I’m wondering if it has ever been the case in human history whether something that has been invented fills virtually no needs, serves very few useful functions, and solved almost no significant problems while causing many? That seems to be the case with some (not all) social media. It is indeed a phenomenon in search of functions and purpose that is driven not by solving problems, but from the BUZZ it creates by itself.

I can’t think of anything in my lifetime that is similar.

The first step in the social media movement was to attract people to use it, primarily by convincing them it was fun and cool. This, of course is still ongoing but the year 2009 seems to have been a major turning point for most social media platforms. Fuelled by the buzz of celebrity endorsements (Oprah, Kutchner, et al) millions of people started getting the impression that they really “should” try out Twitter, Facebook, and the other platforms, or somehow they would be left out. You couldn’t have planned a strategy more effectively if you tried. Build it and they will come, and by golly, they did in the millions, or at least it seemed so.

Actually, they “kind of came” as millions signed on, and some lesser millions signed up and gave up on it, finding it had very little potential to positively impact their non-virtual lives. In any event there are millions on these platforms, and even if only one in fifty people actually use the platforms it’s a lot of people, playing on social media.

So, now what? The next step started when companies realized that they needed to be where all the people are, kind of like a virtual version of location, location, location, so it’s possible that most major companies will have a social media presence. Do these companies actually know what social media can be used for in the business sense? Uh, no. Well, why not?

Because social media platforms offer almost no advantages to other forms of business interaction compared to other methods. The only reason businesses are getting on board is that there appears to be people there. Except there is not always a there, there. All those people aren’t really “there” in the sense that they can be easily reached by business.

Twitter is a great example of this and this applies not just for business, but for other kinds of interactions. Let’s take the example of a person who has worked at collecting 5,000 followers. Now let’s say that person asks a question to which a number of people could respond back via a tweet. How many responses do you think they receive? Not many responses. Of the 5000 followers, many won’t even see the original question. Of those that see the question, only a small fraction will have an interest in the question. Of those, the majority won’t bother replying. And finally, in the end the result may be one or two responses. The people who are there aren’t there.

Even the major impetus for being involved in social media is a bit of an illusion.

It brings us back to the point. Now companies are trying to use rather inferior social media tools and trying to find problems for which social media is well suited. It’s not sustainable, and it’s a major and sad indicator of how something that has no defined purpose at the start has to search to find utility.

It’s not quite the pet rock thing, but it is similar. Nobody thought the pet rock had practical value. For some it was cool. Then of course the novelty wore off, and it disappeared. It did show how marketing and creating buzz could create a vacuous and false need for something that had no associated need.

Don’t get me wrong. I think that in the people will find ways to use social media for good purposes, but the range will be limited. Some shoehorning will happen to make social media somewhat useful, but it’s never, at least in its present form, going to fulfil the hope and hype associated with it.

It is indeed a collection of tools looking for a reason beyond “cool” to exist.

It remains to be seen whether society will change to create needs that match up with social media, but maybe we should be looking carefully at whether this is a good thing or bad thing.

It remains to be seen whether rapid change will allow useful capabilities for social media that actually can make non-virtual life easier, more profitable or functional beyond cool.

Is this the essence of a marketing society gone nuts? Maybe.

One thing is sure. It’s a hell of a ride and we are only at the beginning.