To clarify:  a social media blog was not pleased that another blogger disagreed with them (that’s kind of how the blogosphere works).  The nature of digital publishing means others will not always agree, and dissonance is a great thing:  it balances the social web.

Anyway, you can click the link above if you weren’t around to read that post, but to sum up:  I made an argument why the idea of “social media addiction” didn’t make sense, and that Social Media Examiner was propagating misinformation at best, harming those with real problems at worst.  I also left a comment on the original thread linking back to my argument.  I wrote:

SME – shame on you to publicize such misinformation. It’s not only wrong to falsely classify this as addiction, it potentially hurts those with real problems by highlighting symptoms and not actual causes of mental disorders. More here: http://bit.ly/9pAu7B

I’m usually good about following blog conversations, but had never checked up on this comment.  However, after the conference and my discussion with the Social Media Examiner writer I was curious to see if that conversation went anywhere.  So upon revisiting the thread, I saw a comment left by Michael Stelzner, founder of the site.

Let’s go through it bit by bit as it’s worth some responses:

Hi Adam,

I read your article and you make some good points. But come on, lighten up a little bit.

First up, a piece of advice to digital PR pros out there – never tell a blogger to “lighten up a little bit.”  This is probably one of the worst ways you could respond to someone.

I think it’s pretty ironic that Michael writes this when his own blog Social Media Examiner is about sharing tips on achieving success in social media.  When I posted something critical about Mashable, what happened?  Their CEO, Pete Cashmore, came and responded with something constructive and positive. He didn’t tell me to lighten up – in fact he thanked me for my comment.  What was the outcome?  Mashable as a brand earned a constructive post from me.  See how that worked?  I would recommend you follow Pete’s lead – you can easily warm over a blogger by emphasizing with them rather than telling them to “lighten up.”

There is no sham in declaring that perhaps many people are addicted to social media in an unhealthy way. In fact many people self declare themselves addicted to social media (many in response to this article on our Fanpage and Twitter).

Again, it’s a symptom, not a cause.  If people are truly overusing social media, video games, or any technology to the point it is ruining other aspects of their life, it is potentially symptomatic of a larger, serious issue and they should get help.  It is not social media that is the problem, it is an underlying mental issue.  Todd Essig, Ph.D. over on Psychology Today articulates it clearly:  Caught in the web? You need help, not labels.

This has been extensively written about for more than a year. Here are a few examples:
http://www.socialtimes.com/2010/03/fight-social…
http://mashable.com/2008/12/06/facebook-addict-2/
http://socialnewswatch.com/social-media-addiction/

Michael lists examples as stories from Social Times, Mashable and Social News Watch to try and provide proof points for his argument.  Except…not a single one of these sites are credible sources on addiction.  Neither is Social Media Examiner.  They are all sources on social media and are in no way qualified to talk about addiction or other psychological disorders and expect to be taken seriously.

Here’s an excerpt from an article I wrote a year ago for MarketingProfs on the dark side of Twitter:

“Twitter Crack: Yes, It’s Addictive

With the slowing economy, people with a little time on their hands are finding Twitter a great discovery tool—and a great big addiction.

Marketing consultant Rickey Gold explained: ‘I spent way too much time exploring and tweeting. I was becoming addicted to Twitter and not focusing on what I needed to do. I got behind on client projects; something I never do and something no business owner should ever do!’”

I don’t see how this adds to Micheal’s case that social media addiction is an accurate label.  In fact, I think it makes a good point why it’s absurd.  Marketing consultant Rickey Gold saying he’s “addicted to Twitter” and “got behind on client projects” is a cop-out.  After reading this anecdote, it sounds to me like Rickey Gold is procrastinating rather than being “addicted to social media.”  There are countless items that could distract a business owner every day, far more than just Twitter or social media as a whole.  To any business owner, it should be clear he’s making excuses and likely has some larger issue than the symptom of wasting time in Twitter.

The last counter point could be my favorite:

The high number of views on this YouTube parody on social media addiction confirms many people can relate with it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5TI3gzx3JA

According to Michael,  a high number of views on a YouTube video parody “confirms many people can relate with it.”  Let me also highlight this video was produced by Sony to sell more laptops.  So this video:

…along with its view count, correlates that social media addiction should be given legitimacy how exactly?  Maybe Sony can chime in?

I’m unsure what scientific conclusion you could draw between those two things.

For a disorder to be given legitimacy by the psychological community, it must undergo vigorous testing by those in the field over statistically relevant sample sets.  Far more in depth than any of the studies done by companies trying to grab press or further a motive by conducting shallow surveys (and were successfully published on sites like Social Media Examiner).  As an aside, most social media publications (not just SME) are far too quick to grab any data handed to them and publish it at an attempt at building their own authority.  Sadly, it usually works because most people don’t question the legitimacy of data sources – but you should.

Overall, our society has an addiction to mislabeling everything an addiction without really understanding what the term means.

Social Media Examiner Defends Their Own Inaccurate Content is from The Future Buzz, a Blog Covering Digital Marketing

Evolution of mediums will not stop.  Consider where we were 10, 20, 100, or 500 years ago.  Is anything really static?  The rule we have seen to repeat itself is this:  a society undergoing technical progression dictates the inevitable rise and fall of mediums.  We have not yet seen this proven false.

• Printing presses replaced scribes
• Eventually the web will completely replace the paper part of newspapers as circulation decline picks up speed (the Audit Bureau of Circulations reports that total average daily circulation declined 7.1% in the October-March period from the same six months in 2007-2008.)

• DVDs replaced VHS
• Eventually personal storage will be 100% cloud based, replacing DVDs (have you tried Netflix through the web?  Makes the idea of walking into Blockbuster seem like something a caveman would do).

• Land lines replaced the telegraph
• Cell phones/VOIP will replace land lines (a majority of my peers don’t even have them now – in fact, the number of land lines has fallen somewhere between 4% and 6% in every year since 2000)

• Faxes replaced letters
• Email/scanners replaced faxes – (from “The Decline of Fax“:  For e-mail, the critical point was when it became easier to use and less expensive than faxing.  Think about how many things are already easier to use and less expensive than what we have now but are not yet ubiquitous.  Lots of changes are about to happen quickly.)
  

• Tapes replaced vinyl
• CDs replaced tapes
• MP3s replaced CDs (if you don’t have an mp3 player in your car today, you will in the future:  CD sales are falling in double digit %’s every year:  18% in 2007 and 14% in 2008 and 12% in 2009).

• Broadcast radio is vaporware altogether, the programming is nonsense except for NPR and the quality is painful.  Have you seen how many great Podcasts there are, 100% free, with no commercials?  Radio is obsolete today.

In all cases, digital technology is superior.  As much as I love my vinyl collection, I recognize it is a relic in a digital society.  At 27 by having a vinyl collection I’m a rarity amongst my peers.

So why is tangible media losing?  Many reasons:

Not natively social - it’s easy for me to share digital media with my network.  Mp3s are social -  I come up with excuses to share them here even though it’s a disconnect and some of you could care less.  I do this for one simple reason:  it’s easy.  The question isn’t why share, it’s why not?

Slow to distribute – The idea of news – or any information – being distributed on printed paper or other forms of tangible media is wasteful when we’re all connected.  The fact that it continues to exist shows you how much our society is made up of creatures of habit over logic.

No sources/linking – Information must be connected for it to be trustworthy.  And a source that isn’t linked back to a reference could still be fake.  Media is easily able to reference if it’s connected, which adds a new layer of accountability previously unavailable.  Future civilizations will find our referencing of facts as printed text quaint.

No community – why bother creating any type media in the first place if you’re not going to connect people and form a community surrounding it?  I think we can all agree – organizations (and individuals) with audiences win.

Difficult to put a face behind – it’s so much easier to put people behind digital media than tangible.  Think of your favorite blogs and the writer’s behind them.  Easy, right?  Now think of your favorite newspaper or magazine and try to think of your favorite writers there.  Exactly.

Not in the cloud – all of your media will one day be available anywhere, anytime.  You won’t even need your mp3 player in your car, your car will connect directly to a digital library you own that is cloud-based. We’re already doing that with text-based media – other forms will follow suit.  We’ve seen this to be true during the first wave of digital, (everything follows text) and it’s a future trend.

It’s impermanent – ever had a CD or DVD get scratched?  They are fragile forms of media not easily recovered.  Old magazines/newspapers are trash.  Digital media retains value and can live indefinitely.

No instantly-accessible archives – the fact that Magazines or newspapers can’t just link you to archived content within current content shows their age.  Analog media treats media as impermanent and unconnected.

Unsearchable – analog media is painful to search and invisible without arduous effort.  Digital media is visible forever, instantly – given infinite life by the engines.

I’m probably preaching to the choir, but just once more I’ll say it:  tangible media is nostalgic, but obsolete.  It’s just a matter of time.

image credit: Digital N via Shutterstock

All Tangible Media Is Going Away – It’s Just A Matter Of Time is from The Future Buzz, a Blog Covering Digital Marketing

And Pete Cashmore, Mashable’s CEO is smart – he actually took the time to leave a comment and continue the discussion.  For that, he’s earning another post about his brand (think what you will about the first one, it’s still positive to gain more awareness).  Before I  get into his comment – which was a great response – I want to run through something else.

Let’s take a look at all the times I’ve offered criticism/opinions of others, their actions or content, and if that party bothered to respond:

• Brett Waters at Marketing Mag – nope
• Stephen Baker at Business Week – negative
• Chris Brogan – yup
• Izea not once – but twice- silent
• AP, RIAA, Viacom – no response
• Digital Influence Group – yes
• K-Mart, Motrin, FedEx – nothing

So we’ll add Pete Cashmore to the list of people who cares enough about their own brand/product to get into discussions about it, vs. others who don’t care.  Guess what happens when you respond to someone in a constructive way?  You encourage them to be constructive (although I don’t think my original thread was that snarky – I’m no Steven Hodson).

On to Pete’s response.  We’ll break it into sections so we can respond accordingly:

Hey Adam,

I love this kind of post cos it helps us figure out what we can do better. Obviously I’m not in full agreement with your points, but I’d love to get your take (and the commenters’, if they can spare a moment) on what we could do to improve in your eyes.  Some questions for you:

First of all, thanks for the response Pete – glad to have you here.  And thanks for Tweeting/blogging my content in the past  (I’ve mentioned Mashable on this blog plenty as well – like I said, there are a lot of good things on your site).  I’m glad you are open to feedback from the community and I especially appreciate a bit of opinion doesn’t rub you the wrong way.  That’s neat, especially for a CEO (many of your peers could learn quite a bit from you).  Let’s get into your questions.

–What’s the one thing Mashable could change to make the biggest improvement, do you think?

This is a great question – my simplified response would be a focus on quality over quantity.  As many of the commenters in the original thread noted, there is great content on Mashable – but in many cases it’s surrounded by fluff or off-topic material.

–With regard to brand identity: what do you see as the opportunity here? What type of content would improve this perception?

For a content based site, if developing an identity was an objective, I’d focus on two factors:

1.  Framing content

Check out how Mike Masnick at Techdirt frames his stories.  He’s got it down to an art, and can consistently deliver on the style day in and day out.  It provides the brand a strong identity and for it he has a community interested enough to connect directly and go beyond subscribing to becoming passionate supporters (yup, I own a Techdirt t-shirt).  Because they frame content so effectively and consistently some even hate them.  But few are indifferent, their content  stands out amongst other technology bloggers in a good way.  It has character and personality – even when it’s not Mike posting, guest posters are all at a level they understand the thesis and can continue it.

2.  Selective reporting

The absence of specific content positions a site against others and allows it to develop a unique identity.  Only by selectively reporting can a site develop personality.  If you want to be all things to all people, you become About.com – or the K-mart of the Internet (aka, no personality).  There is nothing wrong with that and it can bring a lot of success in the form of numbers, but personality, character and even trust are not about metrics.

It’s tempting to publish everything to gain more traffic, pageviews and visitors – but if you’re trying to develop an identity with those who have a deep interest in a subject, you have to limit yourself strategically.  That’s not the strategy of most news outlets (which Mashable has evolved into) but it is a reason a site will suffer a loss of identity.  Years ago I viewed Mashable with more personality because it didn’t report everything.  Another benefit of posting less is the community is able to read all the conversations, (if they are all worth reading) know where you’ve been, and where the dialog is going.

–Do you have suggestions for the types of guest posters you’d like to see? Who would add the most value here, do you think? Specific names would be super helpful, but even a broader set of suggestions would give me some action items to work with.

It feels like there needs to be some kind of quality filter on your guest posters.  It cheapens your site when I see industry leaders publishing content alongside those with no business publishing on a top-100 blog.  IE, I’ve seen you allow guest posters where the links back to go blogs with 2 posts (or never updated) and an obviously thrown-together company website built on a cheap template offering XYZ social media/marketing/technology consulting.  I take the time click for more information on authors I don’t know – I’m always interested in the source of what I’m reading (as I know many others with an interest in the industry are).  And when I see any brand tagged to someone like this, well – it takes the brand down a notch mentally.  A fence is only as strong as it’s weakest link.

I’m not going to provide negatives examples as I’d like to stay constructive, so I’ll highlight a positive:  more people like Dan Zarrella would be cool – he’s one of my favorite guest contributors on the site.  I guess it feels like (even if it’s not true) there’s no bar for quality of who can guest post on Mashable, cheapening what a guest post should be:  a breath of fresh air from the regular voices offering remarkable viewpoints that get the community talking.

–Do you have further suggestions for improvement not mentioned above?

Yes, don’t listen to me.  Seriously – you have an insanely successful blog, it gets millions of pageviews – no reason to change your strategy based on the feedback of one blogger.  If you want to be a part of the more intimate web conversations and have a brand with lots of character and personality, start another, smaller blog known for signal and kill the noise.  I do still read Mashable posts when my network points me their direction, but I (personally) don’t find enough use in what you’re doing to go there consistently.  Many do for sure, but I don’t know that I’m your target audience.

Hey readers, want to jump in and provide answers to some of Pete’s questions?

Pete Cashmore (Mashable CEO) Responds To Feedback Of His Site is from The Future Buzz, a Blog Covering Digital Marketing

Whether you actually like Mashable’s content is moot:  no denying they are successful in terms of numbers, beating out rival top technology blog TechCrunch in raw traffic in May, 2009 – although having far less RSS subscribers (TechCrunch has more than 4 million to Mashable’s paltry 345K+).

But while they’re successful from a numbers perspective – are they truly worth the rumored 15-25 million internal valuation?  And, more importantly, are they actually influencing those who really matter in the technology/marketing crowd?  I’m hesitant to say the answer of either of those is yes.

Now, before I point out the emperor has no clothes I will say Mashable isn’t all bad.

They have linked to my blog and referenced me in posts on more than one occasion.  Adam Ostrow is a great guy and even wrote up one of my campaigns when I was a PR strategist.  The creator Pete Cashmore is clever, no doubt – I’ve referenced his cunning in a post on social media as a buzzword.  Many of the writers there such as Tamar Weinberg are brilliant.

That’s the good.

The bad?

They are focused on quantity over quality

One could argue they are the Demand Media of the technology blogosphere.  They churn out content for the sake of churning out content.  Getting them out of my RSS reader was a relief.

Think I’m exaggerating?  They have a mind-numbing 158 posts just about Twitter being down as just one example.  That’s the internet equivalent of running a story on TV because there is a car accident.  What’s the news here?  It’s worthless (note in the screengrab they’ll even post these stories multiple times daily):

No filter for guest posts

Mashable does have high quality writer’s and guest posters.  No doubt.  But they also allow equally horrendous social media charlatans to post.  Not calling anyone out (although I’ve called out people in the past) because there are so many examples of this, it would be unfair to pick on one or two people.  Basically – if someone comes to you to try and sell marketing or technology services and their only proof point is having guest posted on Mashable…run.

They’re exaggerating their community size

Mashable claims 2.2 million people in their community, as noted in the above graphic.  Sure, if you combine all their metrics, including their mammoth Twitter following of 1.8 million+ followers (they are on the suggested user list, which delivers a slew of low-quality/inactive followers) it would equal out.  But the numbers are bloated.  The truth is  no one has a million followers on Twitter.  It’s an attempt at social proofing, but is overkill – the numbers are too far fetched.  The 345K RSS number they’re not showing, while still inflated (as is everyone’s) thanks to FriendFeed, is at least plausible.

They’re an SEO product

If you keep a technology or marketing blog, I bet you share a SERP or two with Mashable.  And unless your post went  popular, Mashable who constantly pumps out content (quality or otherwise) is probably outranking you for it.  I actually wouldn’t have a problem with this, but it comes at a disservice to search visitors who might otherwise have come across genuine advice versus that churned out by the “Twitter/Facebook/social media content machine.”  I’ve been trying to research things and came up with Mashable results up top in Google, only to scroll lower and find the real story.  Also, their entire model of sourcing as many guest bloggers as possible (again, quality or otherwise) plays into feeding both the head and the tail of Google.

TechCrunch is known for snark/breaking news, ReadWriteWeb is known for depth

What is Mashable known for?  Exactly.  It’s the classic Target,  K-Mart and Wal-Mart situation.  K-Mart lost because they had no identity and got stuck in the middle, whereas Wal-Mart became known for deals and Target skewed to the higher end.  While K-Mart was successful for awhile, eventually their lack of brand identity ruined them.  And that’s exactly what will happen here.

Wrapping up

None of these things are bad if you’re Mashable – they’re great.  They helped position the brand as appealing to the masses, then advertisers, and potentially for purchase if the rumors are true.  However I highly doubt any marketing, technology or web pros worth their salt find blinding insights from Mashable daily.  That’s just not what they provide.

Update:  Pete Cashmore, CEO of Mashable left a comment – see my response in an updated post here.

The Truth About Mashable is from The Future Buzz, a Blog Covering Digital Marketing

Some are already far ahead, some will catch up, some will cling to the past.  But there will be less and less patience, hand-holding and opportunity for organizations, politicians and even professionals who don’t learn to function proficiently in an internet-literate society.  Whatever digital divide exists today will be a joke in the future, the analog side will be irrelevant.  As Seth Godin eloquently puts it:  we’ll see change and frustration.

Not that anything in the last 2 paragraphs is a surprise or revelation.  It’s all pretty obvious.  We’ve been headed in this direction slowly over quite a bit of time.  The shift to a digital world has not been fast – I’ve studied it’s effect on society and business since my 2,400 baud modem made me the envy of my friends.  And that’s exactly the reason for the title of this post.

If you don’t understand the web and strategic application as a marketer, PR professional or member of the media, it shows you don’t care.  There’s no way around this, if you truly cared about your profession and craft you’d embrace what’s new and ultimately better as opposed to rallying against it or outright ignoring the market.  The web isn’t new or novel, and if you think it is you’ve been too stuck in your ways to see the most clear trend of the last century.  Analog has no future in a connected society.

Sadly, many still rally against the web.  We’ve seen examples of this across industries.  From the obvious ones like media who irrationally fear a future of irrelevance instead of adapting to the times to, shockingly, political figures and government agencies.  But those who continue to fight technological progress – whether from fearing it is disruptive to what they do or simply misunderstanding it – will only succeed in looking Draconian as the rest of society embraces change.  In fact, to many it’s already beyond looking Draconian, they look absurd.

If you don’t understand/embrace the web at this point in any industry where communication matters, you don’t care about your industry.  Not really.  You care only about profit/revenue from the same sources you had in the past and fear change.  But you don’t care actually about your industry.  You only care about yourself.

The RIAA wishes they could turn back the clock.  Their actions state they don’t embrace what their own consumers or even artists actually want.  Many traditional media organizations continue to bite the hand that feeds them instead of embracing a potential future filled with possibility.

So how about if you’re not actively rallying against the web, but ignoring it?  If that’s the case, your clients and stakeholders will leave you slowly but surely for forward-thinking players.  And if you’re a professional why would anyone hire you vs. digital-literate peers?

Is it too harsh to say it’s 2010 and if you don’t embrace the web it shows you don’t care?  I don’t think so.

If You Don’t Embrace The Web, It Shows You Don’t Care is from The Future Buzz, a Blog Covering Digital Marketing