Tuesday, July 29, 2008

OnlineSpin: Social Media's New Headline: Web Changes World

Last week Joe wrote "Will People Give Meaning To Marketing?"

Mike Patterson wrote in response, "Seems that you are talking about two different subjects here, control and meaning.

I guess by associating the brand with a meaningful cause you are potentially empowering the brand advocate to take control and spread the word, but I don't think that simply by doing so you are advocating control and allowing the market to have a conversation.

It simply becomes another potential topic around which to have a conversation but it does not in my mind give me, as a brand advocate, more control.

It would be an interesting experiment to see how much more viral or social a brand becomes after associating itself with a cause and I am sure you and others are doing that.

But don't mistake this for giving the user control -- you are just giving them another topic to discuss, not a bad thing.

I am all for positive and mutually beneficial associations, but this should not be confused with user control."

Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Social Media's New Headline: Web Changes World
By Joe Marchese

Virtual activities in social media have the potential to drive real-world actions. The problem with too many Web 2.0 companies is that their only purpose is to impact people's virtual experience.


There are two issues here. First, there is a finite number of people who want to use the Web to escape the real world, and many more who would like to use the Web to improve their world. Secondly, marketers (the ones supposed to provide the revenue) need their virtual interactions with people to result in real-world actions, namely purchase decisions. I have always maintained that true social media is simply a digital representation of our real-world social interactions. It's why I am so happy to see more and more of the leaders in our industry drive the principle home.

Brad Burnham, of Union Square Ventures, puts it perfectly on USV's blog when he says, "The next generation of services will need to have an impact on the real world and the real economy, not just an attention economy driven by self expression and discovery online."

Before all of you start jumping on me in the comments, the way everyone seemed to jump on Brad in the comments section, I fully realize that successful social media platforms have given people the ability to impact the real world and the real economy for some time. The challenge is now that we have seen what the social Web can do, and how people want to use it improve their lives, what will we build? Put simply, to be differentiated, a social media platform must offer more than the ability to impact your world beyond the Internet; it must be built to impact your world beyond the Internet.

In his post, Brad links to a Tim O'Reilly article, " What good is collective intelligence if it doesn't make us smarter?"  The title pretty much sums it up. The 2008 Web 2.0 Summit Launchpad series is looking for companies that have been built to leverage communities to solve the world's problems. The shocker is that these companies don't even have to be entirely Web-based.

Looking at these thought leaders, and at so many other conversations, I see that the medium has to move past the idea that online social networking features makes a social media platform. It was a conversation with one such thought leader yesterday that got me thinking about this. In a post titled "Social Networking is Not a Strategy, But it is an Application" more more than two years ago, Kara Nortman, then with Battery Ventures, now with IAC, wrote: "Note: If you come in to pitch social networking as the main differentiator in your marketing strategy, you are not alone." The point is that social networking functionality is not a differentiator today, and it has not been for some time.

If you are a platform developer, the question you should be asking yourself is: What is my social media platform doing to change the way people live both online and off? And if you're a marketer, the question is very similar: What is my social media strategy doing to make people want to take action on my behalf, both online and off?

The question both marketers and platforms alike should be asking is this: Am I betting, because I add social features to average content in a new vertical, that I am now differentiated -- or do I have a differentiated concept that I am then adding a layer of social features to? Believe me, they are two different strategies; and if you run into a VC as sharp as Kara or Brad, or, for marketers, just about any consumer, they'll know the difference.

Joe Marchese is President of socialvibe.

Online Spin for Tuesday, July 29, 2008:

You are receiving this newsletter at brian.bobo@gmail.com as part of your free membership with MediaPost. If this issue was forwarded to you and you would like to begin receiving a copy of your own, please visit our site - www.mediapost.com - and click on [subscribe] in the e-newsletter box.
For advertising opportunities see our online media kit.

If you'd rather not receive this newsletter in the future click here.
email powered by eROIWe welcome and appreciate forwarding of our newsletters in their entirety or in part with proper attribution.
(c) 2008 MediaPost Communications, 1140 Broadway, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10001

No comments:

Blog Archive