There is a lot of buzz these days about social media. Everyone’s trying to figure it out. There are some who understand it, and some who might be missing the mark. The “web” is quickly, and deservedly, becoming a science unto itself. The web is still perceived by the majrity as a platform. A medium. An “it”. When, as I observe it to be, the web is much more, it’s “where,” “when,” “how,” and “why.” And most importantly “who.” My friend Stowe Boyd refers to practitioners of social media as “the people formerly known as the audience” - a term I am quite fond of. In general, this is a concept that the world of marketing communications has yet to catch on to.
In my own business, I find it difficult to describe what we do in a word or two. When my partner and I started the company, we started it based on the idea of creating a two-way communication stream between a brand and it’s audience (the people formerly known as the audience.) That was 7 1/2 years ago. The social web has greatly impacted how we function as a company, and allows us to give new meaning to that original vision.
People in the industry have coined several terms to attempt to suggest the relationship between the social web and the world of marketing. Social Media Marketing is one, Conversational Marketing is another. As Brian Solis points out, these terms are flawed.
The problem with Social Media Marketing and Conversational Marketing as classifiers is that both still involve the word “marketing.” It doesn’t imply authenticity and the two-way process of listening, internalizing, and responding. Each is complementary to traditional marketing, but their intent, practice, and metrics are different. And, the socialization of communications is also unique.
-Brian Solis
This leaves the question: “What is the proper qualifier?” How do we define the act of participating in the social web on behalf of a brand? Up to this point, various factions within marcom have been attempting to include “social” within their particular discipline - PR, marketing, advertising, search, customer service, HR and product development have all attempted to adopt some or all aspects of the social web and fit them in somehow.
I would like to posit the idea that rather than trying to fit a round peg into a square hole, we need to carve out a new hole. The term I am proposing we use for this is Social Communications. Social Communications as a category touches branding, PR, marketing, WOM, customer service, product development, mobile marketing, SEO and many other aspects of a brand’s communications strategy. It is the art of “socializing” these processes.
On it’s own, communications does not necessarily imply a two-way, or a multi-dimensional stream. Communication can be, and historically largely has been, broadcast - it’s a one-way stream of information. Social media represents a disruption to the world of traditional marketing communications. I’ve talked before about the fact that the social web represents the first time in the history of communication that no one is in control, it’s not top-down. The social web requires that communication be two-way at a minimum, but optimally this communication will be multi-dimensional, echoing out in many directions at once, being absorbed, processed, influenced, shared and interacted with.
Social Communications represents the act of socializing communications. Whatever we call it in the end, I believe this category deserves it’s own classification and it’s own field of study. I don’t claim to have all of the answers, my goal in writing this post is to begin a dialogue that can be used as the foundation of future discussions on the topic.
Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Via Feedburner
July 23rd, 2008 5:59 pm
For a sociologist the term “social communication” sounds a bit redundant. Because all communication is social. I’d say broadcast would not exist if there would be no one to listen to it or to watch it. There always have to be at least two minds for communication to happen. I find Vilém Flussers distinction between dialog and discourse very helpful to show the special properties of social media. He distinguished between different geometrical patterns of communication: theater, pyramid, tree, amphitheater, circle and network.
July 23rd, 2008 10:20 pm
Jackie this is a great conversation to have with this crowd and I’m very glad you brought it up.
In terms of getting its own field of study, luckily we’ve had it for 50 or 60+ years (the traditions of “Speech Communication” and Rhetoric merged with social scientific approaches and “Mass Communication” approaches to form Communication departments as we know them today around the U.S.) Ideally, we get to use understandings of modern statistics, rhetoric, and other social scientific theories to get at these issues. So which theories from the field of Communication provide us the best tools to anchor this particular discussion? I’m currently writing a longer discussion about this, but for starters, Katz and Lazarsfeld’s Two-Step Flow model http://www.tcw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Mass%20Media/Two_Step_Flow_Theory-1.doc/
needs to be revised in a way that fits what you accurately described as multi-dimensional communication, and I would love to engage you in that process. Network theorists and those who discuss social capital might help, but ultimately the term for which you are searching may come from the field of ancient Rhetoric, mixed with theories of modern persuasion that have riffed off of Katz and Lazarsfeld. Here’s what’s great about your post: the “field” of Mass Communication doesn’t make sense anymore because there is no “mass” as we know it!
With regard to the term you propose, I agree with the first comment that “social communication” is redundant but I completely get your desire for an integrative term. The field of Communication Technology (subfield of Communication) is where all the “academic” discussions are taking place on these issues but they are uninterested in coming up with terms that work for us. They would call it “communication”. So it is up to us to bridge that gap and widen this discussion for the community until we reach some consensus. Rock on.
July 24th, 2008 3:56 pm
To focus on “social communication” seems like a fool’s errand, with all due respect.
Social communication, viral marketing, word of mouth marketing, social media marketing, blah, blah, are just terms created by the advertising, marketing, and to some extent VC and corporate world to justify using the Internet.
Social communication has been occurring since men, and women, evolved slightly from apes.
What’s transformative is the ability to promote a digital “obviously social” commons across the globe, which is fragile and easily undermined, co-opted and exploited by brand managers, such as myself.
July 24th, 2008 9:20 pm
All terms, yes, but we as humans need terms that we can use to reference a certain set of objects, behaviors and principals, just as when I use the word “apple” to refer to an object, you understand that it’s the object that we all refer to as an apple. I’m not saying that social communications is the right term, but I am suggesting that we need a common word, set of words, or term that people can refer to.
As I mentioned, I am attempting to establish a dialogue here more than anything else, and I welcome people to come and poke holes, contribute, and participate. It’s through that dialogue, that conversation, that we will be able to advance.
July 25th, 2008 1:03 pm
Thanks for the kind response. I appreciate the spirit that debating important issues via blogs can create.
The challenge is two trends exist simulatenously: one is the social media, “Web 2.0″ O-Reilly’s, Ogilvy’s Digital Influence, Jeremiah Owyang’s, HeavyBag, Mashable, Twist-Up, CP attending las fiestas, etc. paradigm, which is at its heart about making dinero.
Then there’s the digital commons, which is at risk both by the above trend and more basic threats, ironically led by our hometown RIAA/MPAA thug lobbyists.
As far as “social communication,” I prefer using the base term as networks. Communication has always been social unless when is a psychopath and enjoys talking to their own self-avatar. Creating our own digital, social networks, not online communities as Zuckie likes to call them, might be a helpful vocabulary.
July 25th, 2008 5:52 pm
Lewis, many people have agreed with your view of the term communications, so I could be wrong on this. But in my view, communication can be one-way (broadcast communication) two-way (a telephone conversation, a website with a feedback form, etc.) or multi-dimensional (which is what happens to communications on the social web) But like I said, I’m open to discussion
July 29th, 2008 12:03 pm
[…] heavyBlog » Making the Case for Social Communications I would like to posit the idea that rather than trying to fit a round peg into a square hole, we need to carve out a new hole. The term I am proposing we use for this is Social Communications. Social Communications as a category touches branding, PR, marketing, WOM, customer service, product development, mobile marketing, SEO and many other aspects of a brand’s communications strategy. It is the art of “socializing” these processes. […]
July 29th, 2008 12:56 pm
I agree with the trend here that communication is social. The very definition includes “interchange”. I feel that it is redundant.
In my mind, social media = the mediums created to foster social behavior, word of mouth and viral are some of those mediums, social networking = the ability to connect with people around specific topics or interests.
Not sure why we need a further term to define the act of being social or the act of communication. Is there confusion about these terms?
July 29th, 2008 2:56 pm
Let me throw something out for arguments sake. Isn’t all the communication you are referring to come in the online space? Does a clarification of ‘online’ or ‘Web’ help or hurt? Looking through the comment I’d agree with the redundancies of term ’social communication’ but its definitely close. Let me braindump some ideas:
- Online Communication (too infrastructure sounding?)
- Web Communications
- Social Web
- Conversational Web
- Internet Communications
July 29th, 2008 4:59 pm
As Bard tossed out there, Online Communications is the term I find myself using most. I’m most interested in working with clients who may have little knowledge of blogs, wikis, etc. Social Media is a term that I’ll spend a lot of early time defining and explaining for them. Online Communications is something they can easily grasp. While it may not directly imply “multi-directional”, that is very easy to include via discussion.
July 30th, 2008 6:41 am
[…] Peters over at heavyBlog makes the case here for changing the ”job description” of marketers who use social media as a tool to […]
August 9th, 2008 2:42 am
Brad: I think we had a similar response to Jackie’s post. My mind went straight to the word *communications*. I thought of Web and Online. I like Web Communications the best.
::after thought::
Benedikt: I, as you, believed Social Communications to be redundant, as communication is inherently social. But actually, communication just requires a sender and a receiver. This is not necessarily interactive OR social. Therefore it is not redundant and Jackie’s umbrella including broadcast seems to be appropriate.
Thanks JP.
August 25th, 2008 11:57 am
Outside of the naming (or not) nomenclature discussion…
Expanding on Joe P.’s point “communication… requires a sender and a receiver,” communication is a human activity–which may or may not be aided by social media (digital or print). Communication, in any form, must be designed to engage participants into the social discussion.
Digital/print mashups already exist, and my opinion is that the number of them will explode over the next six to nine months. I futher believe that the viable Web 3.0 developers will align context to human communicative patterns.
I have no problem with a naming structure, as long as it is flexible enough to be as evolutionary as will be the industry.