Louise — I hope you’re right — and that networks hold up their end of the bargain when comes to asking permission.

Scott — The posts in the “Editor’s Take” section are really meant to be more of a springboard for a discussion, instead of me just telling everyone what to think. We do run a lot of case studies and best practices pieces, but we’re trying something new with these posts. Sorry you weren’t that into this one. I’ll keep trying.

In the case of email, it got smarter. We can set spam filters, use firewalls etc. There’s a whole industry around the tools to protect us from evil email spam.

I think the same is already happening in social media. Commenting on blogs often requires sign in or some other identity check to stop spam comments, we can filter twitter feeds, we can choose who we sign up as friends or become fans of on facebook etc.

We are at long last getting to “permission marketing” where I will only see ads about products or from companies that I have allowed to reach me. So I see this problem as decreasing – I see less advertising in a social media hour than I would in a TV hour for example.

I thought SmartBrief was about thought-leadership, not meandering, middle-of-the-row nonsense like this.

This is so entry-level and wistful – where’s the framework, where’s the takeaway, where’s the leadership?

Please guys – up your game.

I think it’s interesting that you mention paid networks that don’t have any marketing. I don’t think it’s a problem that marketing exists in social media; it’s marketing done poorly that causes the problem. Providing value to the users needs to be the first order of business in order for the relationship to be win-win-win (user, marketer, website/community). If brands/companies are providing value to the community and not just using social media as just another broadcast medium, then I believe these relationships will continue to thrive.

However, I do agree that niche networks have the potential to be big players in the future. Even still, the value might ultimately be in how they all connect together through the big networks such as Facebook. Either way, I’m not holding my breath on the premium model. It’s possible, but I just see too many examples of people bouncing over to find a free service once price becomes a barrier. I think premium models are viable, but not as a mass substitute for the big networks.

Good food for thought – thanks for the discussion!

@brandon101

This post was mentioned on Twitter by sbosm: Will success ruin social media? http://ow.ly/PltW...

Social media and Web 2.0 are based on two-way communication. Let’s keep the social media “party” going by sharing what we know without all the thinly veiled, profit-motivated communication. Social media is a marketing tool that should be used to start (and continue) communication, not to close the sale.

Just like face to face networking there are people who understand how to connect and be “go-Givers” and there are people who only see “what’s in it for them”. It hasn’t killed networking or it’s effectiveness it has screen out the toe dippers and folks who will not offer value to the party.

We will continue to see growing pains, its is just a fact of life and business. I invite local business owners to shore up their strategies and have a strong foundation in place before they wade into social media. Once they have done that, social media does what it does best. Connect you in really big way and give you an ear to your consumer or client.

So how do you see yourself showing up and evolving?