If Marshall McLuhan’s global village is to be understood as a toponym for a digitally connected world, then social media have to be seen as a cross between a village meeting point and its informal information (ie gossip) network.
Questions of its purpose, utility and effect are puzzling sociologists, CEOs and communications strategists alike. The possibilities of expanding its economic function are not easily understood beyond connectedness and access to a deluge of raw information. And the transformation of traditional media sources into social media-rules-driven platforms is confusing to anyone who cares about the distinction between useful information and, well, everything else …
It has to be rather ironic that I am using a blog to voice an opinion on the great information noise that has flooded our communications channels since the advent of social media. But, as a respected communications strategist, Roger D’Aprix, recently pointed out, we are all drowning in sound bites and instant judgments, drowning in opinion, drowning in raw information … and in this supposed democratisation of information exchange, we have somehow lost sight of the value of the currency being exchanged – information itself.
A minor dissertation could be written on the value of tapping into an electronic network for a speedy delivery of feedback, ideas and a relatively instantaneous support in locating information, people and networks we may need or want to access. The entire concept of Open Innovation is based on extending your internal capability through accessing and applying ideas and processes an organisation simply has no access to in a more closed communication paradigm. Yet, the nature of information being exchanged, as well as the nature of the exchange itself should both be examined closely.
D’Aprix has drawn an interesting distinction between the social media utility as defined by communications professionals and the utility that outcomes-oriented individuals would identify in the same platform. Put simply, for a communication professional, the utility of social media lies in the very process of communication via a more democratic and distributed platform. L’art pour l’art. La communication pour la communication.
For outcomes-oriented individuals/information seekers/leaders, the diluted world of opinions, personal disclosures and multiple information exchanges is not necessarily compatible with their generally precise and structured communication or information-seeking objectives.
The language of the social-media-driven world is mostly the language of personal pronouns, interests and entertainment. As such, it is a world driven by personal ‘sound-bites’, opinions, interests (and distractions). On the one hand, they are conducive to community formation. On the other, they increase the virtual mobility of information seekers.
As a result, their commercial allure is significantly diluting the quantity of reliable, useful information being provided on what, in D’Aprix’s words, is rapidly becoming an electronic grapevine. Not a global village, as McLuhan put it, but more likely, a global network of small, thematically insular, gossipy electronic villages attracting and selling on community strength.
The challenge, of course, is how to rescue the process of providing (and sourcing) valuable, reliable and reputable information from the clutches of commercial imperatives that the rise of social media is placing before us. The future driven by social media may look colourful, democratic and entertaining, but, as D’Aprix puts it, it also creates a lot of noise eroding the quality of information and communication in the process. Negotiating this transition is possibly one of the biggest social tasks at hand. What are your thoughts?