I noticed something in today’s paper that cell phone coverage in the US was now approaching 100%. (It’s already at something like 96.7%). The number of active social network users as a percentage of all Internet users is equally dumbfounding. Pretty soon it will not be hyperbolic to say “EVERYONE” is on fill-in-the-blank social network.
But what is that doing for us?
I think it’s important to remember that social networks are not new. Instant messaging and e-mail can probably vie for the title of “First Social Network.” facebook, twitter and all of today’s updated versions enhance and enrich our online experiences. For me, the intrinsic value of being networked online is to enhance my life offline. (Otherwise known as “real life.”) My presence on the different social networks has brought immeasurable value, for reasons grand and trivial, business and personal.
It’s been said that facebook is for connecting with people you know and twitter is for connecting with those you’d like to know. I think there is a kernel of truth to that, but they’re certainly not the only two networks out there. (Although when I watch my local Fox sports channel and they tag their promos with “follow us on facebook and twitter,” I know we have crossed some invisible mass acceptance barrier.)
To those who complain of social network overload or to those who have been reluctant to jump in, I would ask if you have considered what your goals might be in joining or not joining. Social networks merely facilitate the primal need we all have to connect, share and interact.
Think of it that way.
2 Responses to “A (perhaps not so) obvious word about social networking”
Leave a Reply
About Me
Matthew Chamberlin is a social media marketer, experienced video producer, blogger and speaker at industry conferences, keynotes and corporate events.
Send me a Message
Facebook
Linkedin
Twitter
YouTube
A question perhaps not entirely to your point (apologies in advance), and then a comment.
Does 100% coverage mean that of the geographical territory, 100% has cell phone coverage? The problem with that statement is that it call depends on your carrier. Someone may be able to use their cellphone there, but maybe not you. Or does it mean that 100% of the people have a cellphone?
Actually, social networks existed earlier than email; it was the front porch or Rotary, Delta Kappa, etc. We are, I think, created to be connected. Online social networks are one form, and fill a part, but not all of that need. And I am not sure that they ever will.
What I like about online social networks (as someone who was reluctant at first, then got overwhelmed, and now I think has found a healthy balance for now):
1) keeping loose connections with folks from other times and places in my life
2) interaction and exposure to a broader variety of opinions and ideas; this may not be as true for someone in a big city but for me living in a small town that is relatively homogeneous, it’s refreshing and challenging
Carl-
I think the gist of the article was that total coverage is approaching 100%, meaning SOMEone should be able to offer you cell service, no matter how far into the hinterlands you might live. Of course, the service will still probably be lousy…
I should have been more specific: of course I meant “online” social networks. What I was trying to say was that all these online ones are just complements to our offline ones, as you say. I agree with the two benefits you lay out. Come to think of it, were it not for facebook or this blog (I forget which one came first), you and I might not have ever reconnected. There’s your testimonial for the benefits of social networking!
Thanks for keeping current on the blog, Carl. I really appreciate it.