Meetings centered on social health are becoming popular. Everyone wants a piece of the pie as the demand for face-to-face dialogue grows. But this raises an interesting question: Who owns the social health conversation? In other words, who decides where, when and what to talk about? And who speaks? Who, after all, is in charge?
Online no one owns anything. Everyone has the stage. Your platform and reach are determined by your credibility. But the relationships and power positions that evolve in the virtual world may not extrapolate to the real world. There are different forces in play.
Offline, ownership of the message is more complex. Meetings need physical space, podiums and perspiring pitchers of ice water. Someone has to put the money down to rent the space and let everyone know it’s going to happen.
And the reality is that in an 8-hour meeting only a limited number of people can stand at the podium. An agenda must be set. Those who set that agenda control the direction of the conversation during that brief moment in real time. So meetings are biased by those who create them. There’s no way around it.
As the online health conversation grows and extends to the real world, expect ego and politics to become more evident in the struggle for attendees.
Who will run the most relevant meeting for social health? Will there ever really be a SXSW of health? Is TED the
model? Does the social health consumer only want unconferences? And who are the real thought leaders in this space?
In the end the market is smarter than the crowd. I believe remarkable, innovative content and format will determine where the smartest people convene offline.
{ 3 comments }
You raise a good question.
It's an open question – nobody should own it.
But I suspect career-interests will motivate some to make power and attention grabs.
Here's the thing: there's no one single silver bullet approach to "healthcare social media".
Why? Because Health Care is so huge and we can define it in so many ways.
The fact is, people right now are doing things online who don't pay any attention to the conversations on Twitter or elsewhere.
Most of the focus on social media in health care has really been about Web literacy and awareness. The healthcare industry usually lags behind in web media.
One concern I have with movements like SXSH, for instance, is that it's trying to piggy-back on SXSW. But here's the thing: SXSW is already fading past its glory. This year's SXSW already has many fans writing posts as if 2010 may have been SXSW's Altamont moment.
I hope the emerging leaders of health care media adoption don't pay too much attention to the first-generation of voices in new media.
It would be rather unfortunate if the conversations revolving around health care and social media tire into repeated streams of unsubstantiated platitudes.
More providers need to enter and start their own conversations.
Ultimately, nobody owns the conversation.
It's not about Ownership. It's about Leadership.
@PhilBaumann – http://Twitter.com/PhilBaumann
Good points, Phil. It's unclear whether SXSH will remain piggybacked and clearly it can stand alone. I think it will be a while before SXSW is dead. Ditto on provider adoption and down with platitudes.
This is an interesting post, Bryan. Keeping the social health conversation open can be challenging, but we believe the conversation should include as many people as possible. Health is something that pertains to everyone.
Through Healthymagination, we at GE are committed to facilitating health discussions that engage everyone – from doctors to health administrators to patients. By sharing ideas amongst diverse groups of people, we can produce creative, imaginative solutions in the health space — both online and offline.
Healthymagination
http://www.healthymagination.com/