On Tuesday, Andy Rutledge, the creative director at a shop called netsuccess in Dallas, posted a wonderful anti social media rant.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s required reading for anyone in the field. Can you poke holes in his arguments? Can you see the game from his side? Can you effectively rebut with hard facts? If not – you have no business trying to sell the notion of social media to your clients.

Which brings me to something else – for a while now, I have been pondering a podcast series (maybe 6 episodes, blissfully under 10 minutes each) in which a colleague of mine and I debate the merits of social media (he thinks it’s a fad/not worthwhile for business). The outcome? Who could say – but if social media can’t stand a little heat, it’s not very worthwhile. And I also like the idea of undertaking the debate (much as Andy has) in the social media space, where we all tend to be, let’s say, a little self-congratulatory at times.

So I’m going to go out on a limb. Lurkers? And I know you’re out there – remember, I obsessively review my stats – would you be interested in such podcast? What do you think we should call it? And throw out some hard questions – what should we tackle?

Share this post!TwitterFacebookLinkedInGoogle+EmailReddit

6 Comments

  1. What do you think of “Anti-Media Social” for your new podcast? Talk-the-walk, as you might say.

    To be fair, the content should disseminate in non-Internet media just as readily as it does in podcast format. Perhaps you can offer CD and vinyl copies by mail order ;)

    It’s a big step. Be sure you’re ready for it.

    Bottom-line: I’d listen.

  2. too many podcasts. i’d buy the vinyl though.
    this cottage industry (community?) needs more dissenting/challenging voices.

    Ed

  3. Podcasts… Good idea and… Choose a different theme as what you propose is inconsistent relative to your mission! Let someone else handle the proposed subject!!

  4. Dani

    I’m just beginning to explore social media and government communication on behalf of my department. I’d be interested in the debate, but might be hamstrung by the format as our firewall doesn’t permit streaming or downloading. Maybe do a print/pod dualcast like Scott Feschuk?

  5. The sun rises. The sun sets. The mob converses.

    The significance of social media lies not in the content of the conversations they convey, but in the implications enabled by their form. This relative difference in emphasis entirely separates Mr. Rutledge’s views from my own. Anti-Social Media anthropomorphizes the social media, then applies a moral judgement to the attributed conversations. Shall we also judge the morality of the radio, the telegraph, the printing press, paper scrolls, stone tablets and cave walls?

    No prior medium has enabled instantaneous, concurrent, many-to-many conversations simultaneously among points in space, time, populations and passages. In social media, practically any participant can address any other participant. Any passage can reference any other passage. Any citation can reach backwards or forwards to any point in recorded time. Furthermore, any node in the resulting conversational continuum is instantly accessible from any other node. Compare these attributes to social media’s predecessors.

    Of course, I am not the first author to postulate “that a medium affects the society in which it plays a role not by the content delivered over the medium, but by the characteristics of the medium itself.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan#Understanding_Media_.281964.29

    The moon waxes. The moon wanes. The mob converses.

Trackbacks for this post

  1. Lisa Walker

Comments are closed.