There always seems to be a topic of discussion that is prominent for a couple of days. Lately it has been social media and more specifically the definition of it. Several discussions with clients and co-workers, quite a few blog entries and even a recommendation by the Finnish consumer agency on what kind of viral marketing is suitable, have all touched the subject.

I did already kill off social media in a previous post but having to discuss the topic has brought me back to it. I am not changing my view that social media is going down. It seems I need to deal with the issue daily, so a definition might come handy.

All the definitions I have seen, seem to be quite long winded. They go on and on about the tools currently available or activities that people can perform with these tools. The impacts of social media are also widely discussed, but I still feel that something is missing.

In all simplicity, my definition is this:

Social media = A medium where downstream and upstream are equal.

I would love to hear if anyone has any other thoughts on the subject.

I really like John Maeda’s ideas on simplicity. Especially his post titled more = survival got me thinking more about the whole concept of simplicity. We can only start to simplify when we have become full.

Looking at all the analog objects we have around the apartment, I noticed one very significant thing. All analog, non technical, objects are simple and they are used in a simple way. A book, a chair, a lamp, all very simple. Most of them have only one function but it is performed exceptionally well.

In contrast, digital things are very complex. Laptops, mobile phones and even the iPod are very complex when compared to analog objects. And from software to hardware, every new product release brings with it a lot more complexity.

The current trend of more complexity will not survive in a digitalized world.

When more and more people are in constant contact with digital objects, there is less time and desire for learning. Currently people only have a limited number of digital objects, so they still have time to learn to use them. Imagine if learning to use a chair took the same time and effort it currently takes to learn to use a computer. Impossible. The simple things will win.

More and more users also means a bigger variety in users. Young, old, experienced, inexperienced. The objects that will appeal to the largest audience are bound to be the ones that are simpler.

Using digital objects is currently very intense, time and concentration wise. On the contrary most analog objects require very little. Opening a door, turning on the light, putting a book in the bookshelf are very effortless. Ubiquitous digital objects will also need to have the same effortlessness. Simplicity wins.

The complexity of a user interface is also a big issue when interacting with most object. For one, the amount of buttons that can be put on an object is very much restricted by the size and shape of the object. Less buttons means less complexity, both interface and usage wise.

User. Even the word we use implies that digital things must be used. Analog things are not used. A person reading a book is not referred to as a user of books. A person walking is not referred to as a user of the sidewalk.

When digital gets simpler we will have to find new words that describe the things we do. Simple things.

An afterthought: The building blocks of digital are very simple: only ones and zeroes. On the other hand, the building blocks of analog are very diverse. Basically, you can take any material out there and build anything from it. Yet, the outcome is just the opposite: digital = complex, analog = simple. Why is that?