My friend Mark Jennings this morning invited me to read the guest post on his Click to exit blog, written by Hugh Wallace. Whilst Hugh sets up the post as though it is going to be a mad rant, he brings up some really interesting points around the changes he has witnessed working 'in digital' over the past fifteen years, culminating with where we are now and whether we are on the cusp of change, "something akin to the dot-com bust".

I recommend looking at the original post here, but you can see my response below. Feel free to get involved with the discussion over on Mark's blog too.

Having worked in-house for the past two and a half years myself, and witnessed the increasing number of social media services delivered by so-called 'specialists', I have feared that perhaps I am a bit cynical about the potential of social media. In practice, I believe that social media has great potential but, as mentioned above by Simon, people forget to question themselves - "what are we trying to achieve?".

Listening to the vast army of social media evangelists you would be forgiven for believing that the likes of Twitter can act as some kind of Holy Grail for businesses and for individuals without consideration for their specific aims and objectives. Many of these people tend to forget that they are, in practice, early adopters. Most people still "don't get" many of these platforms and I regularly find myself trying to explain it to them. It's clear, in those situations, that the people who then "get it" can see an application for the technology in their own professional, cultural or personal lives and that is the key.

I think some of the most interesting comments I have heard with regard to social media come from those agencies that have actively decided not to engage with the likes of Twitter because they don't have the time or resources to do it properly. Whilst some people might turn their noses up at that, perhaps thinking every organisation simply must have a comprehensive presence across social media platforms, in practice it shows a strong understanding of both reputation and the expectation to maintain a flow of communication in line with the needs of the audience.

For me, audience is key. On a personal level I communicate in different ways, using different messages via different social media platforms. That is because I have different audiences with different expectations. Whilst I think that many organisations understand that, they don't necessarily go through the process of positioning social media strategy within their broader communications strategy which, in turn, should be designed to achieve overall objectives and aims.

Right now there is a lot of "noise" out there and I think there will be an increasing number of people turning away from things like Twitter. They will become disillusioned with the quality and quantity of information coming from those that they follow but, for the sake of not wanting to alienate people or offend them by unfollowing them, they will just withdraw slowly. The challenge here perhaps, for organisations and individuals alike, is to understand the participation habits of their followers. If, for example, your followers are fairly active on any given social media platform and are likely to catch most of your messages (tweets for example), then why repost the same message over and over again? You are just going to annoy people and they will begin to question whether there is any benefit in following you at all.

Perhaps we are approaching a tipping point, both in terms of a realisation that social media doesn't hold all the answers to eternal (commercial) life for all organisations, and in terms of individuals questioning more critically what's in it for them. For sure, ROI will remain part of the mix for organisations and communication and digital agencies will continue to work to promote things that are sometimes tough to measure, sometimes seen as intangible. The challenge that these agencies have in legitimising their offerings is to position social media much more closely in line with broader corporate objectives. There is also a need to be honest, in that every company will not benefit from throwing itself into using each social media platform that comes along. Agencies must be willing to take the moral high road if they are to maintain long-term credibility.

And for individuals? Well, I wonder if there is a dawning of an era of the more discerning social media user. Whilst I suggested above that some people might turn away from the "noise", I believe others will see this as part of trial and error in emerging technologies and will instead start to better tailor their use of these platforms to their own needs, picking and choosing what they use and who they follow to best ensure satisfaction at the level and quality of information they receive.

Although I can't claim to have perfected all areas of my first life, earlier on today I decided to revisit my second life.

For those of you that don't know, Second Life is a web-based virtual world where you can do pretty much anything that you can imagine. This particular world has a fully-functioning economy encouraged by the fact that its currency (L$, the Linden Dollar) has a real exchange rate, meaning that any money you earn in-world can help your real world finances. There are cases now of people making a living solely through their exploits in Second Life, whether through designing and selling clothes or houses, or even becoming a property tycoon.

I know, from trying to explain this phenomenon before, that people find it hard to picture Second Life in their minds. In many ways it is not dissimilar from a video game visually, especially something like Grand Theft Auto. You view the world from either above and behind your avatar (the thing that represents you to other people in-world), or through its eyes. The avatar itself can look any way you would like it to. You are as likely to come across avatars that are idealised versions of their owners with perfect bodies and chiselled features, some that are more modest, or maybe even complex animals or dinosaurs. The scripting and building functions that come as a part of Second Life allow residents to create anything that they like, with their creations then becoming their intellectual property which can be sold or modified as desired. So even if you don't have any programming or scripting skills you can buy some explicitly detailed anatomy for your avatar or, if you're more patient, embark upon a virtual course to learn how to design these things for yourself.

For those of you that have some experience of Second Life, the above will seem quite a simplified explanation of the depth and diversity that this virtual (or synthetic) world has to offer. For the rest of you, if you are interested in knowing more about Second Life I would suggest visiting both the website and also the Terra Nova blog which contains expert opinion and discussion about virtual worlds.

My visits to Second Life seemed to grind to a halt at the end of August last year when I finally submitted my MSc dissertation entitled, "Virtual(ly) Utopia: The Politics of Second Life". Prior to that, I had spent a long time exploring this virtual world, making fleeting friendships, and trying to find a specific area to study. This seemed quite difficult as the sheer size of the world and the way it seems to reflect many other areas of the internet, albeit in a much more interactive setting, means that it is a very rich place culturally. It can also be quite a daunting experience in which you are torn between playing it cool and trying to fit in, and admitting your complete ignorance as to what you should be doing with your time there.

At first I found it difficult to talk to people about anything other than real life as I didn't have enough experience in-world to enable me to discuss my virtual life. Eventually that changed but today's visit felt very familiar to the first.

I visited a couple of places that I used to return frequently but I only saw one name that I recognised and wasn't sure if he'd remember me. Of course things have changed a little since I first visited Second Life. Now voice chat is an option that is commonly used and it seems to have changed the feel of the place slightly, something that many residents feared in the lead-up to voice chat in-world.

As people utilise voice chat more often than not, now they are forced to reveal a lot more about themselves than was the case with text chat although apparently voice synthesising software is available. The layer of anonymity that many residents seemed to enjoy has now been removed. Before you were never quite sure if the person you were speaking to was male or female, or where they might be from. There were reports of in-world marriages where neither party knew the true sex of their chosen partner. In that sense it was liberating for some people, people who felt that they could express something or be someone different here than in their everyday lives.

Today, it certainly seems that people are a little more open with each other than my earlier encounters suggested. Still, the group dynamic seems unsettlingly similar to a school playground, just with more manners. You have to walk up to a group and try and thrust yourself into the conversation. You are never quite sure of how well everyone else knows each other or where the conversation might have travelled before you arrived. Similarly, walking up to a stranger in a one-on-one situation can be quite daunting. However, I will be keen to find some of the people I used to chat to and find out if anything has really changed. Perhaps they will know people that have moved on to other, less commercialised worlds as many threatened to do.

As a way to spend your spare time, it's certainly not for everyone but it does offer a glimpse of how the internet could be explored in future and as an example of how web-based technology can converge.

If you do find yourself there... look me up. My name is "Lex Decosta".