Putting the “We” in Social Media
April 16, 2008 5 Comments
We have a branding challenge.
Those of us involved in social media are breaking new ground, and with that, there’s a certain degree of messiness. As in, a proliferation of terms used to express this new world where there is no barrier to entry for any and all of us to publish and participate.
Social Media. Web 2.0. New marketing. User-generated media. Conversational media. Or, if David Armano had his way, Socialstainable.
And one difficulty that we all face is: how do we explain this…stuff…to people who don’t “get it” yet?
I’m not sure the current set of terms is getting the job done. There are too many of them, and often they sound “techie” instead of providing an easy and intuitive handle for the newbie to grasp.
Whenever I look at a branding challenge like this, I like to stand back and ask, “What’s the point?” What is the core, central message that undergirds this new approach (and its tools)?
One random thought while weed-whacking today (first time this spring!) – it’s all about the We. The old web was THEM talking to ME, or maybe ME to THEM or another ME. But this emerging web is about Us – We are building it, We are participants and contributors and publishers, We are self-organizing at the grassroots.
It’s not the Web. It’s the Web (or WEb if you don’t have access to bolding) [note: the point gets made by the formatting, not by pronouncing it "weeb"!]
We have Web tools. We create Web media. And when we try to explain to newbies, we simply say – the new web, the new marketing, is the Web – We are feeding it and evolving it and tapping into the collective wisdom as we go along. A little formatting trick like Web implies both 2.0 and social media, without introducing yet another neologism.
So, there’s my off-the-cuff idea. What are your thoughts? Can we tap into the collective wisdom and come up – together – with an effective way to brand this thing we’re all using?? Add a comment!