But I contend that social media never really began -- not on the web anyway.

What it seems to me that people fail to realize is that social media is not some fad like the Pet Rock or Ugg Boots (ugh indeed); it's been going on since the dawn of time as club-wielding cavemen built -- and leveraged -- social networks to snag a bigger feast or a more spacious dwelling.  And it has continued throughout history as large sects of the population broke off into sub-sets forming religious groups, political parties, and public houses (today known as 'pubs' -- isn't the web really just a virtual bar that never closes?), all leveraging some type of social media vehicle to organize like-minded individuals and gather together.

And while most of that 'gathering' today happens online, the concept itself was not born with the advent of the Internet.

It's an inherent part of our make up as humans to congregate and socialize.  Where that congregation takes place is irrelevant.  What matters is that it does take place, and more importantly, that substantive relationships are formed through it.

Relationships.  A critical element of the process that no one ever seems to talk about, opting to latch onto the word 'social' because it's 'hot' right now.  And, interestingly, where most sites -- and initiatives -- fail.

The social aspect of the engagement is only step 1, and the easiest part of the process in my opinion.  And it's really just a catalyst for communication and conduit for connection anyway.  With the right amount of hype and viral buzz, you can easily draw the masses (e.g. Plurk).

But the trick is keeping them there.  And building, cultivating and sustaining the relationship.  That's the attraction -- and the power -- of the social web.  Creating meaningful encounters that are relevant to you and your circle of friends/peers/colleagues.  And then leveraging those relationships -- and your sphere of influence -- to some actionable end.

As a marketer, social media is just a set of tools that I employ for clients.  And it's not even the only set.  Nor is it limited to the web.  When the focus is aptly centered around connecting people, in this case, a business with its customers, the relationship is paramount, and then you simply bring in the tools needed to achieve that objective.

One of the tools employed could be the web.  Or it could be an e-mail.  Or a text message.  Or, dare I say it, even a print communication.  And, in all likelihood, it's a combination of all these things (or, at least, it should be) so that you have a fully integrated marketing mix -- and multiple touch points -- to engage in a two-way conversation with your audience.

What makes it 'social' is that conversation.  And the ability to interact directly with customers.  Not shouting one-way at throngs of users, with little to no relevancy, on oversaturated social networks under the guise of 'social media' or 'social marketing' or some other equally glib term.  It would be more accurate to refer to it as 'harnessing relationship media for social sustainability' but that's not just pithy enough for the divas.

I shall say off the mark that I fundamentally disagree with Amanda on many of the points she makes, particularly around the perceived "guru-ism" of the many thought leaders that are out there right now in the Internet space. She claims that it's just a lot of snake oil. For the record, I want to say that that is categorically untrue, in my opinion. The so-called "gurus" that she speaks of are legitimately out there trying to define and explain all this Internet business right now along with everyone else, and, with all due respect, Amanda, ABSOLUTELY know what they are talking about. I also don't particularly care for her debating style. But that's neither here nor there.

However, she did accomplish one thing...she got me thinking.

What will happen if Amanda's right, and all this Web 2.0 business does go bust? Well, I can tell you, there will be plenty of hurt and broke people out there. Just like last time. There always is. What does that mean to all of us who are doing the thinking, and the strategizing, who are trying to figure out business models and actually make a go of it in this space?

I think what it comes down to is flexibility. It's all about understanding the ebb and flow of the technology industry and being able to adapt.

I was around for the last bust. In fact, I worked at one of the most busted companies, Nortel Networks, as they rose to the top and then fell hard. As an employee, when it was good, it was very very good. We got free stuff like DVD players and barbeques if we did a good job. We got free beer and wings every Friday. We had pool tables and fooz ball and air hockey and free snacks in the lunch room. But when it all fell apart, it was awful. Not just the for lack of perks. Morale tanked. People's self esteem got destroyed along with their careers. And I got out as fast as I could.

At that time, as the bust happened around me, I realized that it was adapt or fail. I wouldn't survive if I was just a web designer. So I started to shift over to communications, a place where, at that time I saw a lot of potential. I became a writer and a teacher, a producer of concepts and content instead of a "do-er". And I got lots of other jobs as a result.

My point is, nobody really can predict whether all this Web 2.0 stuff is going to go bust. Anyone who says definitively that it is, is touting snake oil of their own. As individuals, we must decide how we are going to adapt if it does all fall apart. It's something we all should be conscious of, so if it all blows up in our face, we can bounce back relatively unscathed.

(Note: "Trading Snakeoil for Wolftickets is also the title of the 2001 album by Gary Jules". )

I find it interesting how a lot of discussions on citizen journalism are informed by what is possible (or not) from a US perspective. What is more disturbing is that authors both for and against citizen journalism rarely take into account developments outside the US (and the oft quoted examples of Europe and South Korea) that have resulted in mobiles, blogs and new media in general being used to create alternative voices that critique the sickening bias and partiality in mainstream media.

Clearly, this new journalism has its problems - an inherent parochialism being one of them. The subjective, partial and provincial nature of citizen journalism, if we recognise it for what it is, isn't necessarily proof that it is useless. As I've argued earlier, it's precisely these individual viewpoints of citizens that the mainstream media, controlled often by interests that have their own parochial agenda, seek to marginalise and over time, erase. Standards matter - and the same standards that we ask for and seek, but rarely find in mainstream media, need to be instilled in citizen journalism that aims to be a cut above the dross that often colours individual blogs. However, the visceral and unpolished nature of citizen journalism is to me what gives it an edge over that which we generally see, hear and read in mainstream media - in stories that are raw and unsanitised by the cynicism, partisan bias or sheer boredom of journalists and Editors who have for too long controlled what we should consume, and how.

To this end, it is necessary that we engage not just with citizen journalism as it is evolving in the US and more developed nations, but also how through mobiles, the growing availability and use of wireless internet and the increasing availability of PCs either through personal ownership or through cybercafes, citizens have access to platforms and media through which even if they are illiterate, they can share their stories.

I've noted in an earlier post that it only takes one story - a single photo, a single podcast, a single mobile phone video - to change a regime and hold those responsible for abuses of human rights, and corruption, accountable. Initiatives such as Witness have shown us the way. This is citizen journalism in support of conflict transformation, good governance and democracy - a far cry from the essentially communitarian notion of citizen journalism prevelent in the US that is more about strengthening local voices. Citizen journalism in failing states, or in those that exercise repression, is also about securing and strengthening local voices, but is also about a restoration of civil order, the Rule of Law and democracy.

This nuanced and global perspective is that which I find lacking in much of the online discussion I read on citizen media. Clearly, both sides have much to offer to the debate, and a naiveté of citizen journalism can get one into serious trouble (I should know). There are also significant challenges to online civility brought about by the millions of new creators and consumers of new media content, as those such as Andrew Keen are also quick to point out.

However, the manner in he and others like Amanda Chapel (who strikes me as a woman tragically blinkered by her own genius) and Loren Feldman (who desperately needs to learn that the repetitive use of the f-word is no substitute for essentially vacuous commentary) flag the shortcomings of citizen journalism glaringly ignore the potential of new media, and citizens who find expression through new media, to change the dynamics of polity and society in countries such as Sri Lanka where as Nalaka Gunawardene pointed out in this blog, traditional mainstream media is mainly located in and published through just two urban locations, necessarily marginalising the aspirations, ideas and voices of those resident elsewhere in the country.

Amanda Chapel however does raise a fundamental point - what is the economic basis of citizen journalism?

You cannot have an economic system where half of it is not economic. You can’t have a boat with holes in it! You can’t have a store where you charge at the front door and customers take whatever they want out the backdoor for free. In short order, there will be NO paying customers. And without paying customers, you can’t make anything to sell or give away.

Amanda is surprisingly oblivious to the spirit of the Free and Open Source software development community, the viability of products and services created through open source software development processes, or indeed, the spirit of volunteerism in general.

That said, if citizen journalism initiatives are to scale up and become sustainable over the long-term, there exists a need to create multiple revenue streams, not just from advertising or donor funding. I believe there is an eventual market for the monetisation of citizen journalism content that based on say the ground-rules of content creation I've tried to foment in Groundviews, provided that mainstream media is willing to pay for and publish this content, advertisers are convinced that content is read by those with purchasing power for the products and services they seek to advertise and ordinary citizens themselves (based on through models of subscription that operate of scale rather than high-entry costs) see the benefits of subscribing to content that is geared to their interest and have a mix of local, national and global news, analysis and information. The last point would require, especially in countries like Sri Lanka, citizen journalism also engages with the mainstream media in order to tap into their distribution networks and broadcast footprints, which in turn requires a multi-media approach that isn't solely based on accessing content online.

This is an evolving debate, and through praxis (particularly in the Global South) and the thrust and parry of wit online, I look forward to an evolving understanding of how new media & new technology can support the basic democratic aspirations of all communities and peoples, irrespective of where they live, or who they vote for.

Addition: Just came across Principles of Citizen Journalism, launched recently, which I think is essential reading for anyone interested in the topic.

Technorati Tags: ICT4Peace, Citizen Journalism, Media, Journalism, New Media