 |
| Courtesy of BrandingEye.com |
Instead of social media, I like to use shareable media.
Why do I say shareable media? How are you engaging with content and its creators? Users share with others more often than there is direct social interaction; e.g. it’s a “share” button on Facebook. You RT someone on Twitter; you’re sharing, not socializing. You comment on a blog; that’s sharing your point-of-view or comment, not always creating a conversation since you may or may not get a response from the author. You “like” something on Facebook; again, you’re sharing a “thumbs up” but not necessarily having a conversation with the poster.
You, as a disseminator of content – original or not, are sharing with media platforms. You tweet; someone might see it but takes no action, reads it but doesn’t comment. You post a status update; someone will probably see it but may not comment. In many cases, people will see content you share but not always engage/be social with you. That’s why I like shareable media versus social media.
Do you agree or disagree? Share your comments below (and maybe I’ll be social). ;-)
Hmmm. I think it can be both. There is a social aspect to Twitter, for example, that goes above and beyond just re-tweeting and sharing what others have created. I've had some pretty righteous ongoing dialogues with other people on all kinds of subjects using Twitter.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I just read a chapter in Brian Solis' book Engage where he talked about participation inequality and it's absolutely truth that only a very small percentage (>1% in some networks) are producing content, while the rest are just sharing or a passive reading audience. I was shocked that the gap was that big. So perhaps your description is a lot more apt.
@Amanda - Thank you for the comment. I certainly agree with you about the social aspect to Twitter. I'm shocked, like you, about the participation inequality.
ReplyDelete