The Medium Is No Longer The Message, . . . You Are
Guest Author
Dec 12, 2009

Editor’s note:  This guest post is written by Seth Goldstein (@seth),  the Co-Founder of socialmedia.com, which is building the first ad server based on people not pages. Its platform provides authoring, serving and reporting across different types of social media. All of its ads are real messages from real people. Seth is also the Co-Chairman of the IAB’s Social Media Committee.

Social Media and Identity

We are witnessing a profound change in the media and advertising industries due to the emergence of social media.  Companies that did not exist ten years ago, like Facebook and Twitter, have captured significant share of the attention economy from traditional publishers.  Underscoring this trend is the fact that at the same time that Businessweek was selling for less than $5 million (plus assumption of debts) to Bloomberg, Foursquare’s pretty cousin Gowalla drove up Sand Hill road and collected $8.4 million for a minority stake.

Amidst this disruption, media companies are chasing after “their” audience in order to continue to broker the attention of that audience to marketers.  But just at the moment that media has mastered the art of blogging, search engine optimization and CPM yield management, they are now faced with a new set of consumer behaviors that elude their programming faculties: mobile devices, location-based services and the social graph.

Driving this change in consumer behavior is the emergence of social media as a means of content production.  Social media started more than ten years ago with online personal communications tools such as Evite, Shutterfly and Blue Mountain Arts.  Since that time, systems have been built to support broader and more subtle social interactions.  This has been achieved primarily by the introduction of new creative formats that make it easy for individuals to express information about themselves (such as status updates, tweets and check-ins) and new distribution models that enable this personal information to be shared easily among friends and followers.

Social media’s ascent has led to an Internet experience based less on pages and more on people.  As a corollary to this (and counter to Marshall McLuhan’s thesis), the medium is no longer just the message.  The permanence of words and images and their meaning in context has long been promoted as a foundation of media theory.  In an increasingly real-time environment, however, content gives way to identity, and traditional contextual analysis gives way to dynamic social interactions.

The medium is the message . . .  is the member.  This is why there can be no discussion of social media without a simultaneous discussion of identity, and why the growth of social networks such as Facebook and Twitter are one and the same with the growth of identity systems online.  There are a number of technology and business trends that are converging around this thesis.

Here are some that seem to be of particular importance as we head into 2010:

  • The only check and balance for Facebook is Twitter.  Twitter is significantly smaller than Facebook in terms of users, and its social graph is asymmetrical and therefore looser.  But what it lacks in terms of the size of its contributors, it makes up by offering a broadcast media model.  Celebrities find it easier to reach large audiences directly by using Twitter.  Even though Twitter follows far more of a media model than Facebook, it too is being pulled into the identity space by  Google who is unlikely to integrate Facebook Connect under any condition. Google is bringing the Twitter API to the fight (while Yahoo and  MySpace drop their identity ambitions and happily incorporate Facebook Connect).  The interesting question here is Microsoft.  Although it is impossible to imagine Microsoft siding with Google on anything these days, integrating Facebook Connect may end up doing to Windows what Microsoft itself did to IBM many years ago.
  • Agencies are tired of being treated like commodity procurement organizations.  They want to increase their margins through the application of data to media and become demand side platforms (DSPs).  This is the strategy of IPG’s Cadreon unit and Vivaki’s “audience on demand network” which both look to add proprietary data from sources such as cookie exchanges and re-targeting databases. In addition to leveraging new data to better target existing creative assets, agencies wish to also transcend the one-off  “give me a big campaign idea” business.  Consumers will increasingly ignore the high-bandwidth, homepage-takeover distraction tactics of traditional online marketing.  The average social media users have trained themselves to focus on real messages from real people.  Agencies will need to learn how to produce low bandwidth advertising content that can be shared and distributed in lots of different ways by lots of different social groups, all the while preserving some underlying essential brand equity.
  • Publishers don’t want their quality audiences sold cheaply outside of their sites.  Their expensive sales organizations have no chance of maintaining high CPM rates from an agency that can offer the same audience to its client at a fraction of the price by sprinkling some cookie data on top of a remnant ad network buy.  This will embolden premium (top 100) publishers to align themselves with consumer advocacy groups looking to erase cookies and anonymize users.  ESPN and the WSJ would love it if all of their readers were rendered anonymous as soon as they clicked away.  This echoes Murdoch’s supposed interest in removing his content from Google’s search engine index. The value of “free” distribution is materially impacted when the distributor is able to separate a user’s identity from the context of his consumption.
  • Advertisers will recognize that they have a fiduciary responsibility to maintain their own social graph.  Until now social media has been an ROI-free playground for brands looking to experiment with new formats.  Marketers have built Facebook and iPhone apps, only to learn that distribution is not free.  Now they are managing Twitter accounts and Facebook brand pages that deliver more scale, but still with limited insights that they can own and apply to the rest of their marketing initiatives.  Consumers, meanwhile, are constantly talking about brands within their communities and are expressing their affinities for commercial products and services.  Advertisers can no longer afford to cede knowledge about these interactions to the social networks within which they are occurring.  Inevitably, companies will require their own social graph data that includes all mentions of their brands and information about the identity of users (and their friends) discussing them.

So what are media companies and advertisers to do as the former audience use their social identity as a fulcrum for content creation?  To prepare for this change in the media economy, companies need to establish an identity framework that integrates Facebook Connect and/or the Twitter API.   And in order to profit economically, startups might want to address one of the agency, publisher or advertiser challenges listed above.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  • http://www.bloggeradda.com Mike Skel

    Interesting article!

    I agree that twitter is only one who may check facebook.

  • http://traffic.de.com Norbert Mayer-Wittmann

    I refuse to read an article with such am imbecilic title — but such sensationalism, I expect will drive a lot of traffic.

    Bullshit attracts flies.

    Buzzing off now, the stench is unbearable… ;D

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Aaron_Mathew_Crayford/3312238 Aaron Mathew Crayford

    Seth,

    Interesting article. Not sure you really explained why the medium isn’t the message anymore…
    The medium is the message = pay attention to the medium.
    I think what could be getting confused by people who are very in tune with older mediums is they don’t understand the new medium. You are right that there has never been a medium like the internet before but the best way to describe this new medium is via its traits and attributes:
    1) It’s many to many
    2) It can conform to you
    3) It transcends devices

    so a side effect of 1 is you have real-time discussions, social impact etc…
    with 2? that’s where the internet is headed the new market of “discovery”… we’re seeing it with twitter. You follow someone once and content comes to you. Eventually companies will start enabling content to gravitate around the consumer based on the consumer. Schmidt is calling this “personal search”. So what’s the side effect of something coming to you based on you? niche content now can flourish. High quality content like TV shows will always generate revenue and get viewers but now niche content with a small concentrated following can do that as well.

    The medium is still the message. Weather you’re on facebook, twitter or commenting on techcrunch as long as you’re paying attention to the medium… that’s all that matters. Rock steady!

  • http://www.benjaminsdesign.ca Steve

    I usually dont comment, but just wanted TC to know I really appreciated this article!

  • http://magarshak.com Gregory Magarshak

    Not sure if this is intended to promote your product, but I’m in the same space so I want to comment on one crucial aspect of the overall trend you’re describing:

    Consumers are using sites to help themselves. Uses include:

    “Search”: yahoo, craigslist, amazon, etc.
    “Discovery”: pandora, digg, mixx
    “Conversation”: google groups, blogs, twitter
    “Social”: facebook, foursquare, etc.

    And advertisers are looking to push stuff to them AS they are using these sites. All kinds of different stuff:

    products
    subscriptions
    those ubiquitous “free” offers

    face it, advertisers are looking to take advantage of the consumer and the intention of most advertising sucks. A lot of the time it’s non-sequitur. What could improve advertising is RELEVANCE to what the user is currently doing on the site. What could improve it even more would be a standard package of engagement with an advertiser, so that consumers can easily keep a model in their head of what they are getting into.

    Advertisers must be horrified about giving up so much of the decision to the consumer, but it’s no different than standardizing ad sizes and placement, or a CPC model. In the end, the consumers must win before advertisers win en-masse.

    PS: I will build something this upcoming year that will check facebook too. Michael Arrington knows. :)

  • http://kickstand.typepad.com Jordan Mitchell

    Interesting thought piece, Seth (despite the imbecilic title!). It’s very 50,000′ level, with broad brush-stroke points, but the points are sound. My thoughts:

    The medium IS still the message actually. While online social media may be evolutionary (revolutionary?), social media is not — information has always passed through social filters. Marshall’s point was that the medium through which a person encounters content/information has an effect on the individual’s understanding of it. Online social media is still but a medium through which content/information passes.

    It is certainly true that publishers don’t want their quality audiences sold cheaply outside of their sites. But I don’t believe “this will embolden premium (top 100) publishers to align themselves with consumer advocacy groups looking to erase cookies and anonymize users” in 2010. My customers are those premium publishers — I don’t see this happening. Rather, I see them taking a very smart look at their sales channels (with related inventory mgmt), and secondly segmenting/marketing their audience on the basis of “audience” data in addition to traditional page/site data. They have to combat the disempowerment of the DSP somehow, and I think they’re on track to do so given companies like mine that focus on empowering the publisher.

  • http://www.jasonkolb.com Jason Kolb

    It’ll be interesting to watch the impact of Wave on this, I expect the context of the conversations to become the single most valuable piece of information that can be used to make ads more relevant.

    I suspect that this is somewhere in Google’s master plan for the product.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Etienne_Taylor/1584687506 Etienne Taylor

    Seth,

    I’ve been thinking about the social networking space since the early days of IRC (internet relay chat). More recently we’ve been implementing web authentication for a major clinical trial web app in order to preserve anonymity, tracking search histories instead of people’s identities precisely because we expect the landscape to play just about as you have laid out.

    Your post is easily the most prescient bit of writing on the topic I’ve read, just the thing to forward to peers still stuck in 1998.

    Our friend Norbert, the title not withstanding, may have missed out.

  • Subhankar Ray

    The bottom line is:

    social media == word of mouth scaled higher

    If the product or service is good people will know it, and vice versa. Controlling message, branding using an empty promise may not have much effect. That means, there will be less middle man, less spinning, and ads with less effectiveness.

  • http://www.jonathansalembaskin.com Jonathan Salem Baskin

    Actually, I think the message is the message. The act of transmitting has no inherent value or meaning whatsoever.

  • Haakon

    The author does not seem to have a very strong grasp of what Marshall Mcluhan’s thesis was and I doubt he has even read Understanding Media.

    The put things it Mcluhan’s perspective, the majority of the content on Twitter is about Twitter itself.

    The majority of Twitter users fill a good portion of their tweets with symbols and shorthand directly related to Twitter. The retweet, topic, and addressee symbols litter postings.

    Just for fun, guess what the most common pronoun on the Internet is? “Net”.

    One of the points Mcluhan was trying to make was that any time we communicate our messages are being colored by the medium, often in very large ways.

    So please, don’t listen to this joker. He might do a good job of convincing a bunch of fratty business dudes that he knows what he’s talking about, but he is far from being able to compete with one of the 20th centuries greatest philosophical minds.

    The medium is still the message.

  • Haakon

    Really?

    I’ll steer clear of of Mcluhan for this one and just use Mathematics…

    All methods of communication have an associated entropy value, that is, the rate at which the information being sent from point A to point B is deteriorated with random values.

    Certain methods of communicate have more entropy than other values. If I wrote my messages on paper and had them delivered by trained pigeon in a thunderstorm, who knows what the message will be by the time you unravel the soaked parcel with ink running all which ways.

    Even on the Internet there is packet loss and randomness. Of course, protocols such as TCP deal rather well with loss, by having a 2-way handshake, but other protocols, such as UDP, can result in data loss or less than spectacular integrity of the message.

    The biggest use of information theory of recent years has been in data compression. MP3s, H.264 video codecs, JPEG images… all are irreversibly affecting the content that is being sent… but without them we would hardly have the functional Internet that we do today.

    Do you still think that the act of transmitting has no inherent value?

  • http://www.absolutecarmel.com carmel

    oh no, we are not the message. the memes are the messages, we are the vessels, the media. we just replaced word to mouth with Word to mouse.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Malcolm_Lloyd/1426850806 Malcolm Lloyd

    The message is tailored to the medium as a necessity, since you obviously can’t send video over radio you have to define your message in a medium appropriate way for the greatest impact. The origination and destination are both more important than the transportation, if you receive a recommendation you don’t weigh the message differently depending on if you got it from Twitter, Facebook or Linkedin, you weight it based on the who sent it and how much that person means to you.

    The transportation is just a means of conveyance and is a secondary or tertiary point to the entire ‘conversation’. Its only importance is ensuring that you can reach the people you seek, any coloring that it inflicts on the message is collateral damage that the participants are always attempting to filter out, with the ultimate goal of providing the exact same message regardless of medium.

    When the medium is the message, the messenger has failed.

  • http://getstimulustoday.com Matches Malone

    I totally agree with you.

  • john lopez

    owned

  • McLuhan is Here

    Seth,

    You are clearly not a student of McLuhan. Your understanding of the “medium is the message” is clearly superficial and flawed. Take a look at this YouTube clip where McLuhan (in the 1960s) discusses the role of digital media and predicts the rise of user-generated content and social networks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8J6uEUXlR0.

    What we don’t need is so-called “thought pieces” that are nothing more than self-promotional ads for your company and products.

  • http://filterlog.nl/about Jillis ter Hove

    Great article! You raise some valid and interesting points, except I vehemently disagree with your statement about the medium no longer being the message! McLuhan says that communication always happens, but its the way in which this communication happens that shapes the effect on those people… therefore, it’s still “the medium that is the message”. Even in the twitter era, in some sense(s) even more so!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Seth_Goldstein/502532536 Seth Goldstein

    I appreciate the commentary about McLuhan. To be clear, I am simply saying that the medium is no longer *just* the message. What I was trying to illustrate in this essay was that in a social media context where identities are known that people themselves become a form of media. Apologies for the somewhat sensationalist title (which I did not write btw). Please continue to share more McLuhan references.

  • http://brainmusic.wordpress.com/2009/12/12/links-for-2009-12-12/ links for 2009-12-12 « Brain Music – Gadgets, Social Media, Pop Culture, Neuroscience & More

    [...] The Medium Is No Longer The Message, . . . You Are (tags: socialmedia) [...]

  • http://intentcontent.com jchunter

    I agree, this article is already outdated since the Facebook Privacy update…

  • Matt Curtis

    Reading this article was like looking into the future. Thanks.

  • Stamos

    I am totally with you…less about the “author” and more about how inconsistent and hard-to-make-sense-of the content of the post is…especially the title is through the roof! easy cowboys…too much futurism is bad for your health…try to stay on planet earth a few secs every day…! FB and “t” are having a huge impact but easy…ok?

  • Steve

    “companies need to establish an identity framework that integrates Facebook Connect and/or the Twitter AP”. Identity framework? Yeah about time a new buzzword came about that meant nothing concrete at all.

  • http://lancestrate.blogspot.com Lance Strate

    If you had just written about your own ideas about social media, I would have no argument with you. The problem is that you talk about McLuhan, and the fact is that everything that you’ve said here has been said by McLuhan a long time ago, and in connection to “the medium is the message.” By not actually reading what he and others in the media ecology intellectual tradition (like Lewis Mumford, who McLuhan drew on extensively), you and others wind up reinventing the wheel, over and over again. That’s okay, but a basic rule of thumb I would suggest to you is that you should do your homework and know what you’re talking about before making statements about it. The fact that you present a superficial sense of what McLuhan was saying, and derive it from a wikipedia article is revealing. It is very much an argument about the limits of social media, and the continuing need to read books and study subjects in depth. The fact that your multiple tweets about this blog post brought me here perhaps is indication of the down side of social media, although my response also illustrates its error correcting potential. Hmmm, maybe I’ll do my own blog post about it…

  • http://www.amusis.com Amusis

    The need to socialise and the need to be informed and entertained are separate in humans, and not mutually exclusive. So to imply that social media is an alternative to content is to make a questionable assertion.

    This very blog is an example of ‘page’ type content, which won;t go away. people will always want to be told stories, and to know what is going on in their world and their communities. They will always want to be amused.

    It’s interesting in this light, to note that the bulk of information on Twitter is actually sharing of links to traditional ‘page’ type content on blogs and news websites.

  • http://www.thepomoblog.com/?p=131 Terry Heaton’s PoMo Blog » Blog Archive » A morning with Marshall McLuhan

    [...] Goldstein guest post at TechCrunch yesterday (The Medium Is No Longer The Message, . . . You Are) put me in a Marshall McLuhan frame of mind. The guy was so far ahead of his time that to go back [...]

  • http://octavioislas.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/3959-blogs-the-medium-is-no-longer-the-message-seth-goldstein/ 3959 Blogs, The medium is no longer the message, Seth Goldstein « Octavio Islas [octavio.islas@proyectointernet.org]

    [...] 3959 Blogs, The medium is no longer the message, Seth Goldstein http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/12/12/social-media-message/ [...]

  • http://www.modoku.com Nicholas

    The central point that McLuhan made was that television was not film, and that the technology had implicit limitations due to the size of the screen and the types of pieces presented. Likewise, texting and Twittering are substantially different regardless of their similar character limits. Essentially you are remaking McLuhan’s thesis in argument against him.

    Everybody wants to be the one to dismiss McLuhan’s observations, yet are always arguing the same points with subtle reasons as to why it refutes his claims. I don’t see how this article changes the basic assumptions. Twitter is a medium which really defines the types of posts published. This argument was really apparent to me when Facebook changed the mechanics of wall posts. It was frankly weird for a bit.

  • http://www.modoku.com Nicholas

    Or take Annie Hall…

  • http://www.modoku.com Nicholas

  • http://weimeng.posterous.com Wei-Meng

    Ironically, when you mentioned:

    “if you receive a recommendation you don’t weigh the message differently depending on if you got it from Twitter, Facebook or Linkedin, you weight it based on the who sent it and how much that person means to you.”

    You paraphrased one of Marshall McLuhan’s points, which is that the medium colours the way you receive the message.

    Imagine that you received a “recommendation” for a product in the following ways: a reporter’s review in the newspaper, an advertisement spot on television, a billboard on your drive home from work, or a flyer stuffed into your mailbox. You would definitely treat each recommendation differently; most likely you’ll attach the most weight to the newspaper review, since it’s not an advertisement, and attach the least weight to the flyer, since it’s probably just random spam.

    In the example that you present, you mistake the social media platform for the medium. As you yourself state, the person making the recommendation is the medium, and no doubt the person’s status to you will affect how you choose to receive his or her message.

  • Gregs

    So this article is just an infomercial right, “people ads are next big thing” says people ad company

  • SX

    Do you think Microsoft can come up with their own version of FB connect?

  • http://carnet.wordpress.com/2009/12/14/what-happens-with-social-media-now/ What happens with social media now? « Slyce of Carnet

    [...] 14, 2009 I just read an article on Techcrunch The Medium Is No Longer The Message, . . . You Are by Seth Goldstein, the CEO of SocialMedia.com.  He argues that identity is become the core of [...]

  • http://www.mytweetmark.com mytweetmark

    Great read.

  • Bernd

    The medium is not anymore the message since 1948. Thats when Oliver and Shannon developed PCM (Pulse Code Modulation). One goal of PCM was, to be able to devide medium and message. (Oliver, Shannon: The Philosphy of PCM).

  • http://www.holesinthenet.co.il/archives/7057 האם אתם יודעים לדבר? | חורים ברשת

    [...] פעילות של משתמשים. “המדיום אינו עוד המסר – אתם המסר”, כתב לאחרונה סת גולדשטיין במאמר מרתק שפורסם [...]

  • http://growsmartmp.com/2009/12/fresh-from-twitter-today-9/ Fresh From Twitter today

    [...] RT @TechCrunch The Medium Is No Longer The Message, . . . You Are http://bit.ly/699qJr [...]

  • http://www.innovationisdead.com/2010/01/11/the-medium-is-the-message/ The medium is the message | Innovation is Dead

    [...] gurus of social medias writing stupid stuff today : see as an example Seth goldstein’s “The Medium Is No Longer The Message, . . . You Are” published as a special guest on the “why is it so popular blog” [...]

  • http://www.seanmeverett.com/2010/03/the-ultimate-entrepreneur-small-business-toolbox/ The Ultimate Entrepreneur & Small Business Toolbox | Sean M Everett

    [...] The Medium Is No Longer The Message, . . . You Are [...]

  • http://twitter.com/CelestialElff @CelestialElff
  • http://www.louisvuittonhouse.com/ louis

    Interesting article!

blog comments powered by Disqus
Advertisement
Got a tip? Building a startup? Tell us