Real People Don't Have Time for Social Media
Let's be honest here: we're all a bunch of social media addicts. We're junkies. Whether it's a new Twitter app, a new Facebook feature, or a new social anything service, we're all over it. But we may not be the norm. The truth is, being involved in social media takes time, something that most people don't have a lot of. So how can regular folk get involved with social media? And how much time does it really take?
The Time It Takes To Be Involved
It was this post on a blog called Museum 2.0 that caught our eye.
[Side Note: Museum 2.0 is a blog whose niche is exploring the technologies and philosophies of web 2.0 and then applying them to museums, yes, like brick-and-mortar museums. The site's owner, Nina Simon, works at the Tech Museum of Innovation as curator of the new Tech Virtual Museum Workshop and previously, worked at the Electric Sheep Company and International Spy Museum in Washington, D.C. Fascinating read, by the way.]
The post was "How Much Time Does Web 2.0 Take?" and it looks at all the different types of activities and levels of participation on a sliding scale depending on how much time you have to invest.
The point of the scale is to show regular folk, albeit those in a particular industry, how they can fit getting involved with social media into their day-to-day routine.
Let's call it a "real person" scale.
Although she was specifically writing for the museum crowd, there is some good information here that we can all benefit from. To summarize, here are her findings:
1-5 Hours per Week = Participant
A participant is at the lower end of the scale. Participants can set up MySpace or Facebook pages and groups, run a Twitter feed, comment on blogs, and/or upload images to a site like flickr. She notes that the most time-consuming aspect of Twitter is not the broadcasting aspect but finding followers who will read your content.
5-10 Hours per Week = Content Provider
A content provider can start a blog or a podcast. Both activities require slightly more advanced technical skills and a larger time commitment. Bloggers should aim for a minimum of at least one post per week, but two or three would be better, she says. Podcasts can be as infrequent as once per month.
10-20 Hours per Week = Community Director
A community director is much more involved with social media. Here, her advice is more narrowly aimed towards museum staff, but still the overall suggestions hold up. Community directors can get involved in community web sites, work comment boards, and create projects in Second Life. Basically this category involves getting involved in larger scale activities, but, once launched and running, they don't require full-time management.
Time Spent on Social Media, image via Museum 2.0
How Much Time Do You Spend on Social Media?
For a comparison between what time commitments are recommended for "regular" folk versus how much time our community spends on social media, I took a completely unscientific Twitter poll where I asked that question.
Let's see what you responded with to the question: "How much time do you spend on social media per day?"
A Couple Hours per Day:
A Bit More Involved:
There Should Be a Support Group for This:
What Can We Learn From This?
Looking at all the various web-based activities and projects, what we can tell is that not everyone is going to have the time to be as heavily involved in social media and we are.
Even those of us at the lower end of the range, offering up only a few hours per day, are still heavily involved with social media when we're placed on this "real person" scale that Nina provides.
If we're going to recommend a service or activity to a friend whose alarm goes off at 6 AM and doesn't return home from the office until 6 PM, then we need to respect that their "spare" time is precious. Whatever new app or service we're trying to push on them should have real value.
Where do you rate on this scale? Have you over-committed or under-committed your time?
1 TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3777
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
I would love to use it more but like you used to be, I have no time! I have to real-life socialise and work in addition to updating my blog and Twitter!
Posted by: Joe Anderson | April 16, 2008 2:35 PM
I've actually been thinking about this differently... what if all those people who weren't involved suddenly got involved. I mean, I work for a company with 90,000 people - imagine if they all suddenly appeared on Twitter? However, its funny as I used to have this same conversation about how much time it takes to been involved when coaching people who managed Lotus Notes discussion databases at another company (pre-Web 2.0)- I used to warn them they would need an hour day (5 a week) to have an effective form. Of course, many didn't feel they could justify the time and the really passionate forum hosts made time to do it. But what is different now is that if the Web 2.0 engine is really working, then we don't all need to be heavily involved - even the long tail activity of clicking on a link to read an article is participation.
Posted by: James Dellow | April 16, 2008 3:09 PM
Really important point you and Nina Simon got there. I work in public service media in Denmark, and one of my goals for spending (a lot of) time on social media is to find a new model for public journalism.
There is a lot of buzz about user-generated content and citizen journalism. But I find it much more interesting and important to use web 2.0/social media-features to get people to collaborate to solve problems in the offline world.
A couple of years ago I worked with a radio station here in Denmark which involved the listeners in a search for "good means of integration" (i.e. of foreigners in Denmark). We held a lot of public meetings and the listeners took time to show up. With web 2.0 that kind of engaging the public in problemsolving should be much easier, I thought. Because the public no longer needs to leave home. They can engage in the discussion and search for solutions sitting home by their computer, and when is up to them.
But considering the amount of time it has taken me to get to know just a bit about the possibilities and the tools - well then I am getting nervous that the public do not have time... It seems like the new web-model of public journalism will consume even more of the public's time than the old fashioned public meetings.
Posted by: Camilla Faurholdt-Löfvall | April 16, 2008 3:11 PM
Zero hours....0, none, the big dognut hole. I think it is all hype. It is too much work for too little return.
I'm sure people will disagree with me but then maybe they have nothing else to do but sit in front of the computer.
Live From Las Vegas
The Masked Millionaire
Posted by: The Masked Millionaire | April 16, 2008 3:16 PM
The scale isn't the issue. It addresses the wrong question - people can and will carve out the time for social media IF they see a reason to. Look at the time spent on the web even by normal people. I know several folks in non-web fields who are quite busy. They still spend some time checking email and news sites and turn to the web to plan trips, buy books, wine etc. Why? Because they see value in those things.
Social media is still seen as a place where self-absorbed people update their Facebook status, obsess over friends lists and post tweets about walking the dog rather than as a place to do anything that busy adults can find value in.
Look at the graphic you use above - all of the activities are self-referential. You don't do them to accomplish something, you do them to be involved in social media. What we need to do to reach 'normal' people is to give them some reason FOR being involved. If they don't see any value aside from the mere fact that they're involved... why would the commit time?
Posted by: rick gregory | April 16, 2008 3:20 PM
Sarah, I think your scale is about right. My job is in large part about social networking, so I live and breathe it. My wife on the other hand, works a management job 9-5, has most social tools blocked at work and is a busy part-time college student.
Her social networking use is mostly on non-work time as her employer doesn't yet get the possible benefits. So, she blogs a little, Twitters a little, answers occasionally on LinkedIn and has plans for Facebook. About 8-10 hours a week, all up.
For our non-social network using friends who express an interest, we should help them a little by introducing them to good quality networks that they can get real benefits from (ideally ones that flow on to work) and use just a few hours a week until the comfort and readiness grows.
Posted by: Stephen Collins | April 16, 2008 3:23 PM
Sarah, I think your scale is about right. My job is in large part about social networking, so I live and breathe it. My wife on the other hand, works a management job 9-5, has most social tools blocked at work and is a busy part-time college student.
Her social networking use is mostly on non-work time as her employer doesn't yet get the possible benefits. So, she blogs a little, Twitters a little, answers occasionally on LinkedIn and has plans for Facebook. About 8-10 hours a week, all up.
For our non-social network using friends who express an interest, we should help them a little by introducing them to good quality networks that they can get real benefits from (ideally ones that flow on to work) and use just a few hours a week until the comfort and readiness grows.
Posted by: Stephen Collins | April 16, 2008 3:24 PM
Are these the same "real people" who spend an average of 4 hours a night watching TV? We make time for the things that interest us.
Boilerplate to head off the implicit "busy equals good":
"It is not enough to be busy. So are the ants. The question is: What are we busy about?" - Henry David Thoreau
Posted by: Adam | April 16, 2008 3:30 PM
ADAM: I don't watch TV fullstop. Never really have and if you are trying to draw a comparison to couch potatoes then you have it totally wrong. At least for me that is.
Utterly active during the day, swim, run, walk, cycle in the mornings. Afternoons I work, create, design.
Evenings I now spend researching. Hence the 3-5hrs (which is on average. Some days can be just an hour, some days maybe a more than 5. Just depends on whats going on, how much value I get from it.
It's not like im mindlessly attached via neural cable. My activity is planned and calculated and is VERY beneficial to what I do to keep a roof over my heads.
So it's very easy to just take wide swipe and say if you spend x amount of hours in front of your computer then you must be a TV freak. Just not true.
Posted by: Graham SMith | April 16, 2008 3:44 PM
Brilliant! This is why early adopters and general consumers are separated by a chasm.
Posted by: Alex Iskold | April 16, 2008 4:36 PM
Rick is absolutely right when he says (as others do) that the WHY is the most important component of this question. Working with museums, the WHY factor always comes back to mission--how any technology, from a comment book to a social network, can support institutional goals of public engagement.
But I created this scale for a different reason. Over the last year, I've seen many museums and other late-adopting institutions transform their outlook from, "We can't do this because it means we have to give up our authority," to "We can't do this because it takes too much time and money." So many of the successful projects in "Museum 2.0" have involved big grants and large institutions. I created the scale to demonstrate that there are ways that museums can get involved without dedicated web staff or full-time support.
For people who are not in a world that thrives on social media, what incentive is there to get in? When I show museum directors what people are saying about them on Yelp they are floored. They have no idea that their institutions exist as entities in the social web without input. They get excited about getting involved, to be part of the conversation, but have no idea what it will take (and assume the worst).
This is functionally just about demystifying the barriers that keep people away from Web 2.0, and more broadly, participatory content experiences. My hope is that by getting museum staff engaged in the outside conversation about their institutions, they will be more interested and empowered to do so within their walls as well.
Posted by: Nina Simon | April 16, 2008 4:56 PM
It's not that we don't have time for social media. We don't have much interest. It's pretty dull. And the people who you're most likely to meet online are people who spend way too much time there. Kinda creepy, if y'think about it...
I just can't imagine the masses giving up an hour of face-to-face conversation for an hour of Twitter. It's like giving up a Lexus for a Yugo. Not gonna happen!
Posted by: Marcello | April 16, 2008 5:01 PM
Great post, it's always a good reminder for people building website aimed at the non-tech crowd, that our users aren't like u.s
Posted by: Hassan Hodges | April 16, 2008 5:37 PM
This is why most "regular" people don't try to follow all the social services at once. I'm sure after years of research, someone will determine the kind of damage this is doing to us. But most people will make their home somewhere and just stay there. Be it Facebook or Digg or YouTube, if you stick to one service it's less demanding.
Right now we are probably not as important as we think we are, but the trends are there if you look to the younger generations. What is different, I think, is that they are more tied to the mobile experience.
Posted by: David Jacobs | April 16, 2008 5:44 PM
i also agree this new concept of social networking waste a lot of time of blogger and website developer
more and more they are focusing on these sites not in their website security and other things
because we have only 24 hours and if they waste more time there then there may be chances that they will copy and paste content from other websites.
Posted by: Ajay Pathak | April 16, 2008 5:50 PM
I am worried that I'm not utilizing my time properly and that I'm wasting too much time on the internet which is not proving to be fruitful honestly.
Orkut is the place where I spend most of my time. I am trying to get away from it by disabling updates, by not installing applications and going to the communities as few times as possible.
Posted by: Kishor | April 16, 2008 5:59 PM
The article and comments are very refreshing. Its nice hear people talking about how this stuff applies to real life.
I personally dont really use any 'social apps' other than your typical IM client. That doesnt mean I avoid them all together... Im just more interested in watchign the trends and figuring out how I can be the one making money from people wasting time ;)
Posted by: Jason | April 16, 2008 6:36 PM
When people attend Alcoholics Anonyomous, they supposedly are required stand up at EVERY meeting, even after attending for years, and admit:
"I am (name) and I am an alcoholic."
So it is with this new wave of social apps.
I am Ron K Jeffries. I spend more time than I can objectively justify using Twitter, plus FriendFeed, Ma.gnolia and some Facebook, plus a dash of LinkedIn.
My Gmail consumes a *lot* of time, as does skimming a few hundred feeds in Google Reader.
On the flip side, having cultivated a fair number of interesting people to follow on Twitter, I learn useful stuff there every day.
As someone once said, "You never know where you'll find a great idea."
My life is significantly enriched by the conversations I follow via Twiter.
I am not ashamed of my social networking addiction. I just need to figure out how it will also enrich my bank account.
Posted by: ron k jeffries | April 16, 2008 10:45 PM
Sarah, I think its true that there are social media sites galore and hence one cannot find time for all of them. So I think its better to stick to one or two of them and use it on a regular basis so that you can develop an authority and make more friends in that network.
Posted by: Abhijeet from Jeet Blog | April 16, 2008 10:50 PM
It's a question of relevance - to be social for the pure sake of interpersonal communications is less relevant as a person moves through late pubescence into full adulthood - it's simpler and more interesting to be active on MySpace as a high school student than it is as a parent with a job. If it's tied to a particular hobby however - like photography - the desire to interact with fellow photographers is usually more easily met on the internet than in the immediate community around one.
Social networking is only relevant if it augments or meets a need that isn't easily met off line.
Posted by: Iron Flatline | April 16, 2008 11:38 PM
As far as I am concerned, social media in general is a waste of time and time is something I have very little of.
I can imagine that participating in the various social websites online would have been something I would have done when studying at univeristy or when job hunting, but right now, my workload and commute takes up most of the day. On top of that I have a stack of books to get through before the end of the year and, as a gamer, plenty of games still in shrink wrap to open and play.
To be honest, I get paid by the hour to write software, and unless I am getting paid to contribute to social websites, I have little time for it.
Perhaps when I retire I will get around to participating. Until then I will leave it to those with more time/less to do.
Posted by: Johnny WashNGo | April 17, 2008 3:56 AM
I'm off the scale for hours spent on social media and thus not "normal" in any way (and proud of it).. but here's my opinion anyway.
Got me thinking. "How many hours do people spend on museum use?"
"Never" - (none) - we asked inside a museum
1-2 hours per week - Just came for the comic exhibition
3-10 hours per week - "It's my favorite lunch spot"
10+ hours per week - "It's my job"
"What a dumb question" - people there for the art
Measuring the time spent implies that the time needs to be managed. From that viewpoint, Social media expand my time. I can connect with more people, maintain more relationships, and get more done.
But I'm just here for the art.
Social media is now like breathing. I spend a lot of time, but using it make living possible.
Posted by: Warren Whitlock | April 17, 2008 6:34 AM
Personally I do not 'Social Network' much, partly because of time and partly I have no-one to socialise on-line with (ahaaa), however I do read many blogs, keeping abreast of developments.
I feel that social networking / web 2.0 will become more popular in business as the tools and benefits develop. A couple of classic examples are the web and email, when these first came out they were seen a toys to keep geeks happy - but look at them now. No organisation can be competitive without the ability to communicate quickly.
Over the years business will evolve to meet the expectations of both their customers and their employees. Today’s young twitterers are tomorrows employees, they will be used to twittering and using other such tools and will expect as much when they enter the workplace. In addition customers will expect to interact with a business in different ways. How many of you would book into a hotel if you cannot find a review of it on the web, or open an account with a bank that does not offer internet banking.
Some of us can see the benefits of Social Networking in the workplace; however the culture change to embrace this has not even started to stir!
Till then - a toast to the future!
Posted by: Paul J | April 17, 2008 6:53 AM
I remember when the concept of a blog first started. A co-worker of mine had one along with 2 other female friends. They posted about various life events(think Sex and the City without the sex or Mr. Big) and I read it and was bored out of my mind. I showed it to my wife and her reaction was why would someone want to broadcast their life like that?
We are at an interesting crossroads when it comes to "social media." There are generations behind us(I am 33) that think nothing of having their entire life's online. That level of transparency is still an alien concept to most people. What happens when these generations make up more of the majority of the population?
Oh and including writing this post, I spend about 2 hours a day with social media.
Posted by: Brian Nizinsky | April 17, 2008 9:06 AM
Strongly recommend this well written post "Instant Messaging for Introverts" for anyone who [ incorrectly ] sees no value in social media:
http://db.tidbits.com/article/9544
Author sincerely writes of a general disdain for Twitter, other social tools, nut admits its his personality type that is the root of the problem and not a question whether social tools provide any value.
Posted by: Todd | April 17, 2008 9:06 AM
I recently wrote about this on my blog: http://couplebits.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/the-adoption-issue/
The trend to improve and increase social interaction using technology has the unfortunate side effect of consuming all of our time for other activities. I call it the adoption issue, because most social sites (or "life-sites") take a while before your personal investment in them actually pays off. Because of this I believe the future of social software will be integration with our normal activities so we don't have to visit a website to manage our personal information or media, thereby alleviating us of at least one part of the adoption issue. In other words, I think the future of social software is transparent synchronization.
Posted by: Eric Ellenberg | April 17, 2008 9:43 AM
Here's a great... big... social media B-B-B-B-B-BOOYAH, Jimmy!
Oooooh, stuttering web 2.0 booyah; booooyaaah!
Posted by: My Life In a Cube | April 17, 2008 9:43 AM
I think this scale is sort of bogus. You're telling me that as people spend more time on the net, they just start developing more and more divergent hobbies with greater levels of involvement? I'm a web developer and an avid consumer of content. Just because I have more than 60 or 70 hours a week on the web doesn't mean I want to start podcasting. I think that people's level of involvement might be an aspect of personality or habit, rather than a function of available time...
--adam
Posted by: ajpiano | April 17, 2008 10:12 AM
Though its a great tool to interact with loads of people, at times it becomes boring. but now i use it to try and grow my webdesigning business (www.redesignyourbiz.com)
social websites are really a very very powerful tool. we only need to use it in the best possible way.
Posted by: Designer | April 17, 2008 10:21 AM
Yep you guessed it, expressing an active social media presence is an indicator of lameness.
Thanks for letting the cat out of the bag, buddy.
Now these folks are going to keep their mouths shut at parties.
Posted by: bj | April 17, 2008 10:38 AM
I think "unscientific" is an unnecessary descriptor whenever someone uses the word "Twitter poll." ;)
The 'Technographics' ladder Forrester Research came up with to segment social media activity is probably the best attempt I've seen yet. It takes into account the fact that a lot of mainstream people are passive observers or casual participants when it comes to some form of social media. If you're on the web these days, odds are good you either have a MySpace/Facebook account, mess around with YouTube/etc or read/comment on blogs (even if you don't realize it's a blog.) But obviously there are varying degrees of participation.
http://blogs.forrester.com/charleneli/2007/04/forresters_new_.html
Working in online advertising I have to be aware of the latest in social media and the only way to know about most of these platforms (and which are worth the marketing time/effort/$$$) is to be a participant. But real-world time pressures force my personal participation to be minimal. It's hard for some people (especially Twitterholics) to realize that you'll never be able to consume it all.
Posted by: RS | April 17, 2008 12:27 PM
Social media for news is great. News is updated quicker than tv and radio, but for socializing I'd rather do it in Real Life vs. in cyberspace.
Work, family and real-life friends make it almost impossible to spend time on social networks.
http://www.bestsnippets.com
Posted by: Benjamin | April 17, 2008 1:12 PM
Real people don't have time for articles about social media. Nope, didn't read it.
Posted by: Chloe | April 17, 2008 1:29 PM
Todd, the tidbits article is nigh close to why I subscribe to the "twitter is useless" and "facebook is pointless" crowd. Much thanks for posting it. However on another tack, the comments regarding the lack of time for social media is dead on. I don't have time in my day to twitter, facebook, blog, etc. so instead I use passive things like MOG which posts my playlist and lets me comment on my choice of music for the day. A large portion of the work is automated and leaves me free to make commentary if I so choose, however what I listen to tends to be pretty suggestive of my day and mood. Ultimately I see things like twitter coming into their own as a more versatile form of IM. I can see my company taking up twitter for meeting updates, executive notifications and cafeteria lunch specials all delivered to the outlet of your choosing. However, as my time is limited and my day is pretty routine, twitter and facebook will remain on the back burner for my choices of communication.
Posted by: TmTx | April 17, 2008 2:09 PM
My first thought when I saw the headline was kudos!! I admit I am no where near 17 years old, but I just don't spend much time socializing online at all.
I know social can mean a lot of things. And I do hit some good forums, blogs and sites like YouTube or Digg once in a while. But it is literally "once in a while". We participate as a business, but personally, I don't have any time or interest in Twitter, Myspace, etc. Why does anyone in CA want to send me a Tweet in AZ that they are heading to Taco Bell? Besides, they probably just did it from their car traveling 55mph in a 35 :-)
Posted by: Arnie | April 17, 2008 3:08 PM
Thanks, interesting post. Heres my thoughts on application of these tools in a business setting. I must have moved from particpant to content provider! :-)
http://www.lucindigo.com/2008/04/18/social-media-for-efficiency-and-productivity-in-business/
Posted by: Lucindigo | April 17, 2008 3:16 PM
I agree with the post on Web 3.0 that it's all about cutting down the noise. The killer app is yet to be invented, and maybe it's still too early. Once we get there, the answer to this question should be any waking moment. Not that you have to be paying attention to it or even engaging, but the media that is important and relevant should find us, no matter where we are or what we're doing per the preferences we set. It shouldn't be a time investment per se b/c it just happens.
Posted by: Max Gladwell | April 17, 2008 5:32 PM
I used to do a lot more than I do now. I guess I got tired of it, tired of the time commitment and all of the silly little apps and *superpokes* and little time-wasting pointless things.
I use Twitter and spend anywhere from 5 to 30mins there throughout the course of the day. I follow a couple of tumblelogs and I post on my own tumblelog about 2x a week.
I'm much preferring the "bite-sized" bits of information and microblogging as opposed to spending ours of some place like Facebook or MySpace.
Give me a quick tidbit about what my friends are up to and then if I'm interested or it relates to me, I'll read more or join in the conversation, but I want the info fast and I want it concise.
Posted by: Kelli | April 17, 2008 11:53 PM
It's "worse" than you think. In an "average" local community (I'm in the Chicago area) I've NEVER seen a gmail address other than mine (all sbcglobal.net, comcast.net or some aol.com). I coach youth teams and not all people check personal email even *once* per day. When I reschedule a practice via email I MUST ask people to respond back that they saw it -- and then follow-up with phone calls for the no-hear-froms. We have a team Web site, sure, but I can't assume anyone would visit it regularly or have any idea how to subscribe to an RSS feed of new posts. We're starting a Flickr feed into our site, I'm curious how that will be used. Certainly people do Google, MapQuest, and their kids do MySpace and Facebook, etc..but most of this social media stuff we all spend so much time on is a world away from the "real" real world....
Posted by: Rich Karpinski | April 18, 2008 7:13 AM
My job title is Social Media Strategist, so I live, eat and breathe social media both on the job and off. I've found Twitter to be a fantastic resource for finding out about important developments in my field well ahead of the curve. I also use it to keep in touch with several social groups.
The most important thing is the "social" part. One local blogger group I belong to is very active on Twitter, we have a Google Group and we do a lot of mass e-mails to each other. All of this leads to getting together in real life at least twice a month.
BlogHer is the same for me. I meet lots of fascinating people online and then I get to meet them in person (or vice versa).
What's been sacrificed? TV, definitely. I've definitely cut back on offline reading and, ahem, housework. But I think my life has been enriched by social media enough that I don't mind the shift.
Posted by: Average Jane | April 18, 2008 8:00 AM
A change in priorities is what leads me to devote more time to social media now than I did in the past. I've been a student for several years, and my priories involved simply completing the next essay, exam, or workday.
Now, I'm finishing my degree and I want to break into technical writing. Learning about tools, networking, seeking advice, and discovering job opportunities are my priorities. And I'm finding that social networking tools are not only valuable, but necessary, to someone who wants to be a professional communicator.
I think communicators are fortunate in that they can use the same tools to build both their personal lives and their professional lives.
Posted by: Jenny-Celeste | April 18, 2008 10:47 AM
There are so many ways one can get caught in the noise that one needs to be very careful. I would much rather spend time reading Paul Graham's (of Y-combinator fame)insightful essays (paulgraham.com/articles) than following knee jerk messages that may amount to no more than noise. That being said, as new apps are released that try to filter the noise in tweets and Friendfeed, I hope to see an higher signal/noise ratio.
Posted by: Rajesh Kadam | April 18, 2008 5:06 PM
as Ned the Atomic Dustbin said so many years ago: "kill your television"
Dinosaur media sucks. Who are we kidding.
Roll your own.
Chuck
chuck tv
http://chucktv.ning.com
Posted by: chuck | April 18, 2008 5:33 PM
I spend hours every day pouring over blogs, sites, twitter posts, etc. I often wonder if I am any better off than I was before!
I am more connected, and that to me is important. But it sure takes a huge bite out of my day.
Posted by: Linda George | April 19, 2008 11:29 AM
I do believe that web 3.0 is all about finding a good solution to this problem so that social media users could minimize the time they need or want to spend on each and every network and to combine the networks they are using. and actually there are already apps that knows how to do that so you can save time on tracking your social media, like 8hands, which is a pretty good solution for the issue you mentioned on your post.
Posted by: Daniel | April 21, 2008 2:16 AM
Well I anticipate the demise of social networking but reckon that people will want to retain some aspects of 'networking' in their lives using the technology we have.
Thats why I had the site built http://www.thesitetoremember.com which I hope will take off on the basis that it has no frills or extra's just a simple reliable service. It still relies on people 'inviting' their friends to join though.
Your thoughts are welcome.
Regards.
Posted by: Gavin Cairns | April 21, 2008 1:47 PM
I'm a Real People girl and a communications professional. It's my job to follow technology and "leverage" it for the institution. At present, there are very few social networking apps that I can sensibly apply to my work-life. My audience has a limited attention span.
Oddly, I do find social networking appealing. In my spare moements, I'm not wondering what my friends are up to. I don't really care. In the 10-minute chunks of downtime during the day I tend to read, send email to fam and frenz, maybe IM briefly with family, or -- read tech news!
In my view, until (unless) these social apps fold into the workaday world, they're primarily for people keen on collecting and cultivating electronic friendships.
The question reminds me of my experience with RSS. Two yeas ago I was convinced the universe would embrace this killer app. Alas, I still get blank stares when I refer to my "aggregator."
Posted by: Marti | April 23, 2008 9:12 AM
I'm a Real People girl and a communications professional. It's my job to follow technology and "leverage" it for the institution. At present, there are very few social networking apps that I can sensibly apply to my work-life. My audience has a limited attention span.
Oddly, I do NOT find social networking appealing. In my spare moements, I'm not wondering what my friends are up to. I don't really care. In the 10-minute chunks of downtime during the day I tend to read, send email to fam and frenz, maybe IM briefly with family, or -- read tech news!
In my view, until (unless) these social apps fold into the workaday world, they're primarily for people keen on collecting and cultivating electronic friendships.
The question reminds me of my experience with RSS. Two yeas ago I was convinced the universe would embrace this killer app. Alas, I still get blank stares when I refer to my "aggregator."
Posted by: Marti | April 23, 2008 9:13 AM
I started blogging exactly two years and one day ago, and I couldn't be happier. Of course, spending a lot of time on social media begs the question - what the hell do you do with the rest of your time. But as long as you're getting something out of it, I don't see anything wrong with a few hours a day/week on social media.
I plan to use it for my next job. Not sure what that'll look like, but I do plan to use it. And in the mean time, while you're using your 10-20 hours of social media, why not check my blog?
Posted by: Raul | April 24, 2008 12:05 PM
Social Media Networks would be great for our business but I can't really bring myself to spend so much time on Myspace and Facebook. They are so time consuming.
Posted by: nancy | April 24, 2008 12:38 PM
1 2 Next