There have been some great questions about Media 2.0 over the last few days so I thought I would join the discussion.First: What is the best name for the changing media landscape?
Some call it Social Media, others (including me) call it Media 2.0. Jeremiah Owyang asks the question today on his blog "Hate the term Social Media? Help come up with a better term
Well I think we already have a better term - Media 2.0.
Jeremiah says he hates the 2.0 thing. Well I say too bad. It's great! Why is it great? Because the change in media is not just about social. If it's about one thing then it's about Personal.
It just so happens that we are each (personally) social beings and therefore a symptom of more personal media is social features.
But personal manifests itself in other ways including:
- More personal choice (more niche content providers including/especially participant created content)
- More personalization (in the form of recommendations and attention based filters)
- More personal transparent (public is the new private)
- More personal presentation (choose your browser, aggregator, device, color)
- More personal scheduling (choose the time and date of the content - time-shifted/on-demand content).
- More personal connections - SOCIAL
But there are other aspects of the changing media landscape. Convergence, DRM (that's not very social!), Identity etc. So that's why I call it Media 2.0. It's a major new version of a very old idea. Personal human connection.
In the comments of the post he writes:
Chris, I’m not a fan of “2.0″ anything. What’s happening is the natural evolution of the web, it’s nothing really new is it?
This is why I like the term “Social Media”
Important: Social Media is about People.
Social is a symptom of Personal - but whatever your definition - to try to foreshadow the destination/goal before we get there only limits the discussion/possibilities.
2.0 gives people freedom to decide what the next generation will look like while still giving them a buzzword to rally around.
The community and the market will decide what the 2.0 means - and I think you will find that ’social’ is only part of that outcome.
Second: Read/Write Web has an article about the mainstream media using more and more Web 2.0 technologies.
That's because they are becoming Media 2.0 - like the rest of us.
I am a bit disappointed they didn't make the link and mention the Media 2.0 Workgroup's launch at the same time.
Third: There has been an overwhelming response to the Media 2.0 workgroup.
So we have had to stop taking email nominations and changed it over to a wiki. The Wiki also has a page about the workgroup's goals and selection criteria. Nominate your favorite voices.
Also, while the people listed on the page are great voices to help spotlight the discussion, we will start to find ways to bring everyone into the conversation in more democratic ways... stay tuned.
For now I'll give you a hint and say start tagging your content Media 2.0 ;)