Nine (Bad) Predictions for Social Media

I recently read Scott Klososky's Manager's Guide to Social Media. I've read a few other books on the topic of social media and will likely be reading a few more on the same topic this year, as it's an emerging area in which it's difficult to sift through the hype to find the genuine value.

To that point, the author made a number of predictions for social media - things he expects to materialize in the next few years - some of which seem reasonable, others over-enthusiastic. I figured it was worth keeping the list, and I'll check back in a few years to see how it matches up,

Prediction 1: Tools will become standardized

SK points out that there are multiple tools for various tasks - blogging platforms, IM clients, media sharing sites, etc. - and that convergence is inevitable. Users dislike having several different tools to perform different tasks, and having to join several sites to access different peoples' content is a nuisance the market won't long tolerate.

I disagree. While the rationale is good, the same has not happened for older technologies. There are still three or four "major" Web browsers that people use, and the situation is similar with search engines, e-mail clients, and other Internet tools.

I expect social tools to follow the same pattern: there will be a small number of leading brands, and variety and the pace of change will slow, but I don't expect there to be a single standard.

Prediction 2: There will be a central database of people

Another problem SK sees is that users have to create a separate profile for each social tool that they use. So in the future, a person will have a single source that stores all their personal information and multiple other sites leverage this same profile.

I disagree. Aside of the problems of standardization, my sense is that users do not want this at all. While it would be more convenient, it's also contrary to the desire to present information that is relevant to a given forum: the information a person presents about himself on Facebook is different to the information he provides on LinkedIn - details such as age, gender, ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, or other fields that, which appropriate to a social profile, would be entirely inappropriate for business contacts (especially potential employers) to be informed of.

With that in mind, I predict that there will be separate profiles for each site, though I do notice that Facebook is becoming a central profile that nice sites will leverage, my sense is people will wish to disclose different information depending on the "crowd" they wish to interact with using a given tool.

Prediction 3: A centralized directory will emerge

The author also mentions the difficulty in finding people online. The entire point of social media is to connect with others, and it's difficult to do so if a person who wants to connect must sift through the various social media sites to find out which one their desired connection utilizes.

I'm inclined to disagree, but I am not entirely clear on what the author is envisioning. It seems to me he envisions a centralized white pages, where you can enter a name and perhaps a few more details to get a list of all their social media presences.

If this is his suggestion, then I certainly disagree. There are already a number of small players who are attempting to become the white pages of the Internet by aggregating profiles from various sites. The problem is that they are inaccurate and, in order to be accurate, the individual would need to establish an account to verify the details. This has not met with much success, though it's likely because what I have seen are fee-based services beyond a basic search.

On the other hand, sites such as Google do a fairly job of doing so already: search for a person's name and you will find links to the various social media sites they use. If a person has a common name, you can enter a detail such as the firm they work for or the town they live in to narrow the search fairly well. As such, I don't see a need for a centralized directory, and doubt there's much market for one, though it may be likely that a highly popular site such as Facebook will provide this sort of functionality (arguably, it does so already).

Prediction 4: There will be a resurgence of virtual worlds

The author maintains that as bandwidth and 3D rendering increases, we will see the re-emergence of immersive virtual worlds, similar to Second Life, in which people can interact with avatars of one another in simulated physical environments.

Not only do I disagree, but I the notion laughable. The excuse of bandwidth and rendering engines may have been true in the days of modem connections, but the problem of Second Life wasn't the technology, which was really quite good, but that a "virtual world" is awkward to navigate and interact with. It was, and will likely continue to be, a bad user experience no matter how smooth the animation or detailed the textures.

I can see niche applications for virtual worlds or 3D modeling, but I do not expect they will overtake text-based communication in social media.

Prediction 5: Businesses will leverage crowdsourcing

SK predicts that as more and more people become connected, there will be greater opportunities for businesses to outsource tasks to large groups at minimal costs, ad that more work that is presently handled by full-time employees will be handled by people who wish to sell a few hours of their time here and there.

I disagree. The infrastructure for crowdsourcing has been around for years, and the vast majority of people who have the credentials to serve as knowledge-workers are already online. But I don't see that the business world has learned to adapt to this method of working, and have even greater doubts about employers' willingness to offer adequate compensation to gain the services of large numbers of qualified professionals (the entire draw to crowdsourcing is to get people to a lot of work done for virtually no cost).

As with virtual worlds, I see this as a niche interest that can be applied to a small number of efforts, and I don't predict that this will change in the next couple of years.

Prediction 6: A people rating system will emerge

The author rightly points out that trust is a major issue online: we do not know if the people with whom we are interacting online are who they claim to be - from the middle-aged pervert posing as a teenaged girl on dating sites to the fictitious personas used to apply for credit cards. The author foresees a person rating, similar to a credit rating, that certifies a person's identity and credentials.

I agree that there is a need for this, but disagree that there will be a centralized service or rating agency. For the most part, a person's "real" identity is unimportant when interacting with strangers online in a social manner. Where it is important, the tell-tale signs of an impostor are fairly easy to spot (a new account with scant information and few friends or connections). Where it is critical, there are other methods for validating a person's identity that businesses presently use before they will extend credit to a person online.

In all, it would require a major effort and widespread participation to address a problem that doesn't surface very often, and for which there are currently reliable solutions.

Prediction 7: There will be more open access to social content

SK points out that there is a lot of information bottled up on social media sites, and significant desire to be able to sort through it all. While search engines allow us to retrieve some information, much of what is posted remains locked away, and the author predicts this will change in the next few years.

I disagree. While the notion of transparency is much touted by those who want to be able to gain access to information about others, it is also very much resisted by those who wish to be more selective in determining who gets to see the information they post.

The trend among social sites seems to be to allow greater blocking/filtering rather than less, and I don't expect this will reverse itself in the next couple of years. All it takes is one sensational media story about how someone was victimized by a person or exploited by a corporation to batten down the hatches tight.

Prediction 8: Game skills will be valuable to business

The author points out that there are a lot of people among the younger generation who have considerable experience at playing video games, and that the business world will soon discover a way to put these game skills to work in a professional capacity.

This is another prediction I find laughable: it's likely been a dream of many kids that their high score at Mario Brothers entitles them to a six-figure income in real life, but it's never been so, and it's highly doubtful the corporate world will risk its reputation on the "skills" of gamers.

Primarily, gaming involves solving a puzzle that is designed to be solved - that is, a game is by its very nature rigged so that success is relatively easy to achieve. While it takes considerable expertise to design a puzzle, solving a puzzle requires only observation, trial, and error within the safe environment where reactions are predictable, completely unlike the real world where parameters are unpredictable and unknown.

The consequences of video gaming are likely more sinister for the business world: employees will expect major rewards for little effort, prefer repetitive tasks, shun risk and uncertainly, and have little genuine creativity. As customers, they will be able to examine business processes and procedures to find shortcuts and loopholes that benefit themselves at the cost of others.

The notion of "gaming" a business already has a negative implication, the only positive implication of which is that being cheated by one gamer teaches a firm how to avoid being taken advantage of by others that would make the same moves - which means that customers, employees, and others with whom the firm interacts can (continue to) expect to be treated as if they are dishonest by default.

Prediction 9: More people will be involved in paid promotion

The major reason marketers are attracted to social media is that third-party testimonials are more credible to prospects than claims from the advertising department. With this in mind, the author predicts that businesses will seek ways to pay people directly for mentioning their products and generating positive buzz, and there will soon be "an explosion" of pay-per-mention programs.

I disagree. People are innately aware of something that many firms seem to have forgotten: that integrity matters. We value word-of-mouth more than paid advertising because it is genuine: a person tells others they got a great deal or a great product because they genuinely feel that way, not because they have been bribed to do so.

There have already been a few incidents in which an influential blogger or popular online personality has lost credibility, even been anathematized, when it was discovered that they received compensation for promoting a product. Seeing people who had spent years building credibility have their reputation ruined for a free t-shirt or a ten-dollar discount makes it less likely that others will make the same mistake.

As such, I expect a few firms may try this, but doubt that many reputable people will be interested - or if they are, the consequences to social media may be even worse: if it becomes an environment where you can't trust what other people say because you suspect they are being paid to say it, word-of-mouth online will lose its credibility as well.