So this morning I received an e-mail from my DoD New Media colleague, Jack Holt, asking for my thoughts on the idea of changing the name of the New Media Directorate to “Online and Emerging Media.” At first I pointed him to my post Official Announcement: It’s Just “2.0”. He pushed back with a good point that echoed Steve Radick’s comments on that blog post: what happens when it becomes Web 2.5, Web 3.0, etc.? This discussion got me thinking further about what the heck to call this stuff! Here’s my response to Jack:
Hmmm, yeah. I see what you mean. Truthfully, none of these terms are really great. What if in the analog age we’d called it “analog media’ thinking that was so future-focused…. then digital media usurped analog. Social media and social networking feel like fads: social is not the point, social networks are really just laying a foundation for us to be able to leverage our contacts to accomplish new things in different ways. As for 2.0, indeed there will be a release 3.0, etc., so 2.0 doesn’t get us much except outdated too quickly. I like “new” because it never ends. I like emerging even more because it has cutting edge connotations. “Online” concerns me because I’m not sure that the clear distinction between online and offline that we have today will exist in the same way in the future as mobile technologies blur the line between the two. I am concerned about lumping this all in as “media” because the changes that are happening are bigger than just the way we communicate. The cultural shifts are not captured by “media.”
Medication errors can happen anywhere, but you can protect yourself. There are many of legal online drugstores that will offer legitimate discounts. Certainly it isn’t all. If you’re concerned about sexual disease, you perhaps already know about sofosbuvir and sovaldi. What professionals talk about sofosbuvir hep c? (Read more sovaldi). The signs of sexual problems in men turn on inability to maintain an erection sufficient for sexual functioning. Happily many problems with sexual health can be treated. Before purchasing Kamagra or any other generic, discribe your physician your health state. Health care provider may order definite tests to rule out any other problems that may be contributing to the dysfunction. Get vocational help if you have any of these signs of a side effect to the remedy. If the medicament you are capture is not approved, your doc can prescribe another prescription medicine.
So, we’re back to where we’ve started! What it sounds like we’re all saying is that there isn’t one thing that hits at what we’re all talking about. Then again, do we need a term that’s set aside for these things? Or will they just be absorbed into existing terminology. What I mean is that I prefer to look at blogs, wikis, mobile tech, etc. as part of an overall communications/customer engagement/outreach, etc. plan, not just as a “social media” or “web 2.0” plan. Ultimately, my hope is that there won’t be any need for us social media consultants, as we just become great communications/customer engagement/outreach, etc. consultants because we know how to use these tools to reach our ultimate goals.
I’m seeing a larger paradigm shift here – rather than trying to identify the correct term for these tools, what if we went up a level, and re-defined “marketing” or “public relations” or “stakeholder outreach” so that they include the community, conversation, and informal interactions that are so valuable about ummm…social media?
I think you’ll like this post if you haven’t seen it already “10 Definitions of Web 2.0 and their shortcomings”
http://twopointouch.com/2006/08/17/10-definitions-of-web-20-and-their-shortcomings/
Posting this on Jack Holt’s behalf. Here is his response to our conversation:
“True enough. and I think dropping the “online” is in order as most everything in the convergence is “online” and that makes the term rather redundant. I agree “media” is a term rather lacking in substance but from a taxpayer standpoint we aren’t paid to determine the cultural implications even though it is intrinsic in the communication model. What about just “Emerging Media?” The word “media” actually just means “conduit” or “channel” or “means of transport.” I was also thinking of “Emerging Communication” but I don’t think that will play well. It’s kind of clunky but would be the start of quite a few jokes.
I’m also thinking that because we can’t seem to find a suitable name, maybe it is to be that the strategies and techniques are folded into our current processes to become normal operating procedure and the cultural change of developing and embracing change now makes what we do now irrelevant and we move as thought leaders in this new culture.
That just sounds weird … but an oddly comforting concept of success. “
“I’m also thinking that because we can’t seem to find a suitable name, maybe it is to be that the strategies and techniques are folded into our current processes to become normal operating procedure and the cultural change of developing and embracing change now makes what we do now irrelevant and we move as thought leaders in this new culture.”
Here here Jack – I think that’s exactly it! Although, are we still relevant even without a cool-sounding name? 😉
I see real value in the term, “social software” but certainly agree with the idea that Web 2.0 has too many different things bundled into it. SaaS is different from social software – the term Web 2.0 seems to combine them into a bucket about “all new cool web stuff”. That bucket has become less and less useful, assuming it ever had validity.
I think the answer may be in decomposing the Web 2.0 category into real subsets, like social software. To the extent we are discussing the ability to communicate, I find more validity in breaking down the world into “machine to machine”, “machine to human”, “human to machine” and “human to human” communication methodologies. The subsets underneath each of these seem to provide more coherence. Social software fits nicely into the “human to human” communication methodologies. I have an article exploring this in the DoD world from a netcentric standpoint titled, The Human Interface to Netcentricity if anyone is interested in reading more about this.
In any event, to the extent New Media or Online and Emerging Media attempts to continue to “bucket” all these technologies, I certainly like the use of the word “emerging” more than new. New sort of implies that the technology is already “here” whereas emerging captures the beta/still developing idea.
Just a follow-up – my link above goes to the presentation, not the paper. Here’s the link to the paper on Human Interface to Netcentricity
Noel, I’d love to read your paper, but the link you posted doesn’t work — could you repost it? Regarding your comments,I tend to shy away from terms that define the technical side of all of this because the technologies are just enablers for new human interactions. Yes, “emerging” is better than “new.” How about “emerging interactivity”?
I like emerging interactivity. Kinda has a nice “different” sound to it. Lets try a direct link to the paper:
http://www.dodccrp.org/events/2006_CCRTS/html/papers/154.pdf
Thanks Noel! I look forward to reading your paper… and to meeting with you tomorrow… though I don’t know if I’ll have a chance to read and digest the paper prior to our meeting. Ah, time… if only there were more…. 😉