What is Media 2.0?
First: What is the best name for the changing media landscape?
Some call it Social Media, others (including me) call it Media 2.0. Jeremiah Owyang asks the question today on his blog "Hate the term Social Media? Help come up with a better term".
Well I think we already have a better term - Media 2.0.
Jeremiah says he hates the 2.0 thing. Well I say too bad. It's great! Why is it great? Because the change in media is not just about social. If it's about one thing then it's about Personal.
It just so happens that we are each (personally) social beings and therefore a symptom of more personal media is social features.
But personal manifests itself in other ways including:
- More personal choice (more niche content providers including/especially participant created content)
- More personalization (in the form of recommendations and attention based filters)
- More personal transparent (public is the new private)
- More personal presentation (choose your browser, aggregator, device, color)
- More personal scheduling (choose the time and date of the content - time-shifted/on-demand content).
- More personal connections - SOCIAL
But there are other aspects of the changing media landscape. Convergence, DRM (that's not very social!), Identity etc. So that's why I call it Media 2.0. It's a major new version of a very old idea. Personal human connection.
In the comments of the post he writes:
Chris, I’m not a fan of “2.0″ anything. What’s happening is the natural evolution of the web, it’s nothing really new is it?I responded:
This is why I like the term “Social Media”
Important: Social Media is about People.
Social is a symptom of Personal - but whatever your definition - to try to foreshadow the destination/goal before we get there only limits the discussion/possibilities.
2.0 gives people freedom to decide what the next generation will look like while still giving them a buzzword to rally around.
The community and the market will decide what the 2.0 means - and I think you will find that ’social’ is only part of that outcome.
Second: Read/Write Web has an article about the mainstream media using more and more Web 2.0 technologies.
That's because they are becoming Media 2.0 - like the rest of us.
I am a bit disappointed they didn't make the link and mention the Media 2.0 Workgroup's launch at the same time.
Third: There has been an overwhelming response to the Media 2.0 workgroup.
So we have had to stop taking email nominations and changed it over to a wiki. The Wiki also has a page about the workgroup's goals and selection criteria. Nominate your favorite voices.
Also, while the people listed on the page are great voices to help spotlight the discussion, we will start to find ways to bring everyone into the conversation in more democratic ways... stay tuned.
For now I'll give you a hint and say start tagging your content Media 2.0 ;)
More soon...
Labels: jeremiahowyang, Media 2.0, personalization, ReadWriteWeb, richardmacmanus, social media, tagging, wikipedia, workgroup
2 Comments:
Some musings Chris.
Why is it important to label this? Is identifying the right rallying buzzword that important?
From a purely technical view point - is the media really new? No it's not - video is video, audio is audio. Creating truely compelling video and audio is not easy - never has been easy - never will be easy.
What is new, is easier access to distribution, easier ways to be "social" with and around video and audio. Layering in the social aspects are important (and new) as you rightly point out. This new "media" is about distribution and interaction niches - relatively small small groups sharing/exploring/commenting ... the long tail.
So, are we suggesting that the combination of "old" technologies with "new" social/personal connections equals a new media? Maybe. I'm sure we know this yet.
Re mainstream media. Usage of "Web 2.0" by the mainstream media is not because they are becoming Media 2.0 - it because they are
1) trying to sell something
2) promoting a mainstream product
3) trying out ideas for what works for #1 above, and
4) seeking to establish successful business models for this new distribution environment.
They are doing this things because they see the possibility of the crowds coming ...
One thing I will say - ATTENTION WILL play a crucial role for whatever is successful.
Regards, Brent.
Media 2.0, according to your main thesis, is flexible enough to accommodate both Personal and Social, and new and emerging. Yes it is open and flexible, but it is also a bit too amorphous--it could mean anything to anyone. This is why Social Media is a name that appeals to many, because it is courageous enough to signify something clear and cogent. And in my mind, Social includes the Personal. Social = Personals interacting and aggregated.
Post a Comment
<< Home