A nice side-effect of tracking the blogosphere’s reaction to my Mashable post on Social Media Jobs has been a debate on the definition of Social Media. What the hell is it?

I agree - the definition is vague and sometimes completely idiotic. So let’s finally put this question to rest and get a consensus. What is Social Media?

I’m going to define it in the most basic way possible - by breaking down the term into its core parts:

Social:

First line of Wikipedia: Social refers to human society or its organizations.

The social in social media refers to human society and human organizations. Broad, but it’s a start.

Media:

First line of Wikipedia: Media are the storage and transmission tools used to store and deliver information or data.

So Media is about communication and communication tools. Alright. Still too broad, but we’re getting somewhere. We’re talking about primarily electronic media - you haven’t seen someone use a chisel or a pen to Tweet, have you?

So now we’re talking about using electronic communication storage and transmission to deliver information or data. Because we have “social,” that means it’s the transmission of data to other people and other social groups.

So far, social media is the use of electronic tools by humans to communicate with one another.

Closer, but we’re not there yet.

The vein that flows between FriendFeed, Facebook, Digg, Twitter, etc. is sharing. The sharing of experiences, of information, of Rick Astley to unsuspecting YouTubers. Traditional media presents information to you for you to digest. Social media allows you to pick, choose, comment, parse, and retort - all at the same time.

Now we have it to this: Social media is the use of electronic and Internet tools for the specified use of sharing and discussing experiences and information with other human beings.

But doesn’t a general website do that?

Sort of but, social media tools do it more effectively and they do it faster. That’s the point of Digg - you can share something you found with a lot more people than your IM buddy list. It’s more efficient.

Social Media:

First line of Wikipedia: Social media is an umbrella term that defines…

Enough.
From our deduction, here’s a standing definition:



Social Media is the use of electronic and Internet tools for the purpose of sharing and discussing information and experiences with other human beings in more efficient ways.



One too many “ands”, but oh well - I’m very happy with this definition. If you disagree with me, please debate it in the comments. Otherwise, someone change the first paragraph of the Social Media article on Wikipedia, because I’m tired of the ambiguity.

Share This Post!bookmark bookmark bookmark bookmark bookmark bookmark bookmark

  • August 8, 2008 at 4:07 pm Ben Parr
    I'll repost the actual definition I derived. I'd love to debate this and get a consensus, then stop the ambiguity so we can move on to how to use them rather than how to explain them.
  • August 8, 2008 at 4:10 pm Ben Parr
    "Social Media is the use of electronic and Internet tools for the purpose of sharing and discussing information and experiences with other human beings in more efficient ways."
  • August 8, 2008 at 4:13 pm Benedikt Koehler
    "more efficient" compared with what?
  • August 8, 2008 at 4:14 pm Ben Parr
    Compared with methods of the past and the present. More efficient than the telephone (one person), more efficient than the television (two-way communication rather than one-way presentation), more efficient than emailing (can be broadcasts publicly rather than just privately).
  • August 8, 2008 at 4:16 pm Brian Sullivan
    Drop the "in more efficient ways" and it fits my idea.
  • August 8, 2008 at 4:19 pm Brian Sullivan
    I think it should include email, email lists, usenet and newsgroups in general so your last explanation is superfluous
  • August 8, 2008 at 4:20 pm Benedikt Koehler
    perhaps the definition should include that it's about many human beings from small groups to mass audiences. Otherwise I'd say face-to-face interaction would be more efficient (more information channels) when dyads or triads are concerned. Maybe it would be possible to replace "electronic and Internet tools" by networked tools?
  • August 8, 2008 at 4:21 pm Ben Parr
    Interesting - I don't include email in general, but email lists is a step up, as are newsgroups. However, I have no qualms with "Social Media is the use of electronic and Internet tools for the purpose of sharing and discussing information and experiences with other human beings."
  • August 8, 2008 at 4:30 pm Robert Seidman
    the most popular stories, videos pictures here are distributed more via established channels like e-mail/forums than FriendFeed or Twitter. What you're talking about, what you define -- it's been around for 25+ years for early adopters. Are you looking to define something that's new? or just looking for a new label. If it's the latter, you're set, if it's the former, you need a new definition or at least to acknowledge that some forms of social media have been around for decades now.
  • August 8, 2008 at 4:37 pm Benedikt Koehler
    Robert, what's definitely different now is the way we are talking about those technologies. 15 yrs ago we talked about email as a digital letters, about websites as digital books or journals and about the web as such as a digital library. We did not think about those technologies as social media.
  • August 8, 2008 at 4:42 pm Ben Parr
    robert, its the latter. Its just that social media has blossomed recently
  • August 8, 2008 at 4:46 pm Robert Seidman
    Benedikt, 15 years ago you may have talked about that stuff that way. Me, Scoble and many others were in Usenet discussion groups and other discussion forums having conversations about how the Internet connected people to have...conversations. I do agree with Ben though, it has certainly blossomed lately. But that's way more via MySpace and Facebook than the stuff I see most "social media" people discussing.
  • August 8, 2008 at 4:58 pm Benedikt Koehler
    Robert, there is always a avantgarde thinking things that flow into mainstream much later. So, I absolutely agree, there has been a conversation about digital connectivity long ago (Rheingold, McLuhan, Flusser, Castells ...). But even now a lot of people think of the internet as an information source, as a virtual library or research tool.
  • August 8, 2008 at 5:03 pm Robert Seidman
    I was not avant garde in the mid 1990s (Rheingold might have been in the late 80s or early 90s though!). But let's face it, the Internet *is* an information source, a virtual library and a research tool and social media won't change that, nor should it try to. Social media (as Ben defines it) just makes it a better information source, virtual library and research tool...
  • August 13, 2008 at 1:57 am Neil Williams
    Good definition Ben. It's punchy, yet covers the whole gamut of social media. This is something I've been thinking about a lot lately and intend to blog about soon at http://neilojwilliams.net/missioncreep - in particular, how to answer those pub/lift casual questions that keep coming up: - what is social media anyway (you've answered this neatly) - what is the point in X (facebook, twitter, blogging)? - how do I know it's not just a fad? Can you think of any others?
  • August 16, 2008 at 7:18 am Prince Julien
    Brian Sullivan wrote : "I think it should include email, email lists, usenet and newsgroups in general so your last explanation is superfluous" I don't agree with that... If you incorporate e-mails, the term more relevant is "social software"... Because social software are all the tools used to diffuse informations by Internet network (as email softwares, or instant messagery softwares) ... Social media is a more "restrictive" term : It is "just" the web applications like weblogs or social networks, and others stuff you can find by using a web browser... I don't know if you will understand me because of my poor english... I apologize for that
  • August 16, 2008 at 7:26 am Brian Sullivan
    Prince Julein: Newsgroups,email, email lists, usenet (and instant messaging for that matter) are all also accessible by just using a web browser so I am not sure I buy the disctinction
  • August 16, 2008 at 8:11 am leigh himel
    Kids, kids, kids. It's time we just realize all digital media is now (And to Robert S's point) always has been social. The best rationale i've heard thus far for the existence of the term social media is that agencies wanted to get dollars from the traditional media budgets for SM marketing efforts (aka their interactive divisions). Other than that, I can't see any reason for its existence.
  • August 16, 2008 at 8:25 am Igor The Troll
    Social Media is communication of information between people! Why do you need more? Sending smoke signals in the stone age is Social Media!

Add a comment on FriendFeed