• http://www.markanthonycianfrani.com Mark A. Cianfrani

    The English major in me shrieks at ‘according to wikipedia.’ But great article. The thing that everyone ought to be a little more conscious of is that the names Facebook and Twitter are going to keep coming and going. Despite the brand name, the majority of value that comes from social media services is the specific niche medium they use (microblogging vs blogging vs geolocation vs etc). Shifting all your attention on the brand will leave you deserted if these services ever close up shop (ahem, Myspace. . . .)

  • http://www.searchinfluence.com/blog Ashley

    You make many good points. Calls for banning/censoring social media are simply results of frustrated individuals that have clearly not fully thought about what they are proposing. It is easy to target Facebook, Twitter, etc. because they are still considered by many to be the buzz words of the moment (though you say we should not look at social media as such). What’s next – the computers, cell phones, and portable devices that host the applications? Doubtful.

    A side note: it seems that Facebook is not fully dropping the Places feature, but merely changing it (http://www.allfacebook.com/dont-panic-facebook-places-and-deals-live-on-2011-08). Looks like we still have time to harvest the added value out of this feature.


  • http://www.mindshareworld.com Ciarán Norris

    @Mark – sorry about using Wikipedia as a reference, but it’s hard to link to the Encyclopaedia Britannica! On the other point – you’re right; obsessing over the name of something misses the point.

    @Ashley – glad you enjoyed it. I probably didn#t make myself clear – I realised Facebook wasn’t dropping Places as such, but my understanding is that they are making it less of a feature in and of itself. That is, checking-in to a venue, isn’t really that interesting – it doesn’t add much to your wall, or social graph. Building location into actions (what you’re doing there), does.