Evidently, some “experts” still refer to Social and Mobile as “emerging” media. Um, no. Stop. Watch this video by Loic Lemeur and pay particular attention to the second half. He catches an interesting semantic flaw in an otherwise interesting report he outlines in his video.
If the link doesn’t open, watch the video here, and check out Loic’s full post here.
Two things:
1) “emerging” is always going to qualify a state of adoption rather than a type of media. It isn’t good terminology. Neither is “new media” for that matter.
2) Neither Social nor Mobile qualify as emerging. Mobile is evolving and scaling, sure, but it isn’t emerging. Facebook’s scale has also long transcended “emergence.”
Beyond the topic of “emerging media,” other words, terms and concepts commonly misused in the new world of Social and Digital Communications:
- R.O.I.
- Viral
- Social Media Campaign
- Social Media Presence
- Platform
- Monitoring
- Influencer
- Social Media Manager
- WOM
- Pull
- Impressions (By the way, can we please scratch the term “impressions” from the Marketing lexicon once and for all? Thanks. That would be nice. Especially when dealing with Social.)
Look, here’s the deal: True experts know the vocabulary of their respective fields of study/practice. I am not implying that having mastered the Social Media lexicon makes someone an expert in the subject, but rather that no expert will get the basic vocabulary wrong: Plumbers, surgeons, snipers, cobblers, tailors, architects and masons know the vocabulary of their trade. Social Media “professionals” worth their fee (whether analysts, consultants, trainers or practitioners) do too. Simple enough.
Brand Building and Online Marketing Blog 
Olivier, I agree. Especially on the misuse of “emerging”. However, when we talk about plumbers, masons, and architects, we’re discussing professions that have had hundreds of years to develop their respective lexicons. Don’t you think part of what perpetuates the misuse of language in our profession is the continued evolution (I won’t use emergence) of the terminology itself? Social Media, for instance, is a term that would have had little prevalence or relative context as recently back as early 1990’s.
That’s a good point, Mark. True: Social is a young and fast evolving space with a rapidly changing vocabulary.
That said, professionals still tend to stay on top of the vocabulary of their trade, no matter how ephemeral it may be. It’s a matter of professional pride, at the very least. In my experience, it’s inevitable that people who truly live their profession use the right terminology, just because they are in contact with it so much.
At any rate, calling something “emerging” or “new” is essentially like saying “we don’t know what to call it yet because we just discovered it ourselves.” That’s fine and all, but this should no longer apply to Social or Mobile. 😉
Very true. Proper use and understanding of terminology is certainly one of the key divining points between qualified, committed consultants breathing the space and those who are trying to ride the wagon. It also ends up being be a key requirement for clients too – to eliminate susceptibility to the latter.
I always enjoy your post. Spot on. I just had the “impression” conversation with our principal. He said the same thing: “I’m not using the word impressions with my clients anymore. It does not mean much of anything!”
Hey Olivier
I’m going to post a video to on top of your video to go on top of Loics.
“Social” as a consumer mindset has been growing for 15 years and over the last 10 has pretty much been the predominant mindset – so this talk of emerging is just bull.
When they say “emerging” they really mean “we can’t explain it”
Exactly.
The problem with so many consulting firms is they’re very good at collecting data, but evidently, a good number of their “analysts” and “experts” have absolutely no clue how to interpret it or put it in context. There is a HUGE insight and practical knowledge gap in those ranks, which I find deplorable.
Good post Olivier,
I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the differences between continents and these technologies. I’ve not travelled to the states (I’d love to) but from what I understand having met people like yourself and Trey, ‘Social’ is more ingrained in business culture over there than in the UK. This would mean it’s moved beyond emerging. In the UK I deal with SMEs predominantly and I would say that as high as 90% (maybe higher) still haven’t worked out how they are going to integrate SM into their overall business strategies. If you look at the traditional bell curve for adoption then surely this means the UK could still be in a state of ‘early adoption’? Happy to hear otherwise from someone of your wisdom and intellect 🙂
Hope you’re well
Al
p.s. Check your DM’s 🙂
The adoption in the US is a little ahead, sure, but you should watch this killer presentation from @LeeBryant: http://www.dachisgroup.com/2010/04/social-on-the-outside-needs-social-business-on-the-inside/ <- Companies in the US still mostly use social as an add-on rather than a truly integrated piece. In order for Social to work through media, it has to first exist internally. 😉
Olivier,
Two things.
Firstly, when discussing the use of “emerging” don’t forget that it can be subjective and contextual with respect to the audience. For some people the concept of social platforms for business is a new. So for them it is emerging. I’m not saying that that isn’t a narrow view that needs to be addressed. And I’m certainly not disagreeing with you that if you’re so-called “expert” appears to hold that view that you need to run away. But I am saying that in most everything, one person’s “old hat” is another person’s “new toy” and sometimes our messages need to reflect that. (Of course, the concept the underpins social media [um… that would be the social part] is as old as humanity itself so that doesn’t leave a whole lot of emerging to be done, except for a tool or two that lets us be social over a new medium.)
Secondly, I take it all back when it comes to mobile. Since more people worldwide have mobiles (and even access the Internet on mobiles) than have Internet connections, it is really hard to find anyone who thinks of mobile as new.
Agreed. It’s why my own brandbuilder website refers to Social, mobile, etc. as “New Media.” <- I am aware that my audience (potential clients) perceive Social, Mobile, etc. as "new media," which is why they are on my site to begin with. In that instance, my choice to use "New Media" is a marketing decision. It's messaging. So yes, if you can clearly define the audience, then you can cater your vocabulary to their perspective.
However…
When releasing a study intended for mass consumption (ergo: an audience composed of veterans and reluctant/late adopters), "emerging" and "new" become dubious terms to describe something which has been scaling for years, if not over a decade.
So yes, great point, and we're in agreement. 🙂
Olivier, I of course like the “irony” of communications pros who get their own terminology wrong. One thing I advise clients, associates, anyone really: listen to the pitch, the lingo, the jargon. Now make your “experts” explain it to you in plain english, in a context that relates to you and your business. If they can’t because they have to hide behind their mumbo jumbo, then you need a different expert. FWIW.
I like the “plain English” idea.
I TOTALLY agree. Emerging technologies, oh no…I would say emerging adoption depending on where you stand.
I completely agree on the fact that social & mobile media “should not” be referred to as “emerging” media. In communications media is like a circulating virus. Once someone picks it up, things just keeps going around and around. Social media and mobile media have continued to evolve into a “media” trend so to say. My question is, How is social and mobile media truly being defined as? If experts are saying this, than what else have they been corrupting our minds with. Thanks for the insight, its put a damper on “people who say silly words.”
I couldn’t agree more! Another “silly word” I run into all of the time with my web marketing company is clients obsessing over hits… ahhh! They shouldn’t care if their website gets a million visits, if none of them are converting as customers, what’s the point?
Thanks for the post!