Comments on: Social Media Isn’t Conversation, It’s Publication

By: Center Line Idea Log | Conversation vs. Publication

Center Line Idea Log | Conversation vs. Publication — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 22:17:53 +0000

[...] the argument that “social media isn’t conversation, it’s publication” made by Joel Postman, and added to by Tom Foremski. And together, the premise that marketers should stop thinking about [...]

By: Stefan Girard

Stefan Girard — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 01:02:27 +0000

Could something a teenager posts facebook come back to haunt them when they run for President or Prime Minister in future? I’ve always been interested to see how cached and archived data like that will be used in future political campaigns.

By: Social Media Is Not About Conversations… It’s About Something Much More Amazing

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 05:37:51 +0000

[...] March 18th, 2010 I was glad to see Joel Postman’s post on his Socialized blog: Social Media Isn’t Conversation, It’s Publication because this has been a subject close to my [...]

By: Tom Foremski

Tom Foremski — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 03:34:06 +0000

The problem is in calling it “conversations.” Feedback, or response, is a better term.

Social media is not about conversations it’s about the fact that we have wired up the other end of the Internet. We could publish to anything with a computer screen, now, anything with a screen can publish back. That’s what social media represents - publish back - not conversations.

By: Ethan Bauley

Ethan Bauley — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 23:38:21 +0000

Tom, Joel: I dig the jist of this post, but let’s not lose perspective here…

The point is not that “most conversations are not conversations” [relative value], it’s that *millions of conversations can and do happen* [absolute value].

That’s the magic of personal publishing (nee “social media”?

Obviously this very conversation is a case in point.

One step further: if people aren’t commenting on that pork belly article, it’s only because the URL doesn’t provide the proper context (that’s where a service like StockTwits adds value)

Thanks for the constructive thought patterns, much appreciated stimulus!

Ethan

(h/t @MarshallK for the link)

By: Joel

Joel — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 20:22:37 +0000

Great comments. Thank you. And I enjoyed your post, Tom. I particularly liked your sentiment “One comment to an article is not a conversation. 300 separate comments on an article is not a conversation.” I think commenting is the most overrated measure/indicator of conversation. Many online newspapers have commenting capability on every item, including commodities reports. I have never seen anyone comment on pork belly futures. It is a thin varnish of sociability layered on top of news that is useful to only a few and not worth of discussion by anyone.

By: Tom Foremski

Tom Foremski — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:41:05 +0000

I agree, there isn’t much conversation going on.

I rarely see an online conversation that moves beyond one or two exchanges, or that doesn’t degenerate into name calling.

I wrote a post about it: The Myth Of Online Conversations: Lots Of Chatter But Not Much Discourse . . .

http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2009/04/the_myth_of_onl.php