Social Media Gatekeeping (Or, Why I Won't Be Invited to San Francisco Anytime Soon)

Brace yourselves, folks: I'm about to depict, with an awkwardly high amount of geekery, exactly why there's a glass fence around the "social media" hierarchy, and why it's so tough to scale it.

In a nutshell, Eric Rice and I stumbled into a conversation last night on Twitter. The subject? Eric was musing about the seeming hypocrisy of every 'must-attend' social media event, in which people who aren't making any money in the medium still feel obliged to fly to an event to be part of some fictitious scene.

At one point, I mentioned that, since the web is built upon the democratized promise that physical location no longer matters, I shouldn't feel hamstrung by living in Pittsburgh as opposed to NYC / LA / SF. However, it's undeniable that "the action" still takes place in the major media centers -- which, if that's the case, essentially means that the liberating power of the web is a lie.

Meanwhile, Eric was Twittering with several other conversants, including Robert Scoble. Roundly recognized as an "A"-List blogger (a title he even affords himself on occasion), he and Rice are in roughly the same media sphere; I'm at least 2 to 3 layers out from there. Thus, they'll twitter back and forth freely, while I'm rarely involved in that echelon of discussion.

Scoble mentioned that he couldn't conduct his work anywhere else than San Francisco, because there aren't that many tech CEOs anywhere else. He also referred to the much-maligned "flyover states" quite genially, although he admitted there weren't many geeks in them; at least, not compared to SF.

However, when it came to Eric's point about "regional isolation" affecting social media, Scoble wasn't buying it:

@spin: you're full of it tonight. If someone wants to get "unisolated" just put "@scobleizer" in your Twitter message.

Hmm. So that's it? All these discussions I've had about the path to web success and here it was all along. (Who knew?)

It was equally interesting to see the following exchange betwixt them, first from Rice:

@scobleizer btw, none of this has anything to do with me, I'm raising hell on behalf of those with unheard voices. So we're clear on that

And Scoble's response:

@spin: I find it interesting that you are raising hell on behalf of people who REFUSE to join the conversation. Why won't they?

Hmm.

Not sure who's REFUSING to join the conversation here. In fact, I'd wager more that Scoble (and the other powers-that-be) see so much of the social media seascape, it's just hard for them to notice any ripples that aren't emanating from their own buoys.

Or, as I said in slightly less apologetic language:

*shrug* Being asked to "join the conversation" presumes there's a gatekeeper. Thanks, Emperor, but I have my own clothes.

Later, while surfing to Chris Brogan's blog, I saw his most recent post. It's a link to a video about Glenda Hyatt-Watson, known as the "left-thumb blogger" because... well, just watch the video. It's an inspiring story all its own -- and exactly why I felt the need to re-tweet it.

Which I did, thusly:

I'm sure this was widely twittered 12 hours ago, but @chrisbrogan 's post about @GlendaWH is truly mindblowing: http://tinyurl.com/225lyz

This post went out, like all others, into my twitstream, and I went back to work.

Moments later, Robert Scoble twittered the following:

@chrisbrogan's latest video rocks. http://tinyurl.com/225lyz

Anyone notice anything amusing in that tweet?

The TinyURL link is mine, created moments earlier, and copied and pasted by Scoble into his own post. Which, innocently enough, looks like he decided to post it out of the goodness of his own heart.

Which, to be honest, he may have.

And Lord knows I'm not due any back-patting for pointing Chris's post out. Odds are, Scoble would have discovered it anyway, sooner or later.

I just find it ironic that, after earlier wondering aloud about the poor, innocent people Eric Rice was coming to bat for -- those who "REFUSED" to join the conversation -- Scoble would have a golden opportunity to credit the messenger in this particular case, and instead choose to clip out the TinyURL and send it off as his own missive.

Full disclosure: I've blogged previously about the pitfalls of social media, including the lunacy of "fishbowl"-driven buzzwords involving use of the term "Scoble___," as in, "Scobleized." It's quite possible that such discussions have raised the hackles of the powers-that-be.

I also have a feeling Scoble's tweet probably brought 100x the attention to Chris's post as my tweet did, since Scoble's followed by far more people on Twitter than I am -- so, in the end, the message was served, and that's the important part.

(And no, I'm actually not upset about it; just highly entertained. Irony is its own best raison d'etre.

I'm also not delusional enough to believe I require credit in this situation. I didn't make the video, I'm not the subject of the video, and I'm not Chris Brogan.

I'm just a guy, smirking away, isolated in a flyover state.)

The Trouble with "Free"

People can only expect "free" content for so long before nobody wishes to create anything due to lack of incentive.

"Jason," Gosford, Australia -- commenter on an Andrew Keen article

How many blogs do you read? How many podcasts do you listen to / watch?

Would you consume the same amount of web content if it WASN'T free?

Most of the web world is betting "no," which is why so much remains free. But for the people who ARE producing work that, under traditional circumstances (and in traditional media) WOULD be considered "market-worthy," the question remains: how do we monetize?

We created the internet under the guise that all content should be free. Then we bemoan the fact that, since we CAN create market-worthy work there, we SHOULD be paid for it.

But how?

People expect ads on TV and radio because they were ALWAYS there, to ensure the media was delivered for free. Conversely, they expect NO ADS in films because they already paid at the door. (So, when theaters started showing ads, audiences were right to complain.)

People expect everything on the internet to be free, OR TO BE A GATEWAY to something ELSE that costs money.

So how do we, who are creating free content (blogs, audio, video, animation, photos, communities, ideas, experiences) get PAID for what we're doing?

The John C Havens / Eric Rice Method: "Charge SOMETHING"

On a recent interview with About.com's John C Havens, he and I debated the merits of EVERYONE charging SOMETHING, so the world would come to understand that the internet was a viable delivery mechanism.

Meanwhile, Eric Rice also recently blogged about the potential for iTunes to at least enable podcasters who use the service to charge SOMETHING for their work, to retrain the audience into not expecting everything for free.

John and Eric are proponents of the concept; I'm more skeptical (for the reasons listed above), though I do see the need to move away from the "all-you-can-eat-for-free" buffet -- for exactly the reason quoted atop this post.

The Andrew Baron / Chris Brogan / Vergel Evans Method: "Charge for SOMETHING ELSE"

Andrew, Chris and Vergel have recently expressed variations on the same theme: "Give away the content as a gateway to SOMETHING ELSE you monetize." Vergel's podcast is all about electronic music creation -- and then he sells mp3s of his songs.

Chris and Andrew champion the concept of giving away videos for free to get people to buy the DVDs, or subscribe to a site to see extra features / content that's unavailable to the (free) masses.

While I CAN agree with this model, it's flawed in one central way: why would I expend dozens of hours and x amount of $ to create something I'm already passionate about, JUST TO HAVE TO CREATE SOMETHING ELSE I CAN CHARGE FOR?

What IS the Internet?

I think what it all comes down to is: how do WE (the creators) SEE new media?

And, how do WE (the consumers) INTERPRET new media?

And, most importantly: How does EVERYONE SEE the internet?

Is it a delivery mechanism unto itself? A marketing and advertising gateway to someplace else? Or a bastion of all things that shall forever remain free?

(And where does what YOU'RE contributing fall along those lines?)