Back in the day, most people were disconnected from the world. They lived in small family groups, peer groups, villages and neighborhoods, seldom connecting with the outside world. Aside from merchants, soldiers and sailors, few ever really scaled their reach beyond a few miles from home. Yet people were social in ways that we aren’t today. Life was by its very nature social. We didn’t watch TV or surf the web or read magazines. Laundry was washed at the local laundry fountain, where all the women washed their clothes together. Without adequate refrigeration, food had to be purchased daily from crowded markets. We lived and worked in close quarters. Neighbors lived much closer to us than they do today. Our homes were less spacious, the streets narrower, and the world was something that existed well beyond a horizon we hardly ever had a chance to discover. Annual festivals, celebrations, catastrophes and cultural events pulled us together at regular intervals and cemented our bonds with each other. Some might say that we were more social then than we are now: Pressed together in an analog world where little distracted us from human interactions and bound by strong social ties, we lived and breathed together as full-fledged members of our respective communities.
Then came the industrial revolution, and mass transportation, the telephone, television and the internet… and it all changed. We grew apart. Our homes became more spacious, our yards broader, and suddenly our neighbors were little more than strangers. We turned away from each other, preferring other modes of entertainment to basic human contact. Books, magazines, television, the internet, video games, portable music, cars, sports… We essentially became anti-social. We erected walls. We separated ourselves from the community and reconnected with it only on our own terms. We stopped writing letters and began writing emails. Our daily interactions became more and more impersonal. We isolated ourselves in comfort.
Then Social Media emerged from the antisocial communications machine and changed everything.
Yesterday, Edelman Digital’s Maria Prysock and David Armano asked “would a world without social media be more social?” It immediately made me think of this clear separation between the analog world of old and the new digitalized world. Having spent the last few weeks in Europe – much of it with my parents, both born in the 1930s’ – I was reminded of how much things have changed even in the last 50 years. People of my parents’ generation seem to both marvel at the way Xers and millennials adopted communications technologies but in the same breath bemoan the fact that digital connectivity is eroding our basic social bonds. Our ability to be comfortably content in each other’s company without having to push a button or interface with a device. Imagine how 13th century Europeans might have felt had they witnessed modern day people spend half their day fiddling with objects rather than talking with other human beings.
While it might be tempting to think of the answer to Maria and Dave’s question in terms of quality vs. quantity of social connections, it really comes down to a far less philosophical point: simple reach. The world before Social Media may have seemed more social, but it was also clustered. Social had very little reach. It didn’t scale. It was limited to rigid, often closed social groups with their own power structures, rules, and limitations. The web may only be a proxy medium compared to say, the village well, the tribal long house or the local market – each a face-to-face medium – but it has served to significantly extend Social‘s reach (globalizing and liberating it, even) without stripping away its basic nature. Social Media’s ability to connect people globally, in real time and on their own terms redefines the very nature of the term “social.” It shifts it from a localized, tightly controlled phenomenon to a global and highly adaptive one. And in that, it is a cultural revolution unto itself.
Think about it this way: 200 years ago, what was the size of a typical person’s social circle? (The very term “social circle” is pretty telling.) 30? 50? Maybe 100 people? Your family, your neighbors, the butcher, baker, blacksmith and other tradesmen? The local clergymen? Your shipmates? Your troop? Your fellow students? More to the point, what was the size of that social circle’s geographic footprint?
See where I am going with this?
Compare it to today: Users of Social networking platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Foursquare, Linkedin and YouTube (to mention only a few) haven’t just broadened their social circles and turned them into complex webs of connections and interactions, but extended their reach geographically to a quasi global network as well. Social hasn’t just scaled. It has been redefined.
So I suppose at the very center of the “would a world without social media be more social?” question lies another question: How do you define social? Or rather, how do you separate old-world social – that focuses mostly on depth of connections – from the new, digitalized social – that focuses on breadth as well?
The thing about it is… digitalized social (social networks and socialized media) doesn’t and cannot replace the age-old social interactions generations of humans grew up with. Nothing can replace the nuances and impact of face-to-face communications, of one-on-one interactions, of handshakes, of hugs, of sharing drinks and stories and the warmth of a fire. Not video conferencing, not foursquare, not even augmented reality. Just as a newborn baby needs to map out her mother’s face with her own eyes, we need to press flesh and eat together and experience a bit of road together in order to form the bonds that our communities, businesses, organizations and social ties need to keep from coming apart. You still need to visit grandma and hug her. You still need to pet your dog. You still need to visit your parents and your friends every time you get a chance.
This is why Social Media fans rush to conferences where they can meet in person – the ultimate irony of the Social Space being that most of the money being made under its auspices still happens offline: #sxsw. #Blogworld. #LeWeb. #140Conf. #Social Fresh. #Blogwell. (Should I go on?) The same social dynamics are why remote meetings don’t work as well as on-location meetings. It’s why working groups who can’t be in the same room are typically far less efficient than working groups who can share the same space. Contracts are signed in person. Important meetings are worth traveling to. People still like to look a client or partner in the eye before pressing on with a relationship. Here in Cannes this week are the Cannes Lions, one of thousands of events that would never happen if we didn’t have a need to come together at regular intervals to celebrate what makes us tick.
More than 80% of human communications are non-verbal, still. The web hasn’t changed that. Ask an emoticon.
What the industrial age tore apart in our once simple and finite social habits is now being patched up by the socialized web and social technologies. Our need to be social isn’t affected by twitter, blogs or facebook. It isn’t affected by mobile technologies or the web either. How social we are as individuals isn’t dependent on our access to technology or lack thereof, but our ability to choose between being locally social or globally social is. And that’s the crux of this whole discussion: technology is just a tool. It provides a medium. Enablement. Socialized media are channels, nothing more.
Social technology is simply a proxy medium: The town square, the tribal long house, the hunting party’s fire multiplied by millions and touching every part of the planet equipped with an internet node. “Social” is a behavior first and foremost. The technology, the apps, merely pipes and real-estate.
Would a world without social media be more social? Yes. No. In a way. Social would simply take on a different form. A different meaning. Without the web itself, without cell phones, without Twitter and Foursquare and email, without TVs and earphones and shopping malls, perhaps we would turn away from the outer edges of our world and once again turn inward to our own local peer groups, to our neighbors, to our local social networks. Maybe. But those of us with social wanderlust would still find ways to reach out over the wall and the next forest and the next hill, by telegraph or carrier pigeon or corked bottle, knowing that half a world away, someone was dying to reach out to us as well.
Brand Building and Online Marketing Blog 
I like the analogy of social now vs. the old days. I spent time in my 20’s in Maine and remember well the Town Socials, the bean suppers, the town hall meeting etc. where the community gathered and connected. That was a great way of being social. Yet what social media today offers me is, as you put it, extending the boundaries. It has flattened the world. Every day on Facebook I can have a class reunion with my high school friends scattered all across the country. I can share my happiness and sorrow with them with one click of a button, and them likewise.
I still enjoy going to the local pub and sharing laughs and good times with friends, that is important, but social media today has enriched my life by bringing me back in touch with long lost friends. It has revolutionized the world and I think all our lives are probably better for its advent.
Yep.
Somewhere in that remarkable mind of yours, Monsieur Blanchard, is a novel of fiction just waiting to pour out–a chaotic tale of youth in France, bubbling over into philosophies on life, connection, and the soul.
I’m no book publicist, but surely you have some decent connections to one. Pitch this book. Do it now! I’d buy it! Give that Ian McEuen chap a run for his money, would ya? 😉
On a more related note, I think one of the reasons those of us in marketing enjoy the work we do is that we have this subliminal sense of what you’re talking about here. We see that underneath this veneer of banality (metrics, ad copy, ROI) there’s a connection to this . . . something, this larger viewpoint of human sociality.
The fact that we sometimes try to put a dollar value on that sociality is an unfortunate side effect of our business (lol), but intrinsically there’s something there that connects us to it.
Good post.
Thanks, Steve! There are many books brewing under this brain bucket of mine.
You’re right about the subtext of our passion for marketing. It’s palpable sometimes. And when it is, business magic happens.
Cheers.
Great, great insight and commentary. Giving a balanced perspective to a world we assume to be all digital (loved the oxymoron of social space activities taking place offline). Keep up the great thoughts and the great writing.
Thanks, Maggs. (May I call you Maggs?)
History repeats itself, painting the same picture, if only using new mediums. Could there be a shift towards those olden days even now?
Yes, we spread out – particularly here in the States – yet we become more closely packed by the year. The new sub-division is built on the farthest outskirts of town in pursuit of those wide open spaces, yet builders of these “masterplanned communities” pack the lots so densely one could borrow the table salt from his neighbor’s kitchen counter – by reaching out his own kitchen window.
It is the scalability which changes. This is the new medium. We are inherently social. What’s that saying about man rather starving than eating alone?
Technology has extended our reach. Modern transportation may be more expedient than ever, but international travel is still beyond the reach of a great many of us. All the same, we possess the means to interact with our global neighbors through devices that fit in the palms of our hands.
The world is smaller than ever and I think it will continue to shrink. I was fortunate to travel the world to some extent, growing up in a military family, but all those years, the us-vs-them mentality prevailed. Pre-internet – pre-social – we viewed others as being different. It was uncomfortable and we stuck to our own.
Today, we share life with friends irregardless of their geographic location. We still host our festivals and events, but now the community is global. Now we want to invite our international friends to take part in our traditions as we join them in theirs.
If only we could do more of it in person, ya know?
I wish we could apply some of the technology used to drill for oil (or feebly attempt to stop oil leaks) a mile beneath the surface of the ocean to multiple, high speed electric rail routes connecting the continents, which would be affordable enough that intercontinental travel was more available to everyone.
The fear of the unknown stranger from out of town has been replaced by the disappointment of knowing several people you would really like to meet in person, but may never have the means to do so.
Proof again that comments on this blog are often much better than the posts themselves. Thank you. 🙂
Again, ask me again why only this one reaches my inbox.
Top Quality Logic
Loved the fact that the money is made when we press the flesh; which is why I for one see a great market in the plethora of events hitting our inboxes in Facebook.
People are now actually calling them “Facebook Bashes”
And yes, it’s a giddy kind of feeling when one finally meets those with whom we had been interacting previously thanks to a tweet or a follow or the random friend request.
And even for those for whom virtuality may be the only way, again, CMAC (Computer Mediated Asynchronous Communication) does offer at least a new, or previously unheard of, way to remain ‘social’
At least tell that to my friends Down Under, in Paris, Istanbul and Bangalore.
Would I love to meet them?
Sure; but for now, I would like to say that we are having a great time ‘preparing’ for that eventual meeting.
Finally, as some have posited elsewhere, being ‘social’ has also to be looked at from the angles of temperament, aptitude and overall personality.
I have found that amongst the doubters, there are many whose shyness and overall fear of engagement, would stop them from seeing the value of trying in yet another arena, where their personal experiences in the past with being ‘social’ may have lead to detrimental effects.
So whether or not this ‘new’ way of socializing is for everyone, I’d say the jury’s still out; yet, based on the number of people still coming into Facebook recently, seems like they may have found that perhaps, this time, since they have a bit more control (and again, the still under researched aspects of CMAC transactions) and some ‘privacy’ of sorts, that they have ventured out into them.
Which justifies the ‘wanderlust’ Olivier points out in his closing statement.
Sincerely,
@FJPalacio
Some of you guys write spectacular comments. I love reading stuff like this. Thank you!
This is awesome. A history lesson and a lesson in reach. The internet allows small businesses to keep their brand competitive solely because of its reach. Social media, ad-targeting, and the overall facilitation of communication has done wonders for the development of industry.
I actually recently wrote an article about brand scaling: http://www.retargeter.com/three-ways-to-scale-your-online-brand-and-compete-with-the-big-dogs
I’d love to hear what you everyone thinks about it!
I’ll check it out. Thanks, Samir.
Absolutely! – Mags
Olivier,
This is exceptional.
I have been studying ‘social’ in depth, especially with regards to it being the antithesis of ‘broadcast’.
I’m sat in bed typing and it’s waking Faye up – so I will comment again later!
Scott
Please tell her I am sorry for being the cause of your late night typing in bed. 😀
I keyed in on this: “Think about it this way: 200 years ago, what was the size of a typical person’s social circle? (The very term “social circle” is pretty telling.) 30? 50? Maybe 100 people?”
And Brian Driggs’ comment: “The fear of the unknown stranger from out of town has been replaced by the disappointment of knowing several people you would really like to meet in person, but may never have the means to do so.”
And would argue that fear of the unknown and the small social circle are still very much in force online. Invoking Dunbar’s number, I think that we are wired for those small old-world social communities, and the majority of us continue to restrict ourselves accordingly to people who resonate with us — who share the same worldview, think the same way we do, validate our thinking and feelings.
To go outside those boundaries is a huge risk, one reason for what some describe as a social media “echo chamber” of conferences and like events. (I may be speaking out of turn, as I don’t typically attend large-scale social conferences.) These are necessary in that they reinforce the validation we need of our own instincts — or stretch our assumptions — so that we can go forth and help enlighten others.
But it’s an entirely different dynamic when it comes to marketing. It strikes me that most marketers involved with educating other marketers seem to spend most of their time showing us how to break through the comfortable “noise barrier” which customers erect, and be part of the signal that includes us in customers’ Dunbar numbers — in their communities.
And taking that a step further, how then would we translate those relationships with customers back to the offline, as you suggest we need? Do we then accept the transience of business relationships? Rely on trade shows to help us make those connections? Find some other way to cement our online bonds with customers offline? And then, how do we balance our personal need for community — our own Dunbar’s number — with trying to become part of our customers’?
Outstanding comment. You guys rock.
Dunbar’s number stands. It’s just that now, those of us seeking different perspectives can fill those ranks with folks from around the world rather than just our immediate social circles. The trick of course, being that you have to be that kind of person to begin with.
Likewise, most of us tend to seek out like-minds, or kindred spirits, people whose opinions both mirror and validate our own. Tea-party conservatives banding together online, chihuahua owners doing the same, BMW owners, app developers, Orangina drinkers, and so on. There are many layers to this. Every community needs to have some echo to it, but in order to flourish, it has to move beyond the self-congratulatory comfort. Communities that don’t lose relevance and die. Those that do, grow into powerful networks.
How this scales for marketers and brands is fairly simple, but it will have to be the topic of another post.
😉
One which I will be looking forward to. 😉 Thanks, Olivier.
@Christina – Interesting you should relate my comment to Dunbar!
As I wrote that, I suspect I was tapping into a well of desire to become more immersed in the fresh and exciting new worlds into which I am only able to peek through technology. But the grass remains greener, does it not?
As Olivier suggested, the number stands. I’ve recently taken my Twitter profile private, mostly to prevent spammers from following me, but also to foster more substantial and valuable conversations with a relatively smaller number of individuals.
Perhaps I am physically limited to 150 or so connections, but I hope that a third or so of them would be international in nature. The world shrinks by the day and, like the chorus of the now vintage Depeche Mode song, “I just can’t enough.”
🙂
@Brian, certainly, the ability to choose one’s community is the most profound of social technology’s changes… but I think the most underrated aspect of that ability is its fluidity. We have the ability to change our communities as we ourselves change. I think we don’t realize that, if not because of hard-wiring, then because of years of learning that our communities are essentially static. Our families don’t change; if we grow up in one location, our communities remain essentially the same.
Also: changing communities is scary. Even if we’re changing as people and the group we used to hang out with no longer fulfills our needs… there’s almost a stigma attached to finding new community, being disloyal, throwing people away. Folks used to worry about dropping people they followed on Twitter, for heaven’s sake. Something about breaking bonds does not sit well with us, even online.
It does, as Olivier suggested, come down to who we are as people and how comfortable we are stretching!
What a post. Awesome. Thanks Olivier!
Very interesting Olivier! And very true.
There will be a new divide I assume between the local and global web, and the semantics will be completely different..
I just wish brands could follow this and would stop thinking global. That would be the start of another era in marketing based on ocntribution and trust.
Then social media would turn into organic marketing in the shape of a blend of local needs.
Wouldn’t that change the world?
I don’t know about changing it, but it would definitely improve things, both for companies and customers, yes. You’re absolutely right.
Wow…I love this line…
“Social” is a behavior first and foremost. The technology, the apps, merely pipes and real-estate.
When people accept that it’s not about “social media” is about what you so eloquently document in your post…the behavior of being social. The art of being social. That HAS to be a given in the big engagement equation. Otherwise, the equation will continue to elude businesses.
@KimBrater
🙂