Member-to-Member

Social Media Press Release - Why stop there?

I wrote at the end of January about the Social Media Press Release (SMPR) and how it provided a vehicle to exert some amount of "control" over a fundamentally uncontrollable business asset - our marketing messages - in the highly transparent Web 2.0 world. Since then I've been thinking about the SMPR and trying to connect it to some other dots in my mind about the role of social media commentators, including "A-List bloggers," a debate about which was spun up on Guy Kawasaki's blog a while back. In the end, I've come to the conclusion that the SMPR's potential goes far beyond the press release, or even public relations. Some dialog from Geoff Livingston on The Buzz Bin has begun to confirm my thinking. The bottom line is that I think Social Media Group (SMG) and others out there developing these social media communications formats have really stumbled into a new kind of promotional web site. Jeff Falls calls it the Social Media Resource (SMR), and I think he's on the right track, though I prefer "Source" to "Resource."

A Social Media Source Site (SMSS) would be different from an SMPR in that it would be designed to go beyond mostly one-way multimedia presentation and engage the A-List commentators directly with The Subject. An SMSS would become The Source Site - on behalf of The Subject (i.e., a brand, a product or an abstract concept like an advocacy agenda or campaign) for official information and relevant unofficial dialog. Because it contains both the official story and the most relevant unofficial dialog, it has the potential to become the (implied, single) "Source," instead of a (implied, one of many) "Resource," on behalf of the Subject.

As the Source for everything about The Subject, an SMSS should do extremely well in watching and interacting with A-List commentators as well showing up high in Google rankings, guaranteeing ongoing exposure with the people most interested in what The Subject is all about. A boon to Word of Mouth in Social Media (or, WOMiSoM), an SMSS could be the next generation web site, particularly well suited to big ideas and campaigns.

So read on for thoughts on how the SMPR could become the SMSS and why I think it's important to engage A-Listers in a similar way we do journalists.

Web 2.0 - So 2004?

I wanted to respond to John Redmond's post and comment on last week's post about my use of the term "Web 2.0" and "how 2004" that is. He's right of course, that the term that sounded so hip four years ago is now four years old - decrepit in Internet years. Plus, it has been a questionable phrase since inception as it refers more to a trend in perception than an actual thing (as the name itself would imply.)

All that being said, is it my imagination or are we just resigned to use "Web 2.0" now because it's:

• more broadly understood by the non-digerati (also an outdated term) to mean "all that social media and new technology stuff I don't get but know I should be able to talk about;" and

• a simple shorthand word+number combo, which is easier to write/say than actually trying to describe what is fundamentally a sea change in technology architecture, human interaction and cultural power share?

Maybe I'm lazy, but I'm not a good enough writer to weave all that actual and implied meaning into every sentence that references that new fangled technology and sea change. As a result, "Web 2.0" works for me until someone invents some other shorthand term.

Thanks, John, for the comment. Gave me a chance to think about it and decide that if I'm ever going to lead a revolution, it won't be to overthrow the term "Web 2.0."