On evolving in the social media space
I had a chance to liveblog two of the sessions of the recent “Chicks Who Click ‘09″ conference (one on “Breaking The Glass Ceiling in the Tech Sector” and one in “Privacy vs. Transparency in Social Media“). While I would have thought that I had listened to whatever my dear friends had to say already (after all, we all attend many of the same meetups, speak at the same events, have regular meetings with each other), I noticed a substantial number of insights, coming both from the audience and from the speakers. Of course, this may sound pretty non-sequitur, but the truth is, I believe that there is a point we all reach where we really can’t move much forward much more (i.e. the marginal increase in insight is small, while the amount of time spent on particular topics is high).
This preconceived idea of mine (i.e. the Peter Principle) was shattered this past Saturday. Even though I’ve closely followed the careers and social media insights of Erica Hargreave, Gillian Shaw, Monica Hamburg, Megan Cole, Alexandra Samuel, Rebecca Bollwitt, Maura Rodgers and Victoria Revay, I gained a substantial number of new insights at CWC ‘09. For example, this is the second time I’ve heard Maura Rodgers (Strutta) speak about venture capital, investors and fundraising. Given that I have (most of my life) worked either for a university, a research centre, a consulting firm or for myself, I had rarely thought about having to meet with investors, “angels”, sharing a percentage of your business. Like this little tidbit, I was amazed at all the new things I learned from Rebecca, Megan, Alex, Gillian, Erica, Maura, Victoria.
I told Colleen Coplick too (as she made a few good points as well at the conference) that it was interesting how we have evolved in the space. Even I threw a few ideas of mine, findings that I’ve gained while spending time testing the platforms, the tools and sharing the same online space. For example, one of the things I shared is how my writing has shaped my readers’ behaviour as well. People who read my blog know what to expect, know what I’m going to let through and what I won’t tolerate (like bigotry, hate or aggression).
I couldn’t help but reflect on the notion I wrote about earlier on the networked production of social relationships
using social networking sites as mediating spaces that build bridges amongst individuals at the nodes of the network.
(although I’d now like to explore now two intertwined concepts = the networked production of social spaces and the evolution of each individual within the online social space).
I believe that as time has gone by, each one of us (the folks in the Vancouver social media/tech/PR scene) have evolved within both the physical space (we have gained more insight into the actual platforms) and the online space (we have tested the tools and created the online networks that then translate into the physical inter-relationships). I’m still not 100% sure how to tease out the main insight that I’m trying to draw here, but I firmly believe that there is still space for us to evolve even within our own physical spaces. Even if we are still hanging out with the same friends, attending the same events, there’ll be a turning point (a punctuated equilibrium) where the next evolutionary stage of ideas in social media in Vancouver will take place.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this. Please drop a comment on the blog.
Related posts:
- On authenticity in social media
- My recent Social Media Club Victoria talk: “Towards an Action-Focused Agenda for Social Change Using Social Media” (#smcvictoria) @smcvictoria
- Twitter as an online social space to hang out virtually and enable offline interaction
- The space/time continuum in social media
- Being a social media expert? Disclosure as a best or worst policy
[...] This post was Twitted by Tweetermoney [...]
[...] This post was Twitted by socialsignal [...]
Hi Raul,
If you’re looking for identifiable paradigm shifts, big or small, it’s worth taking a look at the seemingly innocuous statement Vancouver’s Mayor Gregor Robertson made last week at VanChangeCamp.
He invited everyone in the room to become “unaccredited journalists” respective of the 2010 Olympics. He also used a term I coined years ago when he told everyone to use social media to “leverage Olympic momentum.”
Basically, he said, quit talking about the tool and use it.
The underlying complexity here is that when you do start to actually use the tool in a real world news setting, you will step on the toes of legacy mainstream news media companies who for the last 250+ years, and until recently, held a monopoly on the dissemination of news.
If I understand you correctly in your message here, it seems you’ve reached a level where you want to justify the huge amount of time you spend addressing social media growth and issues, and you’re not quite sure what is next.
The answer is relatively simple – take the mayor’s advice and quit talking about the tool and start to use it to improve not the SocMed community, but instead our community at large. You can watch Mayor Robertson’s video post to VanChangeCamp here – http://blip.tv/file/2296963
and read my post about the event here – http://www.olyblog.com/f/09/VanChangeCampF06202009.shtml
Social media, respective of the traditional business world, is “disruptive” and not as friendly as some people in the tech industry initially envisioned or still wish it to be. Transparency = accountability, and accountability is a tough nut to crack for companies who in the past were able to operate relatively unencumbered and often in a manner perceived by many to be less-than-ethical.
Transparency = accountability = ethics
Too many SocMed events I attend address issues in an esoteric way. It was interesting two years ago, but now it’s boring. I couldn’t agree more with Mayor Robertson when he says it’s time to evolve and apply the discussion to real world events, but I know from personal experience it’s also naive to think everyone in the SocMed world is going to get along and be friendly or even agree with each other. For example, I also carefully watch the Vancouver SocMed scene and I know who is genuine and who puts their personal gain over that of our community. I also have no problem going after the latter.
My suggestion is to pick a side and run with it, but keep in mind SocMed demands transparency and if you have a hidden agenda, sooner than later people will learn about it. In fact, that’s the whole point.
We’ve also reached a level of SocMed maturity where fence sitters will be ignored by everyone and especially by investors with capitol to make things happen respective of politics, democracy, and commerce.
If you want to be taken seriously in the SocMed world, you can’t be non-committal and you have to be working towards the greater good.
Hi Maurice,
Thanks so much for your thoughtful comment. You know I have always appreciated your insight and value your contributions. My main point wasn’t that I was asking myself ‘what’s next’. I have used and leveraged SocMed jointly with Isabella with, for example, Mental Health Camp. As you know, I’ve volunteered my time and energy for the community at large.
My point here was a bit more specific and narrow in that I was a bit surprised that there are still some insights to be drawn (even if it would seem that there aren’t).