Bill Sledzik’s blog, Tough Sledding, is one of the very few I get excited to read when a new post shows up. So it was with anticipation that I was waiting when it was announced on Tough Sledding the he and Andy Curran, associate professor at the University of Cincinnati-Clermont College, were to release video interviews with Strumpette co-founder Brian Connolly.
It had been years, probably, since I had visited Strumpette, and I had to remind myself what the hubbub was at the time the site was launched. I never really followed it and I now find the debate and controversy about Strumpette far more interesting than the thought of going back and reading the site’s posts.
I have recently been following the Strumpette enigma, Amanda Chapel, on Twitter, and she remains one of the few whose ‘tweets’ raise ire just as Strumpette did and is one of the few who is genuinely entertaining. For people with personalities like mine, apparently, she’s incredibly infectious.
So my anticipation was elevated. Sadly, as I watched the videos, which were posted each business day during the past two weeks, I kept watching and with each video I had a despondent reaction.
It was not because the topics weren’t interesting – they were. It was not because I disagreed with what Connolly had to say – I didn’t.
My hopelessness was because what Connolly says is incredibly, and somewhat painfully, obvious. THIS warrants a video series? THIS warrants collective anonymity? THIS generates controversy?
THIS is common sense; albeit, with a tone of the glass being half empty.
Anyone who has objectively studied the human condition – and I grant that most public relations folks have not, let alone bloggers – should be able to predict the useless clatter that social media is and was sure to be. It shouldn’t be any surprise that Twitter is now dominated – thanks to Internet marketing “gurus” and social media “experts” – by spammers and shallow chit chat.
That’s what our culture has become. No, it’s not all bad, but the high degree of uselessness within it requires constant vigilance and a need for regular self examination.
For somebody, or a group, to launch a site and to adopt an oft childish mode of attack in order to raise points that should be painfully evident and transparent is, to me, an even sadder indicator of what Connolly is ultimately saying – that social media’s emergence is a celebration of the useless, mundane and the bizarrely accepted popularity rituals ever afraid of honest questions and criticisms.
This while net societal benefits remain, at best, questionable. I look forward to the day when the cutting edge becomes so blunted that a video series like this isn’t sorely needed. With the requisite niceties of social media, however, I won’t be holding my breath.
You may view the entire videos series here. Need I say that I highly recommend it?
Bill Sledzik
3 years ago
Bob,
While it’s true that many of Brian’s observations are self evident to you and me, he really wasn’t talking to those of us who keep social media in perspective. His focus and his cautions are for those who follow blindly the mantra of the Twitterati, etc. This is not the second coming of Gutenberg, and the smart ones in Web 2.0 are coming to understand that.
I was surprised, frankly, by the number of folks you might think of as the “Kool-Aid” crowd of Web 2.0 who contacted me (via the back channels) to say they appreciated the series and felt is was important to broadening the discussion. Note, however, that they did NOT link to it, nor did they ever praise it in a public forum like Twitter. That would be bad for their online cred, and I can’t fault them for protecting the personal and professional “brands” — to extend the mindless marketing lingo.
On the other hand, I’m troubled — as I always have been — by the elistist undertones in some of Brian’s remarks and in the writings of Strumpette. Many of our Web 2.0 toys like Twitter may indeed, fade. But the old world order of mainstream media ruling the roost has radically changed and a higher level of citizen participation is inevitable. As I’ve said in past posts, I remain caught somewhere between the Cluetrain Manifesto and the Cult of the Amateur. It works for me.
Ike
3 years ago
The real shame is that the mean side of Amanda made it easy to ignore the great points the creators were trying to impart.
There are two things that stood out for me in this series of interviews:
1) Brian never mentioned why Strumpette ended. In some conversations, he’s hinted that they’d said just about everything they needed to say, but it would have been nice for him to assert that the body of work was complete and move on.
2) Brian admitted that they were surprised by the splash they made early on. I personally believe that for a while they had lightning in a bottle, but no plan to channel that energy to productive use. It would have been interesting to hear not regrets — but thoughts about what they might have done differently or perhaps a different direction.
As one of those rare people who Amanda alternated between slamming and praising, I see where there is a need to continue questioning the groupthink. Amanda wasn’t as forgiving to those who weren’t as public in their calls for transparent reason, and this smacked as unfair to many who WERE questioning these very tenets — and like you thought they were so obvious as to not require a public declaration.