This notion has been percolating and is based on a feeling, not rigorous research - I’d love to hear what you think…

I read this comment by Scot Duke | January 7, 2008 1:40 PM, on a post by Marshall Kirkpatrick on ReadWriteWeb, one of my favorite blogs, entitled “Ten Common Objections to Social Media Adoption and How You Can Respond” :

…I still would find it hard to believe that any business would totally ignore any opportunity to market to a new audience. It comes down to offering a safe quality environment for social media…

I started thinking: what does a safe, quality environment for companies look like, when it comes to social/new media? Is it easier for companies to feel that they control the message that’s going out in a video, or videocast, or podcast, so that there’s at least the ‘gloss’ of a guideline for what’s coming back in?

Perhaps these tools can help individuals and companies to reach out to an audience as a kind of bridge between:
pure social media(e.g., social media sites like Mixi and Facebook).
and
traditional media (newspapers, TV, magazines, radio) the comfortable and expensive outreach to a mass audience that may or may not care about the message…

In other, still musing, words: control of the quality of the message (because a blog, video, or podcast is being offered to the audience) feels more possible than in a social media channel, where it feels a bit less possible to control at least the offering, if not the response.

This is clearly not a clearly formed thought

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
oh, I’m posting this Technorati Profile for a bit of tinkering under the hood.