Social media, its ‘gurus’, and personal branding

Note/edit: Some people have actually been offended by this post. A few people even unfollowed me on Twitter after reading this. If you’re going to be offended, please read on, and please do unfollow me if you’re offended. I would prefer, though, that before you unfollow me, you engage me and challenge my opinion, because that’s what this whole Internet thing should be about.

My friend Fernando Gros recently wrote an excellent post on his website about the distraction/noise of social media, the time cost to be considered, and the folly of so-called social media gurus.

Here’s my response/rant:

On social media and distraction

The whole thing started to go wonky when some clever sod coined the phrase “social media”. It’s a headline and PPT-friendly label, and not much else. The Internet is inherently social. Internet Relay Chat, bulletin boards, and newsgroups, to name three examples of services that were widely available in the mid-1990s, all provided similar levels of social interaction to today’s social media services. They were not better, by any means, but they were comparable, and usable with minimal (if any) training. They demolished the barriers to cross-border mass communication and collaboration among the masses.

Why wasn’t it regarded as social media back then? The marketing fraternity wasn’t yet on board. It was mostly techies, derided for their geekiness but quietly admired for their command of these mysterious new communication tools.

I enjoy what ‘social media’ (or the evolution of the Internet to where it is today) has done, giving the average, non-techie person avenues for expression that they previously did not, or could not, understand or use. That’s all fabulous. The positive aspects of democratised access to information and greater freedom of expression is beyond debate.

However, with any great freedoms come the eventual negative side effects. We have to wade through large chunks of information chaff. We are bombarded with spammy or dubious requests for our attention. Unhealthy groupthink develops across multiple topics and geographic boundaries thanks to largely anonymous thought (read: conversation) leaders. Dodgy ‘facts’ and straight out lies spread exponentially.

This is the price we pay for unregulated communications. Would I wish to change that? No. One grins and one bears it, for the positive aspects make it worthwhile. And the fakers eventually get weeded out. Regulation would just bring more trouble, distorting the field in favour of the biggest and loudest.

On personal branding

The most enjoyable people online are those who use the Internet not to recreate themselves, but to simply express themselves. For millions of introverts in particular, these are the soapboxes they never had, or were ever capable of utilising.

Brands are useful façades for attraction and recall, but it’s not until you actually use the product or service that you can assess that brand’s real worth. It gives companies a chance to succeed and thrive in a competitive marketplace. Similarly, online tools do allow individuals to seek an audience and provide compelling reasons to engage – something funny, informative, controversial, bizarre. I enjoy that the Internet has raised the average person’s potential to engage and be engaged. It’s a human development that works to level the playing field. Internet services aside, most of us personally brand ourselves in everyday life anyway. What we eat, who we associate with, where we go, what we wear, the music we listen to…

On social media gurus

Like many dodgy businesses, self-professed social media gurus trade and thrive on the ignorance of others. That is what bugs me most.

It’s the Internet: there are no rules. It is a self-defining, self-correcting, constantly-evolving system where even the base infrastructure driving the whole thing is liable to change. Twitter, YouTube, Facebook and other services have only been popular for a handful of years. The Wikipedia entry for social media cites references that go back a mere five years. Something new will be released today, tomorrow, or next week that could eclipse or leverage into insignificance any of the services listed.

The iPhone has already saturated the world with innumerable ‘social apps’ that compete for our attention. Augmented Reality applications are starting to emerge, and though they are mostlyconfined to small mobile devices, the iPad and similar products will move this in an exciting new direction of innovation. Who knows where that will go? The semantic web is also only just starting to nudge its way into mainstream awareness, and could flip the whole system on its head depending on how it evolves and who invests in its evolution.

And, sadly, at each of these evolutionary steps there’ll be individuals and companies flogging their ‘expertise’ in the latest and greatest trend, and suckers will fall for it.

Article review: Managing Courses, Defining Learning – What Faculty, Students, and Administrators Want

A refreshing look at what the major stakeholders in the education game desire, with a particular focus on end-user needs: so often neglected in the education debate. An analysis is conducted on current learning systems, and opinions given (through surveys and personal reflection) on the makeup of future learning systems. There is a particular focus on high-participation web 2.0-type applications, together with a broad discussion of future ideas. The article is a very useful contribution to the overall debate on what is wrong with eLearning at the moment, and how best to solve these problems in the future.

Ali Jafari, Patricia McGee, Colleen Carmean. “Managing Courses, Defining Learning: What Faculty, Students, and Administrators Want.” Educause Review. D. Teddy Diggs. July 2006. 

Article review: What’s Behind the Success of Web 2.0 – A Psychological Interpretation

Ayelet Noff, in her renowned web marketing blog “Blonde 2.0”, looks at the psychological factors behind participation in online communities and throws down the notion that we have created a generation of narcissists. Interpreting and sharing the findings of a Jewish psychiatrist, who explores the sense of self identity and the need to project a certain image to a surrounding community, wherever that may be. It is argued that web 2.0 is a social, rather than technological progression, where Internet developers have been able to leverage key technologies to naturally extend what we do ‘in real life’. This progression, the author continues, allows us to convey and evolve our identity in a number of ways and to a wider audience, fulfilling a basic human need to be known. Increased participation creates a need for incrementally more participation to retain and extend the image being portrayed, offering an explanation to why “web 2.0” has been so spectacularly successful.

Ayelet Noff. “What’s Behind the Success of Web 2.0? A Psychological Interpretation” Blonde 2.0. Ayelet Noff. 2007-09-18.

Article review: Outcome-Driven Experiential Learning with Web 2.0

Huang and Behara explore how experiential learning can greatly benefit students, particularly those in MBA programs. A brief overview of web 2.0 technologies is presented, with examples of their relevance to learning in general. It then delves into how web 2.0 technologies can be applied to experiential learning, including examples of such applications currently in practice. This is a good overview of how students can learn through semi-directed experiences, and how web 2.0 is able to enrich learning content to enhance those experiences.

C Derrick Huang, Ravi S Behara. “Outcome-Driven Experiential Learning with Web 2.0“. Journal of Information Systems Education. 18.3 (2007): 329-336. 

Article review: Teaching in a Web 2.0 World

In this opinion piece, Richardson discusses his personal experiences as a prolific education blogger. He explores the idea of ‘collective passion’ in the information game, which encourages people to contribute openly for the benefit of the greater community. He concludes with a question on the relevance of the classroom and suggests that schools are becoming disconnected from a large proportion of the learning that is occurring naturally online, through participation and collaboration among increasingly large numbers of people.

Will Richardson. “Teaching in a Web 2.0 World“. Kappa Delta Pi Record. 43.4 (2007): 150-151.

Article review: Web 2.0 – New Tools for Distance Learning

This article briefly maps the evolution from first generation distance learning systems to present day offerings. It looks at the failures of certain attempts to bring learning online and offers an insight into the current technologies that enhance the online delivery of education. Essex identifies podcasting, blogs and wikis as three key applications of technology that greatly improve the learning experience if deployed correctly. He concludes with a brief statement on virtual worlds and their potential to further increase the dynamism of online learning.

Christopher Essex. “Web 2.0: New Tools for Distance Learning“. Distance Learning. 4.3 (2007): 47-54. 2008-09-14 19:42:57 

Article review: Why Web 2.0 is Good for Learning and for Research – Principles and Prototypes

Carsten Ullrich and his team at Shanghai Jiao Tong University provide an excellent introduction and overview of how web 2.0 can be practically applied to enhance learning and research. Delving into the theory of constructivism and several key overarching concepts driven by the web 2.0 phenomenon, the article explores the impact of such concepts on the learning world. It goes on to explore how the web 2.0 applications of micro-blogging and social bookmarking can be used to increase participation and collaboration in online learning.

Carsten Ullrich, Kerstin Borau, et al. “Why Web 2.0 is Good for Learning and for Research.” Name of website. Carsten Ullrich. 2008-04021. Shanghai Jiao Tong University ELearning Lab. 

Carsten is also a integral and proud member of the Totuba team.