What the heck is Web 2.0 / social media / social networking and how do these concepts relate to the new rules of marketing & pr?

Recently I've noticed that many people have been using a bunch of definitions, including "New Rules of Marketing", "Web 2.0 marketing", "social media marketing", and "social network marketing" interchangeably. (Feel free to substitute "PR" for "marketing" if that’s appropriate for you.)

I don't think these concepts are the same at all, and I think that using them interchangeably creates problems for all of us.

Here's a summary from my perspective: "social media marketing" and "social network marketing" are two different things. From the marketing & PR perspective, both are subsets of "the new rules of marketing & PR". On the other hand "Web 2.0 marketing" is essentially a meaningless phrase. See below for details of where I'm coming from.

I wanted to spark some dialog about this as I think that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about what some of the various phrases mean. Additionally, the tools and techniques vary.

Please jump in with your thoughts.

Here are mine:

The new rules of marketing (and the new rules of PR).
These phrases were not used prior to me introducing them in 2006. If you Google either phrase today, you'll see that links to my site, blog, and work dominate the top results.

I say that the old rules of marketing & PR were that you either had to buy expensive advertising or beg the media to write about you. Prior to the Web, there weren't other significant ways to get noticed. The Web has changed the rules. The new rules of marketing & PR are that you can bypass the gatekeepers and publish your own content online in the form of content-rich Web sites, blogs, YouTube videos, photos, ebooks and the like and reach buyers directly.

Web 2.0 marketing (and Web 2.0 PR)
The term Web 2.0 is credited to Tim O'Reilly of O'Reilly media.
"Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the Internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform."

Many people have taken the "Web 2.0" phrase and slapped "marketing" or "PR" on the end to designate something new. My opinion is that the term Web 2.0 (as coined by O'Reilly) was meant to describe how people use the Web and how software companies are creating applications that are Web-based instead of requiring downloading to your PC or delivered via a client-server environment.

I'd say that people who use the terms "Web 2.0 marketing" and "Web 2.0 PR" (or the related "marketing 2.0" and "PR 2.0") are using those phrases as a catch-all to describe "new" and most can't really define exactly what they mean except to say that "it includes blogs and YouTube and Facebook and other stuff like that."

Personally, I steer clear of using Web 2.0 when describing marketing and PR because it is imprecise and confusing.

Further reading – the Web 2.0 Wikipedia entry.

Social media marketing (and social media PR)
I'd suggest that the term social media describes online media with a participatory or interactive component.

A news story that is delivered online becomes social media if there is a place for readers to comment on the news story. Blogs, forums, Wikis, and chat rooms are all social media in my opinion because they include an interactive component.

Marketing and PR using social media involves creating social media content (starting a blog perhaps) and participating in social media (by leaving appropriate comments other people’s blogs or forums).

Further reading – the Social Media Wikipedia entry.

Social network marketing (and social network PR)
I'd suggest that the term social networking describes online networking tools and the ways they are used to connect groups of people on the Web.

By my definition, social networking sites include Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, SecondLife, Bebo, and others similar to these. People use these sites to network and stay connected with friends and colleagues and to meet other like-minded people.

Marketing and PR using social networking involves creating personal profiles, creating and joining groups, and building applications for others to use. It involves participating in social networking sites.

Further reading – the Social Network Wikipedia entry.

Here's something important.

By my definitions, "social media marketing & PR" as well as "social network marketing & PR" are two different things and both are subsets of the "new rules of marketing & PR."

The way I see the world, as marketing and PR people we need to think about the new rules as including lots of tools and techniques and social media and social networking are two of those. But there are many others.

What are your thoughts?

Comments

[Tatiana Tugbaeva]

David,
social media marketing & PR" and "social network marketing & PR" are surely two different terms. But both of them are marketing&PR tools and should be included into a company's online marketing strategy. In my opinion, if a company wants to establish long-term loyal relationship with its customers and prospects, it needs to penetrate social media and social networking sites in one way or another.

[mike ashworth]

I think this is the dilemma when a shift occurs. All these terms flying around. Look at what happens in the music world, everything has to have a tag so it can be nicely boxed off, categorised. yet their are only two types of music, great music and cr@p music.

I am referring to the changed world as Marketing and PR, no new, no this, no that, as it's still about Marketing and PR.

Often things tagged as the latest this or the new that can be thought of as a fad and all of the above are definitely not that at all. If the people who have practised marketing and PR for years fail to want to learn new things then they are going to find themselves falling out of favour as ppl come to realise that they are not effective anymore.

I see far too many people who claim to have been in Marketing and PR for years bandying phrases around yet have little idea of how to use them within a well constructed framework of Marketing and PR for a Business.

When all of the above are adopted as Marketing and PR with no prefix, suffix or alternative tags then people will have got it and even more amazing things will happen.

Objectives, Goals, buyer personas/ getting under the skin of your customers, talking in their language, appropriate spaces to inhabit, listening for the conversations, this is all "just" Marketing and PR now.

keep pushin' the message on

Mike Ashworth

[Joseph Thornley]

Thanks for the thought provoking post.

The entry in Wikipedia has had a tortured history. I have not found it helpful.

Here's the definition I apply: Social media is online communication in which individuals shift fluidly and flexibly between the role of audeience and author. To do this they use social software that supports production of content without the requirement to know how to code.

I'd welcome your thoughts about this working definition of social media.

[Lauren Vargas]

Too often people get caught up in the buzz words and not the practice. Good to see the record set straight.

[MarketingTwins-Randy]

I enjoyed understanding, myself, about Web 2.0 - from Wiki:

"Although the term suggests a new version of the World Wide Web, it does not refer to an update to any technical specifications, but to changes in the ways software developers and end-users use webs."

That clarifies alot - I had thought it had something to do with an update that I hadn't downloaded yet!! ha

Enjoy the blog!

[Daljit Bhurji]

David, I agree with your definitions entirely. I think the issue for those of us working in PR and marketing is that in many cases we are speaking to clients who's knowledge of this space is well below ours, hence the catch-all term of Social Media has become firmly established.

As has been pointed out above, the complexity of Social Media can be scary and having just launched a new agency focusing on this space I am conscious that we are talking to people at very different stages of the journey.

There has even been debate on other blogs regarding abolishing the term Social Media altogether and replacing it with just media "because all media in now social". I can see the argument and it makes for a worthy intellectual position, but it also reflects being out of touch with the average marketing director who has yet to grasp what Social Media actually is. As ever, we need to make sure we don't get too far ahead of the people paying the bills.

[Steve Wilkinghoff]

Hi David.

It seems to me that the way many people (particularly the Marketing Dinosaurs) throw these terms around simply demonstrates their weak effort to make it appear that they are keeping up with trends. They think a few buzzwords will impress the people they talk to.

While it might sound impressive to some people, all they are really doing is selling the sizzle, and not the steak.

People like you and your readers, however, have taken the time and made the effort to understand the differences.

At the end of the day, these terms are excellent descriptors of tools that are highly effective at further developing deep relationships with the right kind of customers and prospects (those who are profitable and who "fit" with any particular business' style and goals).

The way most Marketng Dinosaurs use these terms, however, strikes me as acting like the loudmouth who drinks too much at a party and starts throwing around buzzwords about, say, Formula One racing to impress people. How much horsepower they have, paddle-shifters, average speeds, etc.)

Their loud use of buzzwords might actually impress those who know even less about the topic than they do.

But, anyone who really knows about the topic the loudmouth is going on about instantly realizes the facade being put up, and loses a lot of respect for the "loudmouth".

Steve Wilkinghoff

[Chris Applegate, Outside Line]

David, a good post trying to pick apart what is a very dense field. However isn't there a lot of overlap between what a social media site and a social network site? Users of Facebook and MySpace write blog entries, upload videos & photos, while many social media sites like Flickr and even Twitter these days have social characteristics - friend adding, personal or group conversations. I do nearly as much socialising online via Twitter these days than I do on Facebook.

All the best social sites incorporate both media and networking. Instead of trying to categorise one or the other, I think it's better to look a bit closer: think in terms of what messages have social currency on the site you want to engage with - whether it be photos, video, wall posts, Tweets, pokes etc. and then from that formulating a strategy.

[David Meerman Scott]

Wow, thank you all for these terrific comments. With your help, I am learning more about how to define these things (and when to give up and just say "it's all marketing").

Thanks,
David

[Sachin Uppal]

David,

Though I agree with you that the social media marketing and social network marketing is different and also the phrase Web 2.0 Marketing may be meaningless, however, why would you NOT call the new phase of marketing as the "Marketing 2.0" or "PR 2.0"?

As I see, "New rules of Marketing and PR" should be the subset of Marketing and PR also pointed out by Tatiana in comments.

In my opinion, I use these phrases to indicate the change in the "method" or "technique" of marketing. So it's more like Marketing and PR are still being done but in a "New" way (with new rules) as you wrote in your book too!

How we can denote "New" is by calling it "2.0" as a major influence is from software and web based services. Softwares have versions so we say "2.0" to indicate the next generation!

Just a thought! What's your take?

Sachin

[Mordechai (Morty) Schiller]

David,

How about putting a New Marketing glossary on your site? Maybe as an ebook?

Morty

[Fisk Gawsen]

David,

Whether I'm reading your blog, WoodyMaxim.com, MichaelFortin.com or any other blog for that matter the key to today's marketing practices is the "social" aspect.

I don't care how many spins people put on social marketing, media or networking. It all comes down to the power consumers now have with this medium.

The new rules of marketing and PR is simple:

People now have powerful platforms to speak their mind - good and bad.

As a person who does business online these platforms gives me an edge when I know what my customers and prospects really want or don't want.

Fisk Gawsen

[Martin Diano]

Hello David!
I read your book cover-to-cover about 8-9 months ago and believe it to be a very accurate portrayal of the public relations profession. Your advice should be heeded by all young upstarts who wants to have a successful career in PR.

I've been in the PR business some 40 years and certainly recall the days of the two martini lunch you were required to do with an editor in order to get -maybe- a one paragraph mention in a trade magazine.

I'm 60 now and semi retired and love social media.

Have you another book in the works?

-Martin Diano

[David Onoue]

David,

I think you are 100% correct in your article. The main problem with these terms (Web2.0, social media marketing/pr and social network marketing/pr) is the fact that many people use them as "buzz" words. Wanting to sound and seem smart they use them interchangeably.

[Bob Lancaster]

Hi David,

I come to this post from the technology/entrepreneur perspective. I have read your book ““The New Rules of Marketing & PR” to help me begin marketing my software startup company.

I agree with those who are put off by the over use of buzzwords and those that use them merely to improve their social standing. Being in the software industry it sometimes seems to me that our industry invented the buzzword parade. It’s often very difficult to distinguish between the hype and the meaningful.

On the other hand, I agree with Sachin’s comments “I use these phrases to indicate the change in the "method" or "technique" of marketing…” Like our industry, your industry is seeing significant change because of the Web 2.0 tools and their social implications.

I think describing your book as one of the first Marketing 2.0 books would be entirely accurate. I don’t think you would have many chapters in your book if you eliminated the Web 2.0 aspects.

Marketing itself is going through this significant change because of Web 2.0 tools. Not because all traditional marketing fundamentals and techniques are now invalid, but because there is a new marketing branch that is based on Web 2.0 technology. This new 2.0 branch offers great opportunity and promise for BOTH traditional and Web 2.0 techniques.

Bob Lancaster

[David Onoue]

David,

After reading some of the posts, most of us feel that the terms are being used wrongly as buzzwords.

However, I think it's interesting how we interchangeably use marketing and advertising. While I am no expert, in fact I'm still in college, I see a fundamentally difference between the two. Marketing deals with markets and advertising is more or less tactics.

What do you think? Do we interchangeably use Marketing & Advertising?

[Jonathan Goodman]

One of my favorite characteristics of the social media space is that it's forcing marketing and public relations professionals to learn the others' jobs to some degree.

Marketing & PR has become one big mash-up of a job - at least in the online social space. Such that you can get away with a disclaimer in your intro, "feel free to substitute 'PR' for 'marketing'..." Sure... no big deal there!

Great post David - thought provoking as always.

[Benny Greenberg]

I wonder if creative and productive new strategies that become mainstream suffer from becoming "buzzwords” and as someone once said "gobbledygook." Maybe when thoughts and ideas and concepts become so universal or popular in their fundamental usage - "gobbledygook" happens?

Sometimes we suffer from our own greatness?

BTW: Thanks – the book and the e-book (on the New Rules) were fantastic reads!

Benny
www.ya-ttitude.com

[JM]

David, interesting post and great book... I started reading it recently and it is definitely helping market our hosted
website management service. For marketing folks I might add :) www.designapps.com

I believe the reason there is so much ambiguity with terms like these, is a result of how they are created. They are new and constantly evolving, much like the technology that they describe. With every new technology comes a new technique,
as an innovative person uses it in a slightly different way or perhaps combines it with another technology.

As these new techniques get used and more popular, they need to be described to others in words. And yes,they will be used loosely and many will never make the dictionary. (does anyone know how a word makes the dictionary, by the way?)

I agree that Web 2.0 is a very broad and non-exact term, and it does mean something different to most people. But it does describe something and serves a purpose. To me it describes a generation of technology available on the internet. It is very popular term, even if it is interpreted so differently. I believe that is ok and the key is if you are going to use it, be prepared to describe what it is you mean by it.

You have titled your book "New Rules of Marketing & PR"
and then backed it by a great description of what it means. But just to make an example of how words can have different interpretations, are they really rules? Rules, according to dictionary.com, might imply "1. a principle or regulation governing conduct, action, procedure, arrangement, ") But are the ideas and techniques you describe rules? Or can they be interpreted and applied in creative ways? To me, I did not interpret them as rules (of course I could always say rules are made to be broken) I’m merely trying to make a point that words can frequently be interpreted differently. ( part of the reason we have wonderful lawyers :S)

As another example, I use the term “Business Web 2.0 Management” to describe our hosted service. And if anyone asks, I have a strong definition of what I mean by it. It is a software platform to help Businesses leverage the latest techinques when publishing a website. But overtime, I better change it because Web 2.0 at some point will mean the "old" technologies and techniques. What will be next? Will it be Web 2.1 or Web 3.0 ??

To sum up my ramble – many words are interpreted differently and I think that our language needs to have loose terms. It is the process for defining new ideas. It would be impossible to avoid them anyway. Some will stick and some won't. I would just prefer that when people use a term, they back it up with a very good description.

[Allen Voivod]

Hi David,

Our mutual friend Kevin Skarritt did a podcast with us on the whole Web 2.0 thing, at http://www.epiphaniesinc.com/blog/2007/08/30/web-20-in-5ish-minutes-an-add-info-summit/. In it, Kevin said, "If you talk to 100 technology people and ask them for their definition of what Web 2.0 is, it is an extremely overused phrase, and you’ll probably get 105 answers."

But the generalized gist he threw down is that, whereas Web 1.0 is characterized by websites with author-generated, one-way-communication content, Web 2.0 is characterized by websites with user-generated, dialogue-encouraging content.

"Web 2.0 marketing," I agree, is a sort of catch-all term people use. But rather than just meaning "new," I think people use it to absorb the idea of employing social media, social networking, social bookmarking, and other user-driven websites to promote products, services, information, and personalities.

Though in all honesty, that's my attempt to assign meaning to a phrase that, like "Web 2.0" itself, is used by a lot of different and well-meaning people to stand for a lot of different ideas.

[David Meerman Scott]

Wow. Many more thoughtful comments. Thanks all of you.

I don't know about you guys, but I just love that we're making this stuff up as we go along. Everyone who commented has thoughtful ideas and together we are defining what marketing & PR is on the web.

David

[Anderson Lima]

Hi,

Your post was really timely and it will definitely help me as I am starting to research and writing on the same subject now. Shame I will not be able to quote Wikipedia or use it as a reference, never mind, your post is giving me food for thought! Thanks,
Anderson

[Robin Avery]

Hi David,

Like any profession, I think the field or discipline of Marketing and PR has its idiosyncratic jargon for professionals to effectively describe its tools and techniques of operation. This makes for a more efficient method of communication among professionals and holds true for the unique terms in the new world of online marketing. These terms, when used accurately enable professionals to accurately analyze a project and effectively create an online marketing campaign using the various strategies available to them.

Social media and social networking are different in that, as I understand you, social media refers to news that is being communicated and social networking has to do with how people attempt to meet and connect with one another online. What are similar are the interactive possibilities. It seems to me it is the interactive quality where the lines get blurred and confusion sets in. The purpose, intention and usage of the online activity or strategy are different and dictate what strategic category it falls into. This is important as a marketer develops his or her overall marketing campaign for goods and services.

I personally appreciate online social media marketing in that I feel that when marketers recognize the value in their customers’ perspective it becomes a quick and inexpensive way to do market research and development on their product or service. Customers also like to feel valued. I know I do. And it makes me want be a return customer.

It’s my experience that most professions have “armchair” professionals bandying words and terms about but who typically misuse them. You see this often in the medical profession. As a retired psychologist I find the misdiagnosing of friends or family members by people not in the field, as pejorative labeling or just confusion about a diagnostic category or the behavior that they’re observing.

As a musician, I’ve noticed that a good understanding of music’s theoretical terminology facilitates easier communication among musicians in the pursuit of creating music’s universal language.

I believe that when marketing professionals know and use the terms of their profession to communicate meaningful information amongst them, are accepting of their clients’ level or lack of sophistication in the marketing field, and gently and thoughtfully guide their clients through the decision-making process with regard to their projects, professional terms can be useful shorthand to communicate effective ideas for creating and thinking broadly about the projects at hand.

Robin Avery
Singer/Songwriter
www.robinavery.com

[Emile]

I’m still confused. While your definitions helped clear the air with the terms as used today, “social networking” gives me problems. “Media networking” is helpful because it actually alludes to the fact that we are using media (as that term has come to be understood) to network. My problem comes from the use of the term “social networking”. As it is being currently used, it seems to be something of an oxymoron. I know that someone will argue that “network” pertains to the use of the internet however, I often network socially, in a more personal way by actually meeting with people. And the term “network” has been in use for a long time, much before Al Gore invented the internet. So my beef is with “social networking” as a description of what we do online through LinkedIn, Biznik, Ecademy, Facebook, My Space, etc. That activity seems to be more of “internetworking” or some other cool term that would be more descriptive of what is actually going on.
I like your grouping of the tools and activities that are described and I like some of the distinctions made by others who have commented. I even like the idea of tossing all the adjectives and just saying "marketing, networking, PR". I’m just not happy with one of the basic terms, “social networking”. Terminology should be used that clearly conveys thought and allows for easy distinction between ideas. I guess that’s just the result of inertia that comes with being a grumpy old man. I’m trying to keep up. Good stuff, though.

[David Meerman Scott]

Yeah. The terms may not be the best. But they are what's being used these days.