Last night Jim Turner of BlogWorld made an off the cuff statement about having Oprah keynote this year’s BlogWorld that, as you can image, led to a very interesting conversation (be sure to check out both Twitter Searches). The debate ranges from Oprah isn’t a social media expert to Oprah could drive more social media use and increase BlogWorld sponsorships.Here are my thoughts on all of it… As social media purists-who believe that social media is actually changing marketing and business as we know it-is it fair to give celebrities (as businesses) a pass because they are famous? Would you give Steve Jobs or Richard Branson or any other business (large, medium or small) a pass? Let’s face facts, some celebs have way more time on their hands to Twitter (insert any other social media tool here) than the average CEO or VP of Marketing and yet the business folks are constantly scrutinized and beat up daily for their social media missteps.
Since I think I made my point well in the comment I left on Beth's blog, I htought I would just repost it here:
I think that what's interesting about this debate is that we once again seem to be defining social media by a set of tactics rather then outcomes. After all, she started her book clubs in 1996 and as posted on Wikipedia --
"In Reading with Oprah: The Book Club That Changed America, Kathleen Rooney describes Winfrey as "a serious American intellectual who pioneered the use of electronic media, specifically television and the Internet, to take reading—a decidedly non-technological and highly individual act—and highlight its social elements (emphasis mine) and uses in such a way to motivate millions of erstwhile non-readers to pick up books."
I would say she's been creating social media a lot longer then most of the SM experts we have today. It just wasn't called social media back then. But, what do you call getting people together, both physically & through the internet, to discuss a topic or series of topics.
And, in 2008, she did the live, weekly webcasts with Elkhart Tolle and millions of people to create a social network around his book and teachings. Wasn't that social media?
But now we'd suggest that because she's late to the Twitter game, she doesn't really know about SM. Well, that would be correct if SM was simply Twitter. But it's not. Again, from Wikipedia:
Social media has become extremely popular because it allows people to connect in the online world to form relationships for personal and business.
As I said, Oprah started her book clubs in 1996, using the internet as a key tool to help people form relationships around the books. That would mean she's been in the SM game for 13 years, right? Wouldn't that qualify her as at least knowledgeable about SM?
In terms of the recent jump into Twitter by celebrities, I would think the real question is whether or not they’re authentic accounts. I don’t mean just that they’re not hijacked accounts, but whether or not that person is actually posting the tweets. What happens to the value of this communication tool when it’s done by ghostwriters instead of the real person? Isn’t that a better question for us to be discussing?
In terms of BlogWorld, I would think that she's pretty well qualified to be a keynote speaker about the value of connecting people through new media.
Let’s not forget celebs are marketers too. | Harte Marketing & Communications.
Thank you for a great post David. As I have said on Beth's blog and on our own, I would add that Oprah is uniquely qualified to speak about social media from the perspective of one of the largest traditional media brands in the world.
Just about everyone who went into fits when her name was mentioned seems to be hung up on our recent entry to Twitter. They all seem to forget social media was alive and well years before Twitter was a twinkle in Jacks eye.
Posted by: Rick Calvert | April 26, 2009 at 01:16 PM