I just read this post from Mashable about how LA is leading the way with social media. I guess it makes sense given all the video production talent down in SoCal. But is this really social media or mostly independents and aspiring actors that found a new distribution channel online when they couldn’t get TV distribution? I’ve seen some good web TV shows that frankly should be on broadcast TV but there’s not a lot of social to it, they’re just online videos made by independents (notice I didn’t say amateurs because some of them are very professionally done). I think one can say LA leads the way in web TV but I’d question the social media capital part.

Felicia Day

I guess the root of this could be that the definition of social really means Video (if you look at all the examples provided in the mashup story they are all video related) and not innovative engagement applications like facebook.

Don’t get me wrong, I love many of the new Web TV shows and have even been encouraging my teenagers to jump in on this trend (I tell them now one wants to see a 40 something on Web TV and make thier own shows. But I was just questioning if when we say social now, we actually mean video.

Just my opin… follow me on twitter @robblewis