Comments on: Social media and new media are not the same

By: Isha Edwards, Brand Mktg. Mgr.

Isha Edwards, Brand Mktg. Mgr. — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 04:13:47 +0000

Even though a dated blog, great breakdown and still relevant. When the dust finally settles between old and the current ‘new’ media, it’ll all be media as Chris advised. In the meantime, I believe it’s up to media and marketing pros to minimize the confusion by speaking the same language. Keep it simple and just use the two primary terms: old (or even traditional) and new media regardless of use.

By: CarolineDangson

CarolineDangson — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:53:04 +0000

I like this post. So many people are confused by these terms. I admit to getting confused myself. Thanks for the post because it clearly articulates the differences – you should add this to Wikipedia. (;

By: carruthk

carruthk — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:06:09 +0000

Chris – really good explanation of the difference between old, new, and social media. Especially that social media requires social participation. Very insightful.

By: kcarruthers

kcarruthers — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:06:09 +0000

Chris – really good explanation of the difference between old, new, and social media. Especially that social media requires social participation. Very insightful.

By: WRSELL

WRSELL — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 01:00:44 +0000

Chris – this is one of the best (possibly THE best) description of these terms I've seen or read. This “space” is full a jargon, but also full of 'real stuff'. Sometimes a simple diagram and 300 words can explain the meaning of the 'new media' life.

Well put, and I look forward to your commentary and insight at our upcoming conference New Marketing Summit in October! There you can help carry this same message to an eager-to-learn crowd!

Best regards,
Bill Sell
CrossTech Media

By: WRSELL

WRSELL — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:00:44 +0000

Well put, and I look forward to your commentary and insight at our upcoming conference New Marketing Summit in October! There you can help carry this same message to an eager-to-learn crowd!

Best regards,
Bill Sell
CrossTech Media

By: Ari Herzog

Ari Herzog — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 20:40:59 +0000

As Guy Kawasaki tweeted to me in response to a question about differentiating Web 2.0 from Enterprise 2.0, "Either you have something good or you don't...The rest is just spin."

http://twitter.com/guykawasaki/statuses/860211620

Similarly, I'll offer that on behalf of the general populace who need boxes and diagrams to be explained differences of then and now, I'd use one term, not two. While *I know* what you mean, Chris, comparing new media to social media, Joe Public doesn't without a diagram, so why make the diagram? Just use one term.

And we're not even discussing digital media.

By: Ari Herzog

Ari Herzog — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:40:59 +0000

By: Arie

Arie — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:59:20 +0000

Chris – love the distinction between requiring interaction and those forms that can be (but don't have to be) passive. Really helps to think about how the different forms of new media would be useful in very different ways depending on the level of interactivity, too…

By: KeithChilds

KeithChilds — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:38:30 +0000

I've tried various ways to map out new/social media and for me the key is the level of personal engagement- for example a company on Facebook is not really social as I define it- only individuals from the company can be social, with opinions and ideas. Throwing a video on to YouTube and seeing comments build up has a social element- but if the only thing you have done is to stimulate a conversation- and you ignore the comments then I think that's pseudo-social. If you have a blog with comments enabled, but nobody comments- maybe because you haven't said anything interesting- is it social?

By: Arie

Arie — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:59:20 +0000

By: KeithChilds

KeithChilds — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:38:30 +0000

By: Andy Sternberg

Andy Sternberg — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:23:15 +0000

I think the social aspect of the box on the right is still morphing. All of these things can have various degrees of interaction depending on the user / audience. For example, YouTube can be quite social with the multimedia calls and responses and conversations, and Twitter, for some, is still a one-way street. Nice shout-out to the Wasilla Frontiersman, btw – I've gotta check out their web presence (btw, what was Cheney's hometown newspaper?)

By: billdeys

billdeys — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:31:58 +0000

awesome stuff but I think Blogs, Podcasts and YouTube can very much be part of “social media” it all depends on how it is used and what the content calls for. When used by “us” it's social, by “old media” it's them using new media and not social.

By: Christopher S. Penn

Christopher S. Penn — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:29:52 +0000

Bingo, Dan. That's exactly it – after a while, it will all be media, period.

By: Daniel Johnson, Jr.

Daniel Johnson, Jr. — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:28:34 +0000

Where would you put the newspaper site that is online and has comments enabled? I think that over time that line in the middle is going to go away, and eventually the “new media” will just be media.

By: Andy Sternberg

Andy Sternberg — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:23:15 +0000

By: Francis Wooby

Francis Wooby — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:01:17 +0000

I'm not sure I can think of any new media that works without a social component of some sort. Blogs are not blogs without comments. Video sharing includes comments and/or easy linking/embedding features. Podcasts that don't involve audience feedback are just broadcasts. Thus I think of “new media” and “social media” interchangeably. The fundamental element to this new way of communicating is the two-way conversation. As long as that's in place in some form, I don't know if it matters so much what we call the medium.

By: Christopher S. Penn

Christopher S. Penn — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:50:16 +0000

@Susan: audio and video have that capacity to a degree, but enabled by other mechanisms, like comments. It gets grey and fuzzy to be sure!

By: robblatt

robblatt — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:48:34 +0000

I don't think that you can classify a conference as social media. It's a conference. Everything that people do there fits into one of the three categories, so if you're really looking to include PodCamp for some reason, it would stretch across all three or at least straddle the line between new and social media. I would also list is as “PodCamp content” and not PodCamp.

By: Susan Murphy

Susan Murphy — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:47:00 +0000

I agree, Chris, but there is an important distinction to make, in my opinion.

I see "new media" as the whole, encompassing all forms of content delivery via the Web. I actually see social media as more a subset of new media, a form of content delivery not unlike audio or video. It's true that social media is inherently two-way, but then again video and audio have that capacity as well. So does that make video and audio social media, or new media (In the case of your blog, perhaps, yes, because I can leave a video comment!)?

In the end, it's a real grey area, I think. We are all in this space, inventing it as we go along. I guess it's up to us to some how define it too.

Posts like yours are great because they get people thinking. I'm going off to ponder now. Thanks!

By: Christopher S. Penn

Christopher S. Penn — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:46:22 +0000

It's not, no more so than the postal service is a form of media. Direct mail is a form of communication, but not media to me – after all, whether postal or digital, there's an awful lot of mail I get that I do *not* want others reading!

By: AnnKingman

AnnKingman — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:44:52 +0000

Like the breakdown. Where do you put email marketing in the mix? Or is that not “media” at all?

By: Jason Jarrett

Jason Jarrett — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:42:24 +0000

Great article, going to digg it. I agree I don't think that social media and new media are the same thing and I think that articles like yours will help people navigate this new environment and make better informed choices about how to use it.

By: kosso

kosso — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:40:33 +0000

Good points.

But I call the whole box on the right 'Social Multimedia'

as seen at http://podcamp.phreadz.com

By: billdeys

billdeys — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:31:58 +0000

By: Christopher S. Penn

Christopher S. Penn — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:29:52 +0000

Bingo, Dan. That's exactly it – after a while, it will all be media, period.

By: Daniel Johnson, Jr.

Daniel Johnson, Jr. — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:28:34 +0000

By: Francis Wooby

Francis Wooby — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:01:17 +0000

By: Christopher S. Penn

Christopher S. Penn — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 10:50:16 +0000

@Susan: audio and video have that capacity to a degree, but enabled by other mechanisms, like comments. It gets grey and fuzzy to be sure!

By: robblatt

robblatt — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 10:48:34 +0000

By: Susan Murphy

Susan Murphy — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 10:47:00 +0000

By: Christopher S. Penn

Christopher S. Penn — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 10:46:22 +0000

By: AnnKingman

AnnKingman — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 10:44:52 +0000

Like the breakdown. Where do you put email marketing in the mix? Or is that not “media” at all?

By: Jason Jarrett

Jason Jarrett — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 10:42:24 +0000

By: kosso

kosso — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 10:40:33 +0000

Good points.

But I call the whole box on the right 'Social Multimedia'

as seen at http://podcamp.phreadz.com