Social Media vs Social Networking

We all use social media and are part of social networks, “we tweet, we friend and we blog”, but I often ask myself do we really understand the distinction between the two? At first glance they seem to be the same, but after digging deeper I found out that they are as different as chalk and cheese. Understanding the differences makes it easier to decide how they will work better for individuals and businesses.

By Definition

Social media is seen as the “what”; a way of communicating. Information is distributed through this medium to a mass audience. All you need it a computer and an internet connection and you’re ready to go. Social networking on the other hand is the “how”. This is a platform for engagement between people who share the same opinions and ideas. It is a circle of friends, family and colleagues.

Interaction

The communication line in social media is one way. That is why social media is said to be a medium of delivery. Information is distributed to the audience for their perusal. There is no interaction between the distributer and the reader. This is completely different when it comes to social networking. Communication is very much two way, where the reader can leave comments on what has been posted. Facebook is a perfect example of this, users share their thoughts through posts and all those in their network can comment on it, thus creating a back and forth communication line.

Organisations seem to understand this notion and have taken advantage of it by having Facebook pages. There is one obstacle they are facing though, which is updating their pages on a regular basis. Organisations should consider having a designated person to monitor their various pages and offer responses to better relationships with their stakeholders.

Timely Responses

Unlike social media, responses on social networks are easy to track since the messages are between a network of people who share the same views. Conversations are of the same interest. This is much more difficult when it comes to social media. All because communication is one way and there is very less interaction amongst users.

The above mentioned are just some of the major differences I found in my quest to understand the two concepts. Despite them overlapping at times, they are quite different from each other. They can be used parallel to each other to create relationships, which will increase brand awareness for individuals or organisations. If it still not clear what makes the two different here are video clips to help clarify matters.

Social Media in Plain English

Social Networking in Plain English

Bright new dawn for Guinea

Guinea entered a new era today; the first day in office for President Alpha Conde, who won a closely fought contest to become Guinea's first democratically elected president.

I returned from Conakry at the weekend. I was unsure what the mood in Conakry would be like - perhaps frenzied anticipation of a bright new future. In the event, I sensed that people are relieved. Guineans are relieved that after such a hard fought contest in which ethnic rivalries played a significant part, the country has remained united. Peace has been preserved. For this, great credit must go to the defeated candidate Cellou Diallo, and to the outgoing head of the transition government, Sekouba Konate. Guinea now has a revered democrat at its helm; a man whose record in opposition is as inspiring as his ambition for his country is practical. Guinea has a leader on a mission to reduce poverty and create jobs. From what I have read and learned of Alpha Conde - he is not prone to big vision statements, nor to petty politicking, nor will he have truck with white elephant projects; he is a man with a single focus, in the tradition of several African liberation movement leaders (whom Conde has met and worked with) - to improve the welfare of his people - jobs, electricity, roads, healthcare, education, water and food security. Companies who share this ambition, have a bright future in Guinea. Those who don't should leave the country now.

Conakry was spruced up and flags were placed on street lampposts to welcome foreign dignitaries for the inauguration ceremony on Tuesday. A proud nation has reason to be proud again. Marcus Courage

What’s up in Cancun and what’s the deal for Africa?

From 29^th November to 10^th December, the 16^th Conference of Parties (COP16) to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) convenes in Cancún, Mexico to follow up on last year's summit in Copenhagen, where word leaders failed to negotiate an international, legally-binding treaty to curb harmful emissions of greenhouse gases.

There are low expectations for successful negotiations in Cancun. This is because people have lost faith in not only the ability for a political agreement and consensus to be made, but also in the process. And on Tuesday (30 November 2010), UNEP released a report that concluded those reductions committed to in the Copenhagen Accord, even if fully met, are only 60 percent of the reductions needed to stop prevent global temperatures from rising by more than two degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels – the point considered to be the threshold for catastrophic climate change which will expose millions to drought, hunger and flooding.

So even if an agreement is made at the end of Cancun, the commitments within it will prevent some of the worse case climate change scenarios playing out, especially since from day one of the negotiations, Japan stated that it explicitly will not have anything to do with a post 2012 Kyoto Agreement.

So where does this leave Africa? Ironically, the lack of trust in attaining a political agreement has shifted discussions to issues more relevant to Africa, specifically on finance, forestry, technology transfer and adaptation in general.

Scientists agree that the best starting point for adaptation is to be rich, though it is not foolproof: not even the rich can buy off all hazards. But wealth buys information and it opens up options. Resources help people adapt both before the fact, by reducing risks, and after it, by aiding recovery from harm. Wealth can create hedges against the effects of climate change. It is wealth that Africa, compared to the rest of the world is short of.

Fortunately, a key pillar of the Cancun negotiations is the establishment of a Green Climate Fund, which was agreed upon in Copenhagen – disbursing $30 billion in 2010 to 2012, and then $100 billion each year after that until 2020. Multilateral funds have been established before so it’s not as if the Green Climate Fund is charting new territory. However, the political sensitivities and the criteria countries will have to meet to access these funds are looking onerous.

If African countries want a piece of this pie, they will have to focus seriously on governance, transparency, monitoring and valuating their carbon emissions and sinks - a tough job for any country. It would seem that many African countries will need funding to build this capacity in the first place. All of this is feasible, but African countries need to now use these conferences and meetings to gather information, exchange knowledge, learn and build their expertise from the participants and get everything in place so that they are an attractive destination for new climate and development specific funds.

For more information on climate finance and to check out the flows and channels, visit the new platform created by the World Bank and UNDP to track climate-change related finance by region, focus area, sector or financing mechanism: http://www.climatefinanceoptions.org/cfo/index.php. And to be ahead of the games for the climate change negotiations in Durban, South Africa, the official COP17 website was just launched: http://www.cop17durban.com/Pages/default.aspx