Did anyone else see this article from PC Magazine?
Reporter Lance Ulanoff's argument, in a nutshell, is that we can expect to see MySpace, Second Life and Twitter -- and by association this whole social media movement, which he characterizes as "the second internet bubble" -- fizzle by decade's end. If you find his thesis interesting, wait 'til you get a load of his rationale -- consumer generated media is garbage, advertisers haven't yet found a good way to fleece the community members and much of the unwarranted hype about these properties is based on inflated numbers and outright lies. I'm paraphrasing, of course, but check the article -- those are his arguments.
I figure that should get a rise out of the bloggers and social media mavens among you. It got a rise out of me. Here are just two of my issues with the article...
While decrying the media hype associated with each of these properties, he doesn't bother to address the reality that they've grown (or are growing) quite popular with the people who really matter. Not reporters -- consumers. Or why social media sites are getting so popular -- because they tap into fundamental human behaviors: the desire for self-expression, the interest in participation, the drive to connect with other people of like mind and interest. The specific sites people prefer are, at the end of the day, immaterial. The behaviors they exhibit are key and these behaviors aren't going away any time soon.
While (somewhat accurately) pointing out that members of these communities are sometimes less than receptive to traditional advertising ploys, he's quick to blame the communities themselves. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the consumer isn't paying attention to our ads and doesn't seem to want the stuff we're selling, then doesn't that mean that we marketers are getting it wrong?
I'm not one of Mr. Ulanoff's regular readers so I can't tell if his article is tongue-in-cheek, but his commenters don't seem to think so. Neither do I.
Read the article and weigh in. What do you think?
