Somewhere along the line, I’ve morphed from Riggs into Murtaugh.

It’s not that I didn’t want to go to Twestival tonight. I even had a ticket and had every intention of going. But it clashed with podcast recording night, and we were running a bit late, and the studios were across the other side of London, and I had lots to do and didn’t want to be tired at work, and home is back the other side of town, and so on and so on. And so the sensible, but boring, decision was taken to head home rather than party into the night.

(And in many respects I’m rather gutted I didn’t make it. The Twestival team have done a fantastic job from turning it into a small one-off in a bar near Trafalgar Square into a global phenomenon. I’m always slightly humbled whenever I see what they’ve achieved).

Gone are the days where I’d run across London, make three social media parties in a night, and still come in bright and cheerful the next morning.

But it’s also interesting as I don’t think I’m the only one. When it comes to partying or cracking on and doing something, the latter is often the default setting.

Perhaps its because social media has been around for long enough that it’s no longer new, it’s not a phenomenon, any people have stopped going “Ooh, isn’t this cool,” and moved towards “Right, how can we use this better.” Or, put more crudely, “How can I make money from this?” [1]

It’s not that in social media that people have now met all the useful people. But we’ve got a better idea of who we need to contact and how to get hold of them. And while partying was, you know, fun, websites don’t just built themselves, and Twitter doesn’t update itself, and money doesn’t just magically appear in your bank account, and willyalookatthateverybodysdoingsocialmediathesedaysholyshitwebetterupourgame.

And the thing is, we generally get it now. Not all of it. That implies there’s no more to get. But now social media is more commonplace and even if not everybody in any given is immersed in social media, they know it’s important and they’re prepared to create new jobs for people to show them how to do social media and these people have stopped going “Well, there’s a lot to learn<’ and instead are saying “It’s not that hard. Look, I’ll show you. And, actually, we can do something VERY cool with this.”

So, yes, doing things. That’s what we’re largely doing now. Burying ourselves in work – and this isn’t necessary dull, because a lot of it is putting the VERY cool things into practice rather than just talking about them. There’s less of a need to jump around and drink lots and generally tell people how cool the projects are you’re doing. We know. We’re probably working on something similar.

But that doesn’t mean we can’t party from time to time, right? And every last person at Twestival well deserves every drop of beer drunk tonight because they’re all contributing to something amazing and making a huge difference to people’s lives in places where debates over Foursquare are, frankly, insignificant. And this wouldn’t have been possible without social media.

And tomorrow we’ll get our heads down to working again, either with hangovers or tinges of regret about not being able to make it. And we’ll enjoy it.

I’m getting old. I’m also working hard with VERY cool things. And while I’m careering slowly towards not being able to name the majority of artists in the Top 40, I’m still loving every minute of it. Social media isn’t the future any more, it’s part of the future, and I’m bloody glad I’m part of that part.

PS The podcast tonight was so much fun, I’d happily have missed most things to record it. It’ll be up at the usual places tomorrow and should be sounding fantastic.

[1] Not that I necessary subscribe to the latter viewpoint. It may surprise people, but I make precisely zero from the podcast. It’s currently done solely for the love of podcasting and football.

What to make it of, though. Mark Cahill says it’s the moment that social media has finally reached the mainstream, calling it a “Facebook killer of epic proportions”.

On the other hand, Jon Silk poses a few reasons as to why Buzz might not be all that. His point that not everybody uses Gmail is especially valid. If you’ve already got one email you’re happy with, why move to Gmail? There’s less of a reason to do that than to sign up to Twitter and especially Facebook.

For me, as it always tends to do, Buzz falls somewhere inbetween. On first impressions, yes, it does seem to be similar to Twitter and you wonder why on earth you’d need it. But building it into email is a smart move – you can’t avoid it and if you know the majority of people on there, then that’s another good reason to use it.

It also seems to sit somewhere between Facebook and Twitter and has excellent sharing functionality, plus the mobile aspect seems good as well (and this is one area where it can really steal a march on the other social networks, should it want to).

But yet it still doesn’t seem essential or compelling, in the way that Twitter and Facebook are when you first sign up. And there are little niggles as well. I’m not keen on having responses land directly into my inbox (you can set up a filter for this, but how many people can be bothered). And if your Gmail contacts are, like mine, a complete mess and full of everyone who has ever spammed you, then that’s also a negative.

At the end of the day, despite the breathless hype and analysis, probably a greater indication of how important Buzz is in social media will be how often we’re all using it six months down the line. If there’s demonstrative growth and users find themselves returning every day, then Buzz is worth watching.

In a way, Google products now have it harder than, say, Twitter or Facebook had. The latter two were allowed time to grow organically. Google launches come with an air of expectation, both in terms of the product and in terms of immediate success. If it’s not done what’s expected of it in a month, then it’s written off.

Which brings me nicely to Google Wave, that collaborative tool that was launched into Beta to a huge amount of fanfare last year and is no the subject of an endless trickle of snarky asides from social media land.

If you listen to Twitter, the consensus is that Wave is a damp squid that’s died a death. I’m not so sure, and there’s a reason for this. That reason is my dad.

A quick explanation: my dad is not somebody who immerses himself in social media. He does not, to the best of my knowledge, blog, Facebook or Twitter, although he’s probably used social review sites without realising they’re social. He also edits a Devon folk magazine and another country-wide folk newsletter.

He has a loose team of contributors and edits both in his spare time, often chasing down copy, pictures and listings. Most of this is done via email, as are any discussions around it.

When, on a visit home for Christmas, I showed him Wave, he was excited. He immediately got it and got what he could use it for. To him, it wasn’t social media. It was a tool to make his working life infinitely easier, and immediately asked for a Wave invite.

And that’s where I think the value is in Wave. There’s been a number of times recently I’ve been involved in long emails chains or collaborations where Wave would have made a difference, but nobody’s been prepared to move it into Wave because they perceive it to be a waste of time that nobody uses.

Well, with Wave, you don’t have to have everybody using it and being visible to the world. The small groups who are busy sharing and collaborating on projects are probably finding it more useful than the social media evangelists.

To me, part of them problem with Wave was the amount of fanfare and hype that accompanied it, followed by the confusion, didn’t help its cause. And because it was social, but not quite what was expected and wasn’t somewhere that you could easily hang out, like Twitter or Facebook, it was deemed not worthy. Yet I still think it’s value as a business tool, not as a social media tool, has yet to be realised.

I still believe in Wave. Providing it doesn’t completely die, there’s a good chance it could see a revival when people start realisting how useful it can be for their working (not social) world. Out of Buzz and Wave, I still feel Wave has better long-term potential, despite it gaining less brownie points.

I may be wrong. I so often am. But it’ll be interesting to see is Buzz can hold the collective interest. Either way, it’s certainly less innovative and useful than Wave.

UPDATE:

If you want a good example of why Buzz hasn’t perhaps thought through all privacy explanations, then this is a very serious and sobering reason as to why opening up to your inbox contacts, and others, without asking is not a good idea.

Also, I can imagine journalists and sources may not be best pleased. And if your Gmail contacts are anything like mine (ie chaotic) then there may be a few people in there who you’d rather not share things with. I still think Buzz is (just about) a good idea, but privacy’s taken a back seat on this one, which is worrying.

This is a rather roundabout way of saying make an effort to seek it out and watch it if it’s passed you by as well. It’s an excellent and illuminating exploration of how the internet has changed our world. It’s especially good if you’re new to social media and want an overview that doesn’t assume knowledge or patronise. Absolutely fascinating and probably one of the few non-sport related programmes I’ll be making an effort to watch.

I also suspect some of the themes in the second programme are ones I’ll touch on when I finally get around to writing my Peru / social media post.

(Yes, I know it’s generated a lot of buzz online. I’ve missed it, ok. I’ve been busy with other things, and when that happens, TV tends to take a back seat)

What’s really impressive is the twofootedtackle podcast’s co-nominees. EPL Talk and World Soccer Daily are pretty good, but Football Ramble and especially the Guardian’s Football Weekly are the dons of the football podcasting world. I suspect anybody starting a footballing podcast has Football Weekly in their mind when they do so.

Essentially, Chris and I are two people who host a podcast in our spare time. Said pod is less than a year old and has a relatively modest number of regular listeners. To even be in the same company as those on the list is a real delight and one I think Chris and I are still a tad surprised by.

I know we’ve not won (and I don’t in a million years expect us to do so), but I’d like to say a few words of thanks to a few people as just getting to the list is an achievement. First off, to Chris for being a great co-host and always coming up with fresh ideas, to Porter Novelli for letting us borrow their studio each week, and, most importantly, to every single one of our guests on the podcast.

Seriously, it would be nothing without the variety of opinions we get from you all, and it’s genuinely enjoyable to head into the studio each week not knowing where we’ll be heading on our footballing chat journey.

At this stage you’re probably expecting me to jump up and down and implore you all to vote for us, but I find that all a bit embarrassing (and a tad egocentric. And frankly, I don’t need any extra help to sound like a tosser at the best of times).

What I will say, though, is if you listen to the show and really like it, then please do press the button next to our name. But only if you genuinely think we should win. The rest of the list is populated by great podcasts, so I seriously won’t be offended if you think they’re better (as they probably are).

Voting form is here.

Once all the acts had performed, it was obvious that Diversity were trending stronger than any other act over Twitter. “If,” I thought, “Twitter is anything to go by, Diversity will win.”

Interestingly, Julian Smith, the third place act, wasn’t far behind Susan Boyle in the trending stakes. Twitter seemed slightly shocked Julian made it into the top three. I initially was, but it made sense following the conversation earlier.

Twitter, to be clear, didn’t win it for Diversity (as I’ve seen claimed in some places) but it did provide a surprisingly accurate snapshot into the mindset of the nation.

Mashable have picked up on a similar point when they used Google Analytics to try and predict the result of American Idol. And, of course, Google have been using their tools to predict flu trends.

Twitter’s a fascinating backchannel to popular culture, and there’s unlocked potential to make it even more useful. Somebody, somewhere, one day not too far in the future, I’d imagine, will develop something that enables them to make a lot of money from this.

The deal: getting PR graduates (plus anybody else who fancies a go) to sell themselves in what may possibility the world’s shortest job interview via micro-vlogging site 12Seconds.tv. The prize: a month’s paid PR internship with the Big Yellow Self Storage Company.

Essentially, the candidate has 12 seconds to sell themselves in their job interview and even tough there’s only one internship up for grabs, all the entries will be shown around the industry.

Now, on one hand you could scream ‘reality TV gimmick’, but I think it’s quite a fun way of getting yourself known and, for the Big Yellow Self Storage Company, a good way to boost their profile in the social media sphere, especially when you consider that they’re not perhaps the most natural fit for social media.

For the candidates, it’s a good lesson in being concise. One problem that virtually every journalist and PR suffers from, usually early in their career, is excess verbosity, so anything that encourages applicants to edit down to only the absolutely necessary will stand them in good stead. Plus it also gives the applicant a chance to show they ‘get’ social media.

Also, I can see more companies asking candidates to upload videos to YouTube, Seesmic, 12seconds.tv and the like in the future. But that’s by the by. But The Big Yellow are certainly ahead of the game in that regard.

It’s a nice, fun way to give newcomers a chance to get into the industry, and ticks several social media boxes, so hats off to the person who thought this one up.

Anyway, if you’ve happened to stumble across here, happen to be looking for something like a paid internship and want something that’s more useful than my musings, head to 12seconds.tv/campaign/bigyellowselfstorage, register, and link your Twitter and Facebook account to your 12 Seconds account.

Once you’ve done that, record your 12 second video on your mobile phone, webcam or video camera and upload it to12seconds.tv/campaign/bigyellowselfstorage, along with a copy of your CV. You’ve got until June 13th, so plenty of time to get creative between now and then.

Earlier this week, Hazel Blears, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, wrote in the Observer:

“YouTube if you want to. But it’s no substitute for knocking on doors or setting up a stall in the town centre.”

It’s pretty obvious what her target was here: the YouTube video where Gordon Brown announced plans to reform MPs expenses without telling Parliament first. It also contained a few somewhat frightening impromptu smiles that didn’t help his image one jot.

Sadly, this kerfuffle has somewhat shown British politics in a somewhat unfortunate light again when it comes to social media. You’d think when you’ve got Barack Obama and his supporters embracing the web, that politicians in the UK from all parties could learn from this.

But, no. We’re still on either dismissing tools like YouTube out of hand or, worse still, condemning any attempt to engage online as a waste of taxpayers money. 

Take this rather ignorant post from Conservative MP Nadine Dorries on her attitude to Twitter.

In some respects it’s no different from what you’d hear from others who don’t get or don’t want to get Twitter. But to hear it from an elected representative is somewhat disappointing.

It essentially implies that she’s quite simply not going to bother engaging in a growing platform that provides an excellent way to directly connect with voters. As Chris at Clicking and Screaming says:

“I see little difference between the banal comments of the Twittersphere about ‘In the Loop’ and the banal opinions of a Member of Parliament on anything outside her remit. If it’s interesting to you, follow it. If not, don’t. But don’t lash out at those who do.

…

The compulsive need of those not involved to discuss it at length shows a fear of the unknown which, for a politician (and I generally have more respect for politicians than most do), is short-sighted.”

Let’s come back to Blears’ comments that You Tube is no substitute for door-to-door canvassing or taking the soapbox on tour. Again, it’s dismissing a wide-reaching social media tool used by a lot of the voting and non-voting public. It sounds a lot like one of those people back in the day who thought email would never catch on.

Local electioneering still has its place but YouTube has the potential to reach millions – many more than the town centre soapbox [1].

A few MPs even have their own YouTube channel, including Blears’ colleague Sadiq Khan [2]. But even then, this reveals a whole new set of problems. The most popular video on Khan’s channel has 227 views. The rest average somewhere between seven and about 150. Still, it’s a start.

The problem, to me, is one that’s all too common in any business or organisation or industry. You have some people who get social media and want to engage. You have some that know that they should probably be on these sites in some way, shape or form but aren’t sure how, and you have those who just don’t want to know.

Politicians, largely, are in the second and third groups. Brown’s office is probably in the second – they’re making the right moves but aren’t really utilising it properly.

So, for Brown’s YouTube videos, it has a feeling of somebody suggesting it as a good idea but with no real strategy behind it or a proper feeling for how YouTube works.

It feels somewhat like The Thick Of It special where the opposition MP’s advisor starts a blog, while the politician himself doesn’t really care.

In all honesty, it probably wouldn’t take a lot of work to join together all the aspects. There’s no reason why, say, Brown couldn’t have announced the expenses measure to the chamber and then had a YouTube video posted immediately after the announcement (sans gurning, you’d hope) and then followed it up with, ooh, a blog post and the like.

Then, on the other side, perhaps Labour (or perhaps an apolitical body) could pull together all the politician YouTube videos, and Twitter accounts, in one place so it’s easy for constituents to find and engage with their MP (which is, after all, one of the main reasons why they were elected, right?).

And there’s no harm in giving the Twitter feed or YouTube channels a plug. I only stumbled across Sadiq Khan’s feed when I was looking for something else – in 18 months living in Tooting, I’d never had information offline that he had a web presence and it wasn’t top of my agenda to look. Many other voters probably have similar mindsets.

As The Register points out, moderating comments isn’t that difficult (and it doesn’t seem as if Downing Street had even thought of it) and there’s so much untapped potential for politicians in this country to get involved in social media, engage and perhaps win back some of the trust that they seem so keen to squander on a regular basis.

But instead Labour (and, via Dorries, the Conservatives as well) have managed to get social media, their strategy and response so spectacularly wrong. Which leads to another spat. Which turns voters off even further.

Add to this the smeargate emails, and the media’s obsession that Iain Dale, Gudio Fawkes and the unlamented Derek Draper, are the only web-politics that matter, well, it just doesn’t want to make you get involved online.

In the US, Obama used social media and the web to bring about a positive movement that engaged the average voter in politics. In the UK, all we can do is sling political mud at each other online. How very depressing.

[1] It’s worth saying that the soapbox offers politicians a direct way to engage and spend time talking to constituents, but there’s no guarantee that the constituents want to engage. With social media – You Tube, Facebook, Twitter et al – you can measure the level of success much more effectively AND engage in conversation.

[2] The only reason I’ve chosen Sadiq Khan is he used to be my local MP so I’m slightly more familiar with his online presence (he has a Twitter feed as well) rather than any particular like of dislike of the politician.

“Would the ‘truth’ surrounding Mr Tomlinson’s death have come to light had it not been sought out by journalists, and then published as the lead story in the Guardian? Perhaps, but I don’t think so.”

Then there’s the Damian McBride email scandal that may have broken in the blogosphere but still needed the traditional media to completely take it into the scandal it has now become. Would McBride have resigned if the accusations had just appeared on Guido Fawkes’ blog and nowhere else [1]?

But, by the same token, these stories wouldn’t have become as big had it not been for the work of social media, with videos of Tomlinson and alleged police brutality at the G20 protests circulating around the internet. And in the midst of this, the Guardian showed how a mainstream media’s website spread this using social media tactics.

Then, on a lighter news story, Pete Cashmore muses at Mashable on Ashton Kutcher’s passing of the 1 million Twitter followers mark:

“And yet this assumes that social media needs mainstream media to justify its existence: that without its blessing social media is not confirmed. But mainstream media is increasingly becoming an echo of social media, allowing YouTube’s masses to define what matters (Susan Boyle, the Domino’s Pizza scandal) and mirroring that public sentiment.

For now, Twitter needs mainstream media more than mainstream media needs Twitter. But Ashton has an audience of 1 million at his fingertips: how much longer will the talent need its mainstream middleman?”

Is this a case of the tail wagging the dog or the dog wagging the tail? Or just a case of having a double-headed, double-tailed canine?

Chris Applegate makes an interesting comparion between the coverage of Hillsborough twenty years ago and the coverage of the G20.

Back in the 1980s, it was much easier for the police (with a little help from The Sun) to get out their version, deflecting blame and smearing the innocent. Today, the police’s account of the G20 was quickly contradicted by the wealth of material available. One wonders if the families of the 96 would still be campaigning for justice if Hillsborough had happened today.

At the moment, both social media and traditional media are probably wagging each other. The footage of Ian Tomlinson would probably have gained traction without the Guardian, but the newspaper’s work meant it was disseminated much quicker. McBride’s emails may well have just stuck to the Westminster gossip blogs  if the papers hadn’t run with it [2].

Certainly with significant news stories that originate in niche communities, then it probably does require a helping hand from the traditional press to take it that step further. But the lines are getting increasingly narrow between the two.

If you have an interest in an area, mainstream or niche, you’ll probably hear the news before it makes it to the mainstream media, but it’s also never been easier for journalists to keep tabs on what’s getting the internet buzzing – and if that’s beyond the usual geek or early adopter buzz, there’s a good chance it’s a story that more people will be interested in.

And then you’ve got somebody like Susan Boyle, who was on a primetime show like Britain’s Got Talent and got the traditional media and the social media talking, and social media helped turn Susan Boyle into a global superstar, which, in turn, became a story for traditional media.

My brain hurts.

Both sides still need each other still, but it remains to be seen for how much longer. Journalists are still gatekeepers, sorting the wheat from the chaff in the internet world, albeit with no small amount of help from places like Twitter. And when they do manage to come together, like the Guardian’s excellent work with the Ian Tomlinson story, then it can really take off.

And one final note that’s probably significant in some small way. When news broke that Tomlinson didn’t die of a heart attack, as was originally though, thenews was all over Twitter. But the most retweeted user on this was Krishnan Guru-Murthy, the Channel 4 News anchor.

Like I say, both sides still need each other.

[1] Ok, this is being very simplistic. No blog is an island and that’s one of the joys of the web. If people like what’s blogged or Tweeted, it soon finds its way onto other blogs.

[2] It’s worth remembering that while the likes of Gudio and Iain Dale are seen as influential within Westminster, once you leave this behind, recognition of their names probably diminishes. You can be interested in politics without having heard of either, especially if you don’t spend a great deal of time reading blogs. There is a world beyond the blogs.

Whether or not that was one of the reasons behind Skittles taking their home page all social media-like, we’ll never know. But they are one of the more high profile brands to experiment with the various tools online. Whether it’s worked or not is another matter.

To recap: anybody logging into their Twitter last Monday would have probably found a slew of tweets with the hashtag #skittles. These were then fed into the Skittles home page which was updating all mentions of the sweet on Twitter.

After a while people started cottoning onto this and includes tweets about paedophiles and the like to watch them get onto the home page. Social media types are a nice bunch, but we do have a somewhat borderline/evil sense of humour.

Regardless, Skittles were THE trend on Twitter that day, even if it’s difficult to say if this takeover was a good or a bad thing. In the short-term, it definitely worked. The brand was being talked about and I’d imagine there’s a high chance consumption of the rather icky sweet went up among users of the mircoblogging tool.

But there’s still one nagging question here – just what exactly were they hoping to achieve?

Yes, it was a bold move. Yes it was reasonably innovative for such a mainstream brand. Yes, it got them talked about for a short period of time. But, to be blunt, what for? And what now?

Currently their homepage brings up their Wikipedia entry. Which is nice but, um, what precisely are we meant to do with it? Sure, it’s more informative than a garish flash page, but if I wanted to find out about Skittles on Wikipedia I’d, well, go to Wikipedia.

At Econsultancy, Patricio Robles is similarly nonplussed:

“What exactly did Skittles reinforce by turning its homepage into a Twitterstream? That’s the $64,000 question the people in charge of the Skittles brand should be asking themselves because the truth is that buzz doesn’t build, reinvigorate or reinvent brands.

A coherent message does.

I think that’s something marketers need to keep in mind when they experiment with the ever-growing world of social media. If brands see social media as little more than a cheap tool for getting some short-term attention, they might as well stay home. Branding is a long-term game.”

And that is really the problem a lot of brands or companies have with the internet in a nutshell. Most media people have probably been in at least one meeting where somebody asks “Can we get this on the internet / blogs / Twitter?”

Even if it’s the kind of thing that fits well with any given social media site, the ‘what now’ question remains. Skittles have got some great short-term publicity and have shown a lot more social media savvy than a lot of other brands, but now that they’ve got Skittles out there in social media, what do they intend to do with it?

This may well be part of a slow strategy to get Skittles out there bit by bit. If it’s just doing it for the sake of, well, doing it then they’ve got their buzz and then, a few months down the line, everybody will have forgotten about it.

Building a social media presence, be it for your own work, a brand, a personality, a TV show, or whatever isn’t just a case of putting it out into the internet and leaving it.

Sometimes this does work, admitedly, but this usually means you’ve got a simple little thing that users love and start doing their own thing with.

But more often than not, the brand is thrown out in a great blaze of glory and is then sadly neglected when it’s this second step on continual engagement that can yield the greatest benefit in the long run.

And on a slight tangential note, if you want an excellent guide on how to pitch your brand across Twitter, Kai Turner’s post on Mashable is one of the best possible pieces you can read.

“Listen. I have blog. I use Twitter. I idly flick through lists of people I’d forgotten I ever knew on Facebook. I’ve even got a MySpace page, although I don’t like to talk about it. They are great ways of connecting people, and they’re very exciting when you start using them, because they allow virtual contact in ways that are analogous to – if not the same as – real life. You know, communicate with people. That old thing.

…

Nobody talks about people down the pub laughing about Bale’s expletive-laden bullying as a “social drinking sensation”. They don’t call people giggling about it on the phone as a “social telecommunications sensation”. They call it joking, or they call it gossip, because that’s what people do. Whether they do it online or offline, down the pub or on Facebook doesn’t matter. “Social media” is mainstream – we don’t need to claim any more victories for it.”

Quite so. I’m at a point where I roughly agree with Bobbie as well. I’ve probably spent as much time as anybody hyping up ‘social’ media tools. It was a convenient term, much like ‘new media’ was back in the emerging days of the internet.

It has now crossed into the mainstream. That, I think, we can safely say. But, as Bobbie points out, having Christian Bale’ s rant pinged around Twitter doesn’t act as proof that it’s taking over the world (such proof, for what it’s worth, is pretty easy to accumulate elsewhere).

Wadds wrote last week about the change that was coming in Twitter and other forms of social media (I’m still using the term as it’s convenient) and I think we’re seeing it now.

Now, unless I’ve completely misread his column, I don’t think Bobbie’s calling for the death of social media; rather that he wishes social media people would stop banging on about how great social media is on social media sites.

Christ, I feel incestuous just writing that last sentence.

There reaches a point where, in any technology or movement or whatever you want to call social media, where it edges onto the mainstream and suddenly everybody is an expert on it.

And, as ever, with any kind of new, erm, thing (sorry, I’m casting about for words here and can’t find the right one) there is a lot of bullshit. And a lot of people who get involved for little discernible purposes other than to self-promote their usually overhyped wares.

We’re probably at this stage now.

Now, this isn’t a post where I run screaming at Twitter yelling “YOU’VE CHANGED AND I DON’T LIKE IT” on my part either. But the site – and many other bits have become a mite trying at times. Largely because of the jargon and the self-promotion and the self-satisfaction and God alone knows what. [Insert your own examples here. I'm tired, ok].

Let’s take a step back for a moment. Social media is still important. It is, and will continue to, make an impact on our lives – how we view, consume and engage with both the media and the world in general.

But the likes of Twitter et al are also communication tools. And just as we all use our mobile phones to communicate in different ways, the same could be said for these assorted sites. They are a way of communication. No more, no less. How you choose to use them is up to you.

So, with that in mind, it’s not a surprise that PR (and journalism and the like) is naturally drawn to Twitter. After all, PR is a communications industry.

And, just with any new development, there will always be people in an industry who cotton onto it quicker than others. I guess you could call these people experts.

Whatever title you give them, these will be the people leading the way in training, enthusing and helping their colleagues or industry get the best out of the new technologies.

What’s quite interesting is some of the best people I know in this area have gone quite quiet over various social media outlets (God, I’m sorry, I’m sorry. I can’t stop writing the term. I’ll stop it soon, I promise). And that’s probably as good an indication as any that social media’s moved into the mainstream.

It means that they no longer need to shout from the rooftops and are probably getting stuck into work and training and other such things. They’ve not moved on, they’ve just got more on their plates as every area tries to get a piece of the action. And this is a good thing, probably.

No doubt there will now be a slew of blog posts in the coming months claiming social media is dead (we’ve already had this with blogging). It’s not. It’s evolving.

Those who start proclaiming the death of social media are probably either trying to get attention or acting like the cool kid at school who spends ages raving about a band only to disown said band when everybody else realised how good they are. This isn’t the same as fatigue or frustration, which is what Bobbie appears to have.

I still love many aspects of social media. It’s integral to a lot of what I do. Twitter is increasingly useful for work, del.icio.us is a daily essential, I’m using wikis a hell of a lot more and I’ve only just realised how useful Tumblr can be.

But this does not mean I need to run around letting the whole world know I’ve just created a new wiki (although I’m as guilty as anybody of pimping my blog over the assorted networks).

This probably comes across as quite a jumbled post, but I think that’s a reflection of where things are at currently.

Social media tools are being absorbed into the mainstream but the principles guiding them are not new. Gossip is gossip, news is news, no matter how it becomes so. And talking about these wonderful new tools is easy. Doing something with them is considerably harder.

Twitter – and other sites you can lump under the SM umbrella – is useful, fun and interesting. Going around declaring yourself an expert in this probably isn’t. I removed the phrase social media enthusiast from my profile a week or so ago because I realised it made me sound like an utter wanker. And, frankly, I don’t need any extra help in that department.

I’ll finish by lifting Kat Hannaford’s comment from Bobbie’s piece, because it’s delightfully ranty, and pretty much spot on. And she’s one of my favourite, funniest Tweeters:

“Twitter and all the assorted other social networking brainfuckery has sapped the joy right out of the internet in recent months, and it’s taking all my willpower not to tell people to sod off, stop embarrassing themselves, and crawl back to the nook at Shoreditch House that they crawled out of.

Now if you excuse me, I’m going to go look at pictures of cats to reinstall a glimmer of hope within me about the benefits of the internet.”

Amen to that. Pictures of cats will still be popular no matter what stage of the web we’re in