Social Media Is Highly Overrated*

*Unless you're already rich and powerful, and even then it's overrated

We live in the Age of Facebook and Twitter. Many mass delusions have been constructed around the alleged importance of so-called "social media." For example, you certainly can't build an economy around it. B.J. Mendelson speaks out against this dubious, conventional wisdom in his new book Social Media Is Bullshit.

Finally! — somebody is publically blowing the whistle on this nonsense. It took long enough. The Daily Ticker's Aaron Task interviewed Mendelson last week.

While the title is clearly designed to be provocative, the book is actually a fairly sober and analytical look at social media, which Mendelson says is "a term coined by marketers to repackage and resell stuff to you."

Despite the endless hype, scant few individuals become famous on social networks and fewer still make money from it, he says. While Facebook and the like are good for reconnecting with old friends, they should be used for entertainment purposes only — if at all, he says.

"People hear 'think before you Tweet?' The real question is 'do I even need to be on Twitter in the first place?,'" Mendelson says. "Unless you're a big brand, big celebrity or big media outlet, you're not going to get the kind of results" promised by social evangelists like Chris Brogan, Gary Vaynerchuk and Scott Monty. (As an aside, Mendelson pulls no punches with these folks in the book; ironically, that's likely only of interest to the "Cyber Hipsters" Mendelson criticizes.)

Furthermore, analysis of five case studies of social marketing campaigns by Ford, Zappos, Jet Blue, Dell and Kia Motors suggest 'social' isn't so great at driving sales, either.

"The myth of social media is you have to be on these platform…to engage with your audience when no one even says what that means," Mendelson says.

In the video below, Mendelson elaborates on his view that scant few individuals become famous on social networks and fewer still make money from it. Unless you're a Big Corporation or a Big Celebrity, Facebook or Twitter are of no economic value to you. Zero. None. Zip. Nadda. You can't raise money on these platforms, you can't start a meaningful, lasting social movement on Twitter—see Occupy Wall Street—you can't do much of anything except stay in touch with your friends or have meaningless conversations or disputes with people you don't know. Generally speaking, you are simply fodder for big, powerful advertisers, and even these would-be marketeers can't demonstrate that social media boosts sales.

In short, outside the fact that Big-Brained, Bipedal Monkeys are Social Animals who like to keep in touch, social media is worthless. Perhaps you remember my post Mark Zuckerberg Is A Cretin, where I said the following—

It goes without saying that Facebook itself is a joke. Basically, it's a platform in which Zuckerberg and friends try to sell a bunch of monkeys some shit they don't need while these monkeys groom each other online. That's also why Twitter and smartphones are so popular—it's the constant stroking.

End of story.

 

Comments

[Anywhere But Here Is Better]

Dave - you and Mendelson are like the little boy who point blank refused to believe the emperor was wearing new clothes, because he believed the evidence of his eyes.

The only difference is that it doesn't matter who calls their bluff, the corporations and the stock traders and the hedge funds and the media owners and the advertising agencies cannot and will not admit the naked truth - and the deluded mass audience will continue to be conned and relieved of their dollars. Consumerism is pure bullshit and always has been, and this current generation's attempted manipulation via (anti-) social media is merely the latest in a long line of hoodwinking.

It's not as if there aren't victims. The massive theft from small investors tricked by all the hype about social media performance into over-paying for Facebook shares is scandalous - and mostly because it hasn't been considered a big enough scandal to put Zuckerplonker and others in jail.

Oliver refuses to fucking "like" it.

[Anywhere But Here Is Better]

PS - I still belly-laugh over your monkeys-grooming description. :-)

[Mike Roberts]

One of the things that amazed me in the interview is that the syllable "shit" was beeped out every time and even the letters "SHIT" on the cover of the book was defocused, though it could still be read! I shake my head.

[Ben]

I'll share my personal take on social media. I use twitter religiously. I use it every day, tweeting many things. And I know there really isn't any good reason to do it, but I do it anyway. It's hard to explain why I do it, I mean, it is just there, you know? Anyway, have a nice night. Peace.

[Phil]

Sorry Dave, but it is patently obvious that anyone who lumps Farcebook and Twitter into the same category hasn't got a clue about either.

So you want me to stop tweeting links to your blog posts? Tough. I'll continue.

[yt75]

What is funny is that somehow Dali (Salvador), saw that in 1964 (sorry in French, not sure how it goes through translate) :
« L’éblouissement scatologique du sacré qui doit être la virgule pointilliste culminante de tout fête qui se respecte sera, de même que dans le passé, exprimé par le rite sacrificiel de l’archétype. De même qu’au temps de Léonard on procédait à l’éventrement du dragon des blessures duquel émergeaint des fleurs de lys, aujourd’hui on devra procéder à l’éventrement des machines cybernétiques les plus perfectionnées, les plus complexes, les plus coûteuses, les plus ruineuses pour la communauté. Elles seront sacrifiées pour le seul bon plaisir et divertissement des princes, recocufiant ainsi la mission sociale de ces formidables machines qui par leur pouvoir d’information instantanées et prodigieuses n’auront servi qu’à procurer un orgasme mondain et passager et à peine intellectuel à tous ceux venus se brûler à la flamme glaciale des feux de diamants cocufieurs de la fête supracybernétique. »
http://iiscn.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/dali-et-la-cybernetique/

[James]

Phil: While they are not the same, they both are largely lacking in any value (beyond perceived) for the average person. Both largely rely on feeding feelings of self importance (ego) by imparting some since of importance to one's tweets, updates, etc. In reality, unless you are already some big name, nobody really cares and "social media" will do nothing to benefit you. It's okay for communication with your family and buddies, but so is just about any other form of communication. And most require actual interaction, rather than passive information dump.

Ben: A million years of evolution. Kind of like how scratching an itch feels good, even if it isn't very productive. Nothing to be ashamed of, but not the basis for an economic system, either.