Au cours d'une discussion à Lift09 avec Florian Egger (merci encore mille fois, Florian!) j'ai enfin mis le doigt sur ce qui est au centre de mon activité professionnelle: le conseil stratégique ayant trait aux nouveaux médias. Jusqu'à maintenant, je mettais en avant les diverses activités qui découlaient de ce "centre", ou bien les branches partant de ce tronc, si on préfère. Et très souvent, je me trouvais à tenter de faire passer en douce la dimension "consulting stratégique", sans qu'on ait officiellement requis mes services à ce sujet précis.
Dans mon milieu, on change de "titre professionnel" un peu comme de chemise, surtout quand on a une activité assez diversifiée ou qu'on a du mal à se définir. Mais une partie de ce phénomène est inévitable: nos jobs n'existent pas, nous les créons au fur et à mesure, et comme on est un peu dans une ambiance-bulle (pensez "bulle internet"), les buzzwords abondent. Ce qui était bien descriptif à une époque ("blogging consultant", "social media consultant", et même "web 2.0" si on considère que ça a servi à autre chose que d'en mettre plein les yeux à un moment donné) finit par se vider complètement de son sens à force qu'on en abuse.
Du coup, je me pose la question: "New Media Strategist", titre qui correspond assez bien (à mon humble avis) à ce que je fais/suis, est-ce déjà usé? Est-ce que tout le monde s'appelle maintenant comme ça, même les petits nouveaux, "experts" qui bloguent depuis 18 mois? Quelle est la connotation d'un tel titre?
Et puis, souci, ça se traduit très mal. Stratège, stratégiste? Arghl. Donc "conseil stratégique en nouveaux médias"? "Social media", on a encore pas trouvé quelque chose de bien pour y faire référence en français, en plus, il me semble.
Bref. Commentaires et discussion sur la question, avec plaisir!
For years now (since I became self-employed, and maybe even before) I’ve been struggling to define myself and what I do. There are two main components to this problem, as I see it:
- working in a fast-moving, cutting-edge field, where I’m creating my job and job description as I go along, and boldly going where none have gone before (haha)
- inside that field, having a bit of a “generalist specialist” profile, which means that I do tons of different things which don’t always seem to go together (talk about teenager/education issues online; give strategic advice to startups; install blogs and teach people how to use them; etc)
Now, along my freelancing career, I’ve called myself a bunch of things (non-exhaustive list following):
- blogging consultant
- social sofware consultant
- social media consultant
- web consultant and commentator
- 2.0 consultant
More recently, I more or less dropped the whole title thing, going for taglines like “I help you understand the internet better” and even giving up almost entirely before Lift09 and having “Online Person” written on my badge.
So, again: part of the problem is me (and my issues with defining myself) and another is the field in which I am. High tech and social media is a bubbly field. An expression is hot one day and cold the other. Hot in some circles, passé in others.
Take “blogging consultant”: when I started out, there were hardly any blogging consultants around. A year or so later, everybody and his dog who knew how to set up WordPress suddenly started calling themselves that. I remember talking to a friend some years ago: his company had hired a “blogging consultant” and we were both appalled at the kind of advice he was giving and things he was doing.
So at some point, to distance myself from such people (newcomers clearly more intent in blinding their clients with buzzwords), I stopped calling myself a “blogging consultant”.
Basically, it’s been more or less the same problem for all the titles I’ve tried to wear (like clothes).
Now, back to my own issue: the trouble I have explaining and defining what I do. I had a breakthrough conversation with Florian Egger at the Lift09 party (despite the dreadfully loud music during what was supposed to be a “networking lounge” time slot).
Here’s the image I like to use to explain this breakthrough: what I do could be represented by a tree. There are many branches and leaves, and a trunk. Until then, when I was asked what I did, I would talk about the leaves and the branches, but I never managed to pinpoint what the trunk was. It left an impression that what I was doing was ill-defined, scattered.
I have now understood that the trunk of what I do is new media-related strategic consulting, thanks to Florian who made me go through example after example of what I did, concluding each one with “well, that’s strategy too, if you think of it” — and I’d go “no, it’s not strategy… oh, actually, yes, I see what you mean… it is!”
So, that would make me a New Media Strategist. It sounds nice. And it fits. You know, like when you finally find a pair of trousers that seems to have been stitched for you?
And clearly, being able to say “I do strategic consulting” sounds way better than “well, I know a helluvalot of a stuff about the internet, and all this so-called web2.0 stuff, and I’m really good at explaining it and helping people and companies figure out what the hell they’re going to do with it, and how they can use it, and why it’s interesting for them, and I can give talks, do training, help set blogs up, promote stuff online, coach people on more or less anything social-media related, oh, and give advice, of course, people keep coming to me for advice, you know, and a whole lot of other things…”
See what I mean?
I also realised that until then, the services that I had advertised were my “side-services” — my branches. In a way, I’ve always tried to do the strategic/advisory stuff undercover. Not very satisfying!
So now, the question this post is leading to: is “New Media Strategist” already old and loaded? What does it sound like? Is “everybody” calling themselves that nowadays? (I hope I don’t come across as pretentious because I consider I have a tad more expertise on the subject than newcomers in the field who have been blogging for 18 months and tweeting for 6…)
One could argue that titles don’t mean much, specially in today’s hypernetworked world, where connections are the most important thing in life (aside from drinking water… and even that could be subject to debate). Reputation, that’s what counts.
I disagree. I may be well-known and respected amongst my peers, but given the nature of my job, my clients are usually outside (even very far outside) the social media bubble. A title of some sort gives people a starting-point to figure you out.
“Social Media Consultant”, in my opinion, is dead from overuse and abuse. “New Media Strategist” seems better to me (because I “came up” with it during that discussion — of course I’d probably heard or seen it somewhere before, but it didn’t sound like something that is being thrown all over the place on Twitter et al these days). Or “Social Media Strategist”? What about “Social Media” itself… does that sound too much like an empty buzzword today (just like “Web 2.0″, which I never liked and honestly, was a media/marketing buzzword from the start). And then, for me, is the added issue of translating things in French. “New Media Strategist” doesn’t translate well — neither does “Social Media”, actually.
Lots of questions, as you can see.
Do you have trouble defining what you do? What do you put on your business card? What do you do? I’d love to exchange stories. And, of course, hear what you think about “New Media Strategist” — as a title in general, and to describe me… if you know me, of course.
- Working on my Professional Site (2007)
- Adapting to Budget: “on peut tout faire avec tout” (2008)
- What Do We Call Ourselves? (2009)
- Life and Trials of a Social Media Consultant (2012)
- Interview with Serbian Magazine (2008)
- IT Conversations: Dan Gillmor (2005)
- Measuring a Blog’s Success: Visitors and Comments Don’t Cut It (2011)
- Talk: Being a Blogging Consultant (2007)
- Blogopen in Novi Sad, Serbia (2007)
- Twitter Killed My Blog and Comments Killed Our Links (2010)