So it makes sense that if there’s social media, there’s anti-social media.
But what exactly is anti-social media?
For that matter, what is social media?
Wikipedia says that Social media refers to the means of interactions among people in which they create, share, exchange and comment contents among themselves in virtual communities and networks.
Notice the lack of the word "advertisers" in the Wikipedia definition.
By the way, Wikipedia doesn’t have a definition for anti-social media.
If I had to define anti-social media, I'd say there would be two ways to define it.
The first would be as follows: A means of paid interaction between an advertiser and a potential consumer.
The second definition would be - a form of media that behaves in a less than social manner. When it comes to advertising, this would be messaging that interrupts what the user is doing.
Because in a social context, when someone constantly interrupts what is going on, that person is considered anti-social.
So what we're left with is that all paid advertising is anti-social.
And, that paid, intrusive advertising is the worst form of anti-social advertising that is out there.
Well, this won't do, will it?
Advertisers don't want to be known as being anti-social.
How can we fix this?
The trick is to redefine social media in such a way as to allow advertisers to participate while still paying for their participation.
My attempt is as follows.
Social media, (i.e. social advertising) is advertising that is paid for but doesn't intrude.
But it's a start.