I also see your point that the term “social media” needs to be translated into something engineering firms can get behind. But rather than “SocMed Engineering,” I think a term like “SocMed Platforming” would resonate better.

“Platforming” is a more concrete term that implies something needs building and problems need solving. Just the sort of thing that gets engineering firms’ attention.

Plus, “platforming” intrinsically helps to distinguish public platforms like Twitter from dedicated, embedded SocMed platforms that need engineering expertise to design and build.

I’ll take your company-controlled, dedicated listserve, if it has some kind of release valve for attracting and engaging new customers.

For example, there appears to be an assumption that engineers at the companies you mention should be sharing perspective on public platforms like Twitter et al. Most engineers deal with proprietary black-box stuff that needs to be kept from the competition.

Second, I disagree that engineers don’t get social media. They were the first to hop on the old listservs (remember them?). Then there’s that whole thing called the open source movement for software etc. Ever wonder where all those Firefox and WordPress features came from, or those apps for the iPhone?

Third, although I think social media has tremendous business value, I’m not one of the people who believes everyone in the company should jump into the socmed pool. (CEOs, for example. But that’s another blog post) Engineers, even friendly ones, are not terribly customer-centric. They think in terms of features, rather than benefits, for one thing.

Fourth, engineers see right through labels (part of the reason they don’t like the guys in marketing). Their bottom line is whether or not something works. So relabeling it “social media engineering” isn’t going to gain much traction.

Instead, I’d steer them toward a company-controlled, dedicated listserve that select customers and vendors can access if they have questions or suggestions.