Recent Entries
- Achieving Enterprise Adoption of Social Media Tools
- The past, present, and future of location-based mobile social networking
- The steady shift to an RSS-based universe
- Peak of Australian Twitter use was at Future of Media Summit 2008
- Media is becoming everything
- How smaller countries and regions can develop their film and screen industries – 5 key issues
- ABC Interview: Google as an advertising aggregator
- Media Trends + Strategy: The State of Play
- Media and Social Networks Roundtable
- How will news and social networks be integrated?
« Previous Entry | Future of Media Summit Blog | Next Entry »
Future of Media Summit Blog
Media and Social Networks Roundtable: moderator Jim McNamara
Media and Social networks.
Moderated by Jim McNamara.
We were asked to think about the word “social” with regards to social networks – since the networks were used for many more things than just social interaction.
What about calling them community networks for instance? A group like Advance, meant to link the Australian diaspora around the world used it as a means of business, while Financial institutions used the networks for business interaction.
Also, since there are so many uses for social networks, should they be classified under the generic term of ‘media”?
One of the key points about the networks was that they used ‘trust’ and word of mouth, based on the user being empowered. Rather like an Irish pub, said someone, an example of a social and communications network and also a place for distribution of material.
There was discussion about misterminology about the words social networks – since after all they were mediated – so were they not just another form of media?
Or have social networks morphed into another and different form of media altogether?
Depends on your point of view, said one participant: it’s a generational thing. Older people would use them to push agendas, whereas younger people used them more for communications and social purposed.
The definition is irrelevant, said another: whatever you want to call it – you are a target audience to the advertiser. Not so, was the reply, since the advantage of Web 2.0 was the ability to talk back and interact. It gives participants a voice.
There was talk about traditional media being ‘closed media’, in the sense the audience was told what to look at, whereas social networks were ‘open media’.
Should we therefore, said the moderator, be thinking about a term such as ‘emergent’ media as it was still developing.
The conversation moved on to the issue of the audience as content generators and the day of the citizen journalist .
We agreed on the core concepts of social media as being: Open/interactive/participatory
We then turned to history and reviewed the fact that there used to be the marketplace and the forum in a village society, which allowed for participatory contact and interaction. Mass media had in fact taken away from people the ability to talk to one another. “We’re back to the global town hall meeting and the world as a village”.
Final Key points to consider:
Information vs communication
Enabling
Interative
Peer to peer influences at work
Social for engagement rather than just to be cosial
And so, does this now make social media a mainstream concept?