Monday, March 23, 2009
Is social media an industry? Sometimes yes, but mostly no
This is an edit of my response to “Is Social Media an Industry?” on mashable
I was surprised to see that nearly 70% of people who voted in an online poll believed that social media was an industry. To my mind, the answer is both yes and no, depending on how you conceptualize “industry” and “social media.” First, there is the issue of the impetus for the question. Just because many people are interested in it, that doesn’t mean it is an industry. There is no established measure of how Google search terms relate to the size of industries, although increased searches do correlate with general interest by individuals.
Social media could be considered an industry for non-market information economies, of the type Yochai Benkler identifies as being critical for the success of the Internet and vastly different from market economies. For instance, social network sites could be considered an industry, as they quite literally build on and trade in social interactions. However, they are poorly, if at all, monetized.
More generally speaking, in market economies, I would argue that the vast majority of applications for social media are not related to a specific industry, but instead are tools used by various industries. Social media (plural: blogs, Twitter, SNSs, etc.) are not an industry. Also, industries are not defined just by popularity, but by the products they create and professionals they involve. "Social media" is a rather ambiguous term used to describe a collection of (mostly) online technologies that rely on connections between people to operate. These technologies are quite disparate, and often individuals and companies use them for entirely different purposes.
In this sense, social media are a vehicle for other industries, such as advertising, journalism, and software development. Each of these industries has very specific products and practices. Social media are integrated on various levels across these industries, but alone, they don’t amount to very much. Social media are tools for various industries, but are typically not their own industry.
I was surprised to see that nearly 70% of people who voted in an online poll believed that social media was an industry. To my mind, the answer is both yes and no, depending on how you conceptualize “industry” and “social media.” First, there is the issue of the impetus for the question. Just because many people are interested in it, that doesn’t mean it is an industry. There is no established measure of how Google search terms relate to the size of industries, although increased searches do correlate with general interest by individuals.
Social media could be considered an industry for non-market information economies, of the type Yochai Benkler identifies as being critical for the success of the Internet and vastly different from market economies. For instance, social network sites could be considered an industry, as they quite literally build on and trade in social interactions. However, they are poorly, if at all, monetized.
More generally speaking, in market economies, I would argue that the vast majority of applications for social media are not related to a specific industry, but instead are tools used by various industries. Social media (plural: blogs, Twitter, SNSs, etc.) are not an industry. Also, industries are not defined just by popularity, but by the products they create and professionals they involve. "Social media" is a rather ambiguous term used to describe a collection of (mostly) online technologies that rely on connections between people to operate. These technologies are quite disparate, and often individuals and companies use them for entirely different purposes.
In this sense, social media are a vehicle for other industries, such as advertising, journalism, and software development. Each of these industries has very specific products and practices. Social media are integrated on various levels across these industries, but alone, they don’t amount to very much. Social media are tools for various industries, but are typically not their own industry.
Labels: facebook, MySpace, SNS, social media, social networking
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Thru-you Mashups
Much as I initially didn't want to like Kutiman's YouTube mash-up compositions, I've come to the conclusion that they are undeniably great. First they are compositionally solid tunes that hold up as more than just tinkering or experimentation. There's also a utopian vibe to kutiman's mash-ups. Musicians of all types - old and young, male and female, of all races and ethnicities - come together under the umbrella of music. Guided tutorials are layered with private bedroom vocalists, product demos, and student performances. In Kutiman's eyes, everyone's videos are equally fair sample fodder.
Ultimately, what I think makes Thru-you succeed is that the personalities of the musicians comes through in their performances and little visual cues. I find myself wondering what the story is behind the mother singing soulfully in "Someday," smiling while holding her toddler, or if the cornball guitarist on "The Mother of all Funk Chords" sincerely believes in his rocking solo. Kutiman takes care to show the musicians' little performance quirks, pacing or talking as they warm up or (god forbid) give the camera a "solo face."
There's a touch of magic here; it seems so improbable that the vocalist, keyboard, flute, and wind chime in "Just a Lady" could mesh together and come out sounding like a dead ringer for Portishead. If ever there was a case to be made for fewer restrictions on copyright (a la Lessig or Negativland alike), here it is.
Ultimately, what I think makes Thru-you succeed is that the personalities of the musicians comes through in their performances and little visual cues. I find myself wondering what the story is behind the mother singing soulfully in "Someday," smiling while holding her toddler, or if the cornball guitarist on "The Mother of all Funk Chords" sincerely believes in his rocking solo. Kutiman takes care to show the musicians' little performance quirks, pacing or talking as they warm up or (god forbid) give the camera a "solo face."
There's a touch of magic here; it seems so improbable that the vocalist, keyboard, flute, and wind chime in "Just a Lady" could mesh together and come out sounding like a dead ringer for Portishead. If ever there was a case to be made for fewer restrictions on copyright (a la Lessig or Negativland alike), here it is.
Labels: copyright, mash-up, music, video, web 2.0, youtube
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Reaction to "Dunbar number" hype
The recent finding that Facebook members communicate regularly with a very small group is not surprising. Sites such as Facebook exist to keep track of a range of friendships, which some have taken to be a test of an online Dunbar Number. There are number of reasons why this is a difficult comparison to make. As danah boyd succinctly discusses, there are a number of reasons why the “Dunbar number” simply does not apply to online relationships. It is a theoretical number based in the real world, describes “grooming” activities by primates, and was developed from observations by anthropologists in non-first-world countries. And, of course, Facebook connections do not capture the entire range of social connections of an individual, just the connections on a single site. Even if you accept that a “Dunbar number” exists online (to play devil's advocate), this does not disprove the utility of these sites.
Many SNS connections are ultra “loose ties” that would seem to fall outside of the purview of a Dunbar number, while others are connections with close friends or family. My personal feeling is that even loose ties can come into more central play in a person’s life through these sites over time, regardless of whether these friendships began online or offline. There are a number of reasons that people may productively use SNSs to maintain large groups of extremely loose ties. These are friends from work or around town that may emerge as close ties at a point in the future, business “contacts” that are not friendship-related but need to be maintained, and individuals who used to be close ties but now have fallen out of favor due to geographic limitations (such as the classic old school buddies).
People gain personal satisfaction, financial security, and community benefit from online socialization with online groups. These groups have very tangible beneficial effects, and tie groups of close-tie groups together, providing valuable “bridging” that facilitates propagation of ideas. These sites are also increasingly a platform for other activities, including bona fide applications that expand the reach of SNSs beyond text and images, a convergence of activities as well as socializations.
Why individuals only interact consistently with a small number of friends can be explained, in part, by Facebook's filtering. Filtering is a key part of social promotion, without which it would be difficult to harness the “wisdom of crowds.” Facebook recognizes the people you communicate the most with, and promote their news feed items above those of others. This is completely natural utility – why would you want to have daily updates from someone you haven’t spoken with in ten years? Unless of course, you renew your friendship and start to interact more with them, at which point Facebook would recognize the increased activity. And you are always free to select “I want to see less from [user]” in the feeds. Even if people are exposed to an over abundance of messages from online “friends,” I doubt this can be shown to contribute to a meaningful negative effect. This “overload hypothesis” is frequently promoted by the media as a death by distraction (so to speak), making bugaboos of everything from cell phones to email. Never mind that if you show someone too much information, they simply do not retain everything, only what they frequently access or are useful in their life. Excess information is not retained, mentally urinated out like an excess of water-soluble vitamins.
Many SNS connections are ultra “loose ties” that would seem to fall outside of the purview of a Dunbar number, while others are connections with close friends or family. My personal feeling is that even loose ties can come into more central play in a person’s life through these sites over time, regardless of whether these friendships began online or offline. There are a number of reasons that people may productively use SNSs to maintain large groups of extremely loose ties. These are friends from work or around town that may emerge as close ties at a point in the future, business “contacts” that are not friendship-related but need to be maintained, and individuals who used to be close ties but now have fallen out of favor due to geographic limitations (such as the classic old school buddies).
People gain personal satisfaction, financial security, and community benefit from online socialization with online groups. These groups have very tangible beneficial effects, and tie groups of close-tie groups together, providing valuable “bridging” that facilitates propagation of ideas. These sites are also increasingly a platform for other activities, including bona fide applications that expand the reach of SNSs beyond text and images, a convergence of activities as well as socializations.
Why individuals only interact consistently with a small number of friends can be explained, in part, by Facebook's filtering. Filtering is a key part of social promotion, without which it would be difficult to harness the “wisdom of crowds.” Facebook recognizes the people you communicate the most with, and promote their news feed items above those of others. This is completely natural utility – why would you want to have daily updates from someone you haven’t spoken with in ten years? Unless of course, you renew your friendship and start to interact more with them, at which point Facebook would recognize the increased activity. And you are always free to select “I want to see less from [user]” in the feeds. Even if people are exposed to an over abundance of messages from online “friends,” I doubt this can be shown to contribute to a meaningful negative effect. This “overload hypothesis” is frequently promoted by the media as a death by distraction (so to speak), making bugaboos of everything from cell phones to email. Never mind that if you show someone too much information, they simply do not retain everything, only what they frequently access or are useful in their life. Excess information is not retained, mentally urinated out like an excess of water-soluble vitamins.
Labels: anthropology, communication, facebook, SNS, social networking, socialnetworking
