Has “Social Sharing” Become the “Nom du Jour”?

I first came across the phrase “social sharing” during Jonathan Rosenberg’s Skype keynote presentation last Monday at eComm America 2010. But over the past weekend I have encountered two more instances where “social sharing” was the theme of a post or news item. So I have to ask: Where does “social networking” end and “social sharing” begin?

Jonathan started his presentation with the perspective that current “social networking” messages really are a one-to-many broadcast to your followers or friends with little opportunity for continuing an interaction beyond the initial message. Yes, we occasionally see responses to someone’s tweet but it never brings in any emotional element; messaging via social networking tools lacks the cohesiveness and continuity of an ongoing interactive conversation.

Jonathan then went on to talk about the three “i’s” that bring emotion and interactivity into social conversation – involvement, investment and interactivity – and gave examples of each using real time communications. But the bottom line for defining social sharing was:

about turning a “me” experience into a “we” experience by escalating an asynchronous conversation (an initiating email or chat message) into a synchronous experience that can involve [real time] voice, chat, video and desktop sharing. And it involves bringing emotional and interactive elements into social sharing activities.

But then I learn from yesterday’s New York Times, in an article entitled
Modernizing the ‘Kodak Moment’ as Social Sharing, that Kodak is looking to reactivate its long time “Kodak Moment” phrase, “seeking to redefine the phrase for a new generation of picture-takers”. According to the New York Times reporter:

The goal of the new meaning is to suggest that Kodak moments generate warm and fuzzy feelings only when photos, images and video clips are made available through social media, e-mail messages and other forms of sharing technology to parents, grandparents, friends, co-workers and even, these days, strangers.

The article goes on to quote a Kodak spokesperson as saying: “Kodak wants to present its digital cameras, digital picture frames and video cameras as ‘emotional technology’”. It’s a start at social sharing, has an emotional element for those relatives and friends who appreciate the content of the picture or video, but lacks the interactivity of a real time conversation, whether a voice call or the “grandparents” Skype video call. A bit of a stretch on Kodak’s part, I think. [Full disclosure: my first camera was a K0dak Brownie.]

Shortly after reading the NYT article I received a tweet pointing me to a post by former Skype employee and blogger, Jaanus Kase. Since leaving Skype, Jaanus has completed a Carnegie-Mellon degree in Human Computer Interaction and is experimenting with a Twitter application called Creme.

Following his discussion of Creme which obviously plays in the social networking space, he adds a “sidenote” on Skype and calls into question Skype’s role in social sharing:

Skype has been absent from all these social discussions; in my view, they are thus far a write-off in the identity and social/sharing space. They have been hiring a lot of senior people and presenting at conferences and other events; I was glad to see them on stage at iPhone OS 4 presentation. This has not yet translated to anything that social agent activists would care about.

But then he goes on to talk about how Skype has become and can become a “family agent”:

…. Skype has been a lifesaver with my loved ones, and in all these social discussions, there’s a space missed: the “family agent.” To me, Skype being a great friends and family agent with products like desktop, SkypeToGo and great int’l calling plans is far more important than its being a social agent that all the techcrunches and other blah sites talk about daily.

And he ends his discussion seeing a role for Skype on TV as either a “family agent” or “social agent”:

The TV thing, or Skype being on your TV’s and other non-computer devices (iPhone OS), is important. This is absolutely the direction computing is going. Skype is in a good position for being a great cloud app for these devices, as it maintains your contact list, profile and such important details. I don’t know what this means in the long run, and what relation the “family agent” and “social agent” will have on these devices, but I’m glad to see them investing in this.

At his presentation, Jonathan Rosenberg hinted briefly that Skype would be coming out with web-based services that can support social sharing. In six to nine months’ time maybe we’ll have a more pragmatic handle on what “social sharing” really means in terms of the emotions generated and the degree of interaction attained in practice.

• Is it turning a “me” experience into a “we” experience?
• Is it simply an emotion inducing “Kodak moment” or does it require more interactivity?
• Is it an extension of the concept of a “family agent” to our friends and followers on our social networks?
• Or is it simply another “nom du jour” catch phrase?

In the meantime social sharing remains an academic concept whose real value-add needs to be proven through real world experience incorporating real time communications .

Now to send out a Twitter broadcast announcing this post…..