Who Are Our Own? Defining the 'Industry' in the Age of Social Media

After I posted my recent blog on the Motion Picture and Television Fund, I received several comments on the fight to keep open the long-term care facility, which I mentioned only in passing, but which is a particularly intense and impassioned battle, sparked by the feeling that the Fund wasn't living up its charter that, in the entertainment industry, "we take care of our own."  The battle is still raging (for more information on what this is all about, check out http://www.savingthelivesofourown.org), though I believe that a critical question in a fractured and platform diverse entertainment industry may now be, "who are our own?"

Where once recorded entertainment was dominated by a precious few studio entities, the world today encompasses a wider world of craftspeople serving not only the studio and television industry, but the developing new/social media platforms that are continuing the tradition.   Independents and contractors far outnumber full-time staff, and the economic and technological realities of society and this industry have forever changed the employment landscape.

So, who are "we?" What is the entertainment industry community today, as far as traditional organizations like the Motion Picture and Television Fund?  I wonder if the benefit and power of a being a cohesive like-minded community of (as opposed to the media industry itself), is being harnessed to it's greatest advantage.  Is the potential base actually much wider than ever before, but lacking simple awareness of their common interests?  Are the traditional protective/non-profit interests even considering what some call "Digital Hollywood?"  Does "Digital Hollywood" even recognize their place in the entertainment industry "community?" Who do they consider "their own?"  And, who are "they," anyway?  - Are "they" one of "us?"

Is there a potential power base somewhere in all of this confusion?

You Can't Measure Community

Gary Vaynerchuk, who wrote the excellent social media strategy guide, "Crush It" will be publishing "The Thank You Economy" in March of next year.  The product description on Amazon.com outlines his contention that "the people and companies harnessing the word-of-mouth power provided by multiplatform media - those that can shift their outlook and operations to be more customer-aware and fan-friendly - will pull away from the pack and profit in today's markets."

This is really the key, I think, to understanding the real practical purpose of social media.  So many people try to analyze the worth of social media by using old-school standards and measurements - "What's the ROI?" being the most common question. Social media, being a social strategy, can't be evaluated as a simple marketing tool. After all,  As this great video based the book Socialnomics asks, "What's the ROI of a telephone?"

Public perception sometimes is a brute; it doesn't invite subtlety. It demands simplicity. It resists change. The emergence of social media - and it's power to create a real personal connection with fans/followers/friends - is still a difficult concept to understand or apply.

Social Media is providing each of us the opportunity to create our own personalized community. How we use that community - from simple human interaction all the way to building product (or personal brand) loyalty (if that's your thing) - is entirely dependent upon our own individual imaginations - and our appreciation of our followers/readers/customers/viewers.  

Building Community Online - Where's the Town Square?

I've been spending the last couple of weeks recharging my batteries, so to speak, in relation to my social media activity.   It's not exactly a creative block - I know, generally what my next several vlogs, audioboos, and blogs might be about - but I'm also after a more productive use of these resources.  

Productive, in my case, extends to both the practical (how can this help me really) to my more community-based interests.

The concept of community online is a bit difficult to grasp - especially as technologies change, new sites develop, and new concepts emerge.  In the real world, a group of communities form a city or, at least, common geographic area with common interests.   In the YouTube world, there are countless communities based on individuals (or more generally speaking, channels) - but few opportunities for the larger YT community to "gather" to explore common interests (to "grow" the overall community, for example).  

There have been and continue to be attempts - websites and attempts at limited community governance - to bring this world together for the "common good."  The "Common Good," of course, may be as hard to define as "common sense."  Still, I think there's a great opportunity in certain areas to act in concert to achieve individual goals, while at the same time preserving and expanding the vibrant individual communities each YouTuber builds.

One of my hopes for Vidcon was/is that it can offer the opportunity to create unified efforts to help build the community - an effort, perhaps, not based on the corporate YouTube structure, but on the establishment of vlogging as a platform (living largely on YT, but ultimately not limited to that world).  Combine Vidcon with BillTVMacon's online NoCon concept, and the result might be the beginning of a central community "town square."