Echo Hub

It seems the term "social media" is undergoing a definition shift. I don't generally refer to sites like Google, YouTube, and Wikipedia as "social media." While they do aggregate media (not all of it social) they are not in and of themselves "social media" in the style of Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace. I think the video blurs that distinction thereby making the stats all the more impressive.

Even with that said, there are some impressive stats tucked in there! Facebook has had a ridiculously fast rise to prominence (profitability is another issue), but what about it's sustainability over time? I guess in the back of my mind I have all of the "revolutionary changes" that Web 1.0 brought about that we now look at as archaic and trivial (AOL's Instant Messenger for example). Will Web 2.0's "social media" be here to stay or is it merely an evolution of our communication patterns? Patterns that will be replaced by other technologies/services in the not too distant future.

Social media is certainly term that can mean many different things to many different people, so I always find myself wondering about its proper application. However, YouTube and Wikipedia each contain a social component that qualifies them as social media in my mind. But like I said, that's open to interpretation. On top of that, I'm wrong a lot …

This video is basically a marketing piece to sell a book. Many of the stats are wrong, misquoted, twisted, or just random. It's sad that so many people are pushing this piece of marketing out there.

Obviously Social Media and marketing in general is here to stay. But lets call folks to the carpet that create a video like this one that has more holes than swiss cheese.

I'd be interested to see which stats were false. Have any examples?

I don't know about you, but I (and MANY/ALL of my colleagues use AIM on a daily basis).

Regardless, I agree that Google and Wikipedia are not "social media". Since when did ALL user generated content become social? If that's the case, the entire internet could be umbrella'd as a "social network".

The point is that "social media" is not so much the revolution as the internet and technology is. Social media is but a piece of it. While AOL and Netscape might have been a pawn, social networking is more a bishop, or even a queen.

Will this, however, be the peak of social media? I doubt it. More like a stepping stone. Like the video mentioned, people aren't using newspapers nearly as much. It's just the beginning of something substantial (we're only seeing glimpses right now). This is an aspect of the future they didn't forecast years ago. Forget about flying cars, this is it.

Hey Justin, I'll point you to his own site with various folks pointing out the issues with the facts in the videos. Surprisingly, he's selling a new book, and his replies to these folks are "thanks, that'll make my next video even better". No attempt to apologize, or defend the stats he posts.

http://socialnomics.net/2009/08/11/statistics-sho…

I just came across this article that works through some of the items in much greater detail. http://www.rockcheetah.com/blog/social-media/soci…

Awesome, thanks for these

[...] http://www.collidemagazine.com/blog/index.php/1233/video-social-media-revolution [...]

[...] via Collide. [...]

Again, Justin, you're free to define social media however you'd like. For me, social doesn't mean user generated. For me, social media implies media and platforms that people interact with or around. There's nothing inherently social about a generic web page. However, when content on the Web is designed to be shared, rated, commented on, responded to, remixed, mashed up, modified, voted up or down, tagged, or favorited, something social is happening with the media therein. That's what I think of when I hear the term social media. No, Google doesn't quite fit. YouTube? To me, that's a different story.

I definitely think that YouTube should be considered social media.

I just think that, like the buzz phrase "Web 2.0" there should be some sort of standard definition, otherwise (like Wes is pointing out) it just becomes a term to draw attention for sales or site hits..

BTW, I think this is a great post. The video does bring up a lot of relevant, interesting and controversial points.

No problem. I just get frustrated when folks won't do the homework to get real figures, or will choose to sensationalize them for their own gain.

[...] this video posted on Collide Magazine and thought that while really interesting, not surprising at all. Love the music they put with it [...]

[...] Social Media Revolution 11 09 2009 http://www.collidemagazine.com/blog/index.php/1233/video-social-media-revolution [...]