo, Rubel states, "As we conclude 2006 and head into the new year it is my conviction that the phrase 'social media' is moot."

Well, the term "moot" means: debatable, arguable, disputable...

He continues, "Social media, according to Wikipedia, 'includes the online tools and platforms that people use to share opinions, insights, experiences and perspectives with each other.' This includes blogs, message boards, podcasts, wikis, vlogs and so on. For the last few years this was all considered related to, but separate from mainstream media. That point of differentiation is now gone. In 2006 all media went social. Pretty much every newspaper, TV network and publication has wholeheartedly embraced these technologies. Newspapers have comments, RSS feeds, blogs, wikis and other forms of two-way communications. TV networks have a presence in Second Life and more. The lines have blurred."

Is it me, or am I the only one here that sees the blaring differences between blurred and dead?
Yes, he's correct that in 2006 most, not all, media went social. Many of the tools he described are globally deployed and utilized. But the last time I checked, only a small portion of the global population is actually socializing using "social media tools" and, most importantly, these tools are merely creating the framework for a broader, more sophisticated social media platform for the future.

Allow me to clear this up for everyone here...First, step away from the punch! "Social Media" is not dead. It is in its own definitive category, which is barely starting to inspire those that actually make it social, not to be dictated by those that deploy it.

So if anything, 2007 becomes the year where social media is a respected, official, and recognized media channel, but it is by no means mainstream, traditional, broadcast, etc. We still have a lot of work to do to get the rest of the world to join the conversation and what it will become is the real story here.

Digg this!

The Conversation Moves to Techmeme

Edelman steve+rubel social media social+media wikipedia Jeremy+pepper techmeme pr pr2.0 marketing advertising Microsoft Ferrari greg+narain tools rss blog wiki second+life