In the 1960's, The Jetsons, an animated show (we still called them cartoons back then) showed life in the 21st century - push button magic, everything easier - until the humans mess things up. The title of this blog is from the opening sequence - when George gets stuck on the automatic dog-walking treadmill. Sometimes I think social media is like that show - a wonderful move into the future, but dragging along enough human nature to mess things up every now and then. This blog was created for Dr. Frechette's Social Media class; if you are reading this for examples, assignments are in the posts for 2012 - later posts are simply additional examples of the wisdom that comes with age.
I still don't get Twitter. I have yet to find someone/something I am intereseted enough in to follow on Twitter, and when I read stories like this one on Slate.com I am even more puzzled. I did find the following comment on the article most amusing:
Lawrence Godsey
PRO: 30% more Burger King Twitter followers!
CON: They are the kind of damaged people who would subscribe to a fast food Twitter account....more
And what happens if the groundswell is wrong?
Like many in New England, we were without power for the past couple of days (news flash: lack of electricity has an impact on the use of social media), and as usual during these events, we are hungry for information (as well as incredibly bored with a non-digital lifestyle when thrust upon us).
After going to a social media marketing presentation a while back, I decided to give Twitter a try. I confess, I didn't follow many, but those I did follow I found less than scintillating, and felt that they were simply one step above talking to themselves. During the storm, I think I would appreciated Twitter more if I had a select group to follow (I didn't even bother with any storm hashtags, as I assumed the volume of Tweets would be overwhelming, and I was wondering when I would be able to recharge my phone.)
I am glad, however, that my copy of "Groundswell" is the 11th edition, with an updated Chapter 10: Tapping the Groundswell with Twitter.
When I first heard about Twitter, it seemed silly. And when I heard one of the Twitter evangelists almost wetting his pants with excitement about the fact that His Local Coffee Shop Could Tweet Him about Specials!!!!!, well, I figured, it's just the end of civilization as we know it. Maybe it's the grumpy old man in me, but I don't want to hear more from entities where I don't have any real personal relationship (and I am not even that enthusiastic about the ones I do have relationships with).
The limit of 140 characters (although I understand they are going to expand that, at least for some set of uses) did seem intriguing. And perfect for celebrities such as the Khardashians, who probably don't know enough words to use up more letters than that.
As with other strategies outlined in Groundswell, I can't quarrel with them, but many of the tactics they ask businesses to employ were (or should have been) done by responsive businesses in the analog era. The difference now is that we have added the elements of speed and visibility.
The example given about Fadra, the mommie-blogger hunting down the "correct" McDonald's action toy may be "feel good" (although curmudgeons like me wonder about parents advertising how happy they are that a corporation has co-opted their kid), I was more impressed with the use of Twitter to provide at least a semblance of immediate resolution and response to issues by companies such as AT&T, which, like other companies can now use Twitter as a formal customer support channel, and Intuit, which was able to build a stronger relationship by providing tax preparation advice.
While engagement with all forms of social media can be mutually beneficial, sometimes it may be adversarial, and in this chapter, the book didn't seem to give good, workable solutions to fighting deliberate misinformation. And then I wonder, are there times when you simply should not engage?
First, a little fun:
As a result of Hurricane Sandy, there were postings that demonstrated the lack of accountability and veracity provided when "anyone" can use social media. Tweets and pictures purporting to show effects of the storm that were deliberately faked or were from other weather events, or even from disaster movies quickly appeared:
But it can take a while for the ruse to be exposed. According to the Washington Post:
The Chinese Web has picked up on one of the most popular photos from Hurricane Sandy. It’s from Brigantine, N.J., and purports to show a shark swimming through the town’s flooded streets. It was originally posted by a guy named Kevin McCarty, who earlier posted another shark-in-Jersey photo that TheAtlantic.com’s Alexis Madrigal demonstrated was fake. It’s been shared almost 7,000 times on Facebook and has now made its way over to China, where users on the country’s massive Twitter-like service, Weibo, picked it up. (Spotted by Bloomberg columnist Adam Minter.)
You can see a slide show of similar photos at WKYC news.
But it's not all fun
While there was an amusing side to this, there are more serious implications to consider. Particularly as stories "go viral" there can be an assumption of truth (and of course, as time goes by, and more and more fake stories are exposed, it may then reverse and create the assumption that most information through social media is wrong). You can't win.
The Sandy-themed whopper that caused the most fuss was that the floor of the New York Stock Exchange was under three feet of water, something that was reported as fact by CNN and others late last night before Twitter users moved quickly to self-correct the false report.
And in another article, Will Oremus considered the effect of false reports during an emergency:
We also see social media promoting their own version of medical and scientific theory, where again, it can directly affect people's health and well being. Most famously, Jenny McCarthy, a model and actress, led the now discredited fight against childhood vaccination, believing it caused autism. And in this Sunday's New York Times, the article: A Controversial ‘Cure’ for M.S., by Paul Tullis talked about a medically unproven surgical therapy for multiple sclerosis, promoted by a Dr.Zamboni:
Even Zamboni agrees with this sentiment. “With this big attention in social networks, it has generated a black market with speculation, with not properly performed procedures,” he says. “It’s unethical to offer a treatment when it’s in an experimental phase.”
(And already the reader comments on-line for this article include stories of "cures" due to this procedure, and other unconventional therapies.)
All right, all right, I'll get to my point
So what happens with a false hit and run blog post, Tweet (or re-Tweet)? As we know with traditional media, everyone remembers the "sexy" part of the story, and when proven untrue, the retraction/correction appears briefly, in a far less prominent position. Yes, if the story seems hot enough, social media can be self-policing, but do you really foresee Tweets of "I was wrong" going viral?
Are the stories about "Twitter revolution" giving social media the appearance of authority it doesn't yet deserve? And will social media threats be the Tylenol scare of our generation? The use of Twitter over other media may give it an immediacy that makes it less liable to careful scrutiny, which brings us to Mr. Liberty Mutual .
In spite of the name, this is not an official site, but a place where one person/group has made a personal crusade against the insurance company. And boy, do they have an axe to grind:
I noticed that there is apparently no official input from Liberty Mutual on the Mr. Liberty Mutual site or Twitter feed (and, like many corporations, a Google search on "Liberty Mutual Complaints" turns up many web sites built expressly for the purpose of venting frustration).
Perhaps they see no upside in participating when the playing field is not level. One difficulty is that any message from "corporate" can be dissected, invalidated, disclaimed, mocked, etc. by an entity with no (responsibility) to provide a full story, or even to guarantee the validity of the information they present.
But in fact, if you look at the official Twitter account for Liberty Mutual, you will see that they are aware of social media, and using it
as a tool to respond to their customers (as well as providing other ways to interact with the company).
While this is not likely to satisfy
the "complaint" sites, simply by being there it does provide a
counterbalance, that can make customers realize that there is possibly more
than one side to any story.
Author's note:
When googling for information about the Tylenol case, I found this link is to a nicely written, concise set of case studies by Jennifer Hogue. This appears to be a class assignment she completed in 2001 on crisis managent/PR. No other information was provided on her site.
While the internet and social media have been incredible forces for building community, pursuing and disseminating information, and even helping to overthrow oppressive regimes, it seems that every week in the news there is some internet-related story that makes you wonder just how far humans have evolved from apes.
For the benefit of the younger members of this class, I am going to tell you about an earlier age, when the big communication medium was network television. We had broadcasts of scripted, weekly performances, usually sponsored (paid for) by consumer goods manufacturers and retailers. It was a wonderful world back then. Watching these shows was evidence that the world was good, and that there were no divorces, gays, minorities, or drug use (unless you count Geritol and cigarettes).
You didn't need to talk back to television shows (unless you were a crazy person), since communications experts (ok, the sponsors) knew what was best for you, and made sure nothing was offensive. Their financial power took care of this, with the helpful enforcement of the network censors and the FCC (still on nipple concealment patrol to this day).
Then things loosened up, and sponsorship of shows went away in favor of individual advertising spots. With the advent of cable, it seemed as though everything was going to hell in a hand-basket (those of a certain age still jump when they hear foul language coming out of the box in the living room). But, as they always do, advertisers found opportunities here, but could still pull back nervously if the public seemed to tack against what was shown.
Now with the internet and social media, we have a lively forum for a serious exchange of social, cultural and philosophical issues. As if. There is often debate in the United States as to where freedom of speech ends and harassment, obscenity, etc. begin, and social media is the new playground for this. It was always possible, but not always feasible or practical to publish (on your own, if no one else was willing), but with the ease and lack of financial considerations for blogging, posting or commenting on web sites (or for that matter, having your own web site), the floodgates seem to have opened wide.
But things seemed to have reached a new low this past week, when Michael Brutsch, a user on Reddit.com (an open forum/aggregator type site) was outed.
"...last week when Gawker revealed the identity of user Violentacrez, who was known to start hundreds of forums, including one called “Jailbait” that featured pictures of underage girls. After the Gawker article appeared, Brutsch was quickly fired, and a debate about anonymity on Reddit ensued. " - Slate Magazine, October 19, 2012
When interviewed on CNN, Brutsch claimed that he was just being provocative, and said:
"Reddit needs to step up....if I hadn't been allowed to run wild, I wouldn't have"
So what does this have to do with us? You may now need to consider what the relationship between those wishing to advertise/exploit social media sites and who the audience/participants on those sites will be. While engaging the groundswell, there may be pitfalls for your organization (or in some cases, perhaps opportunities).
As the old saying goes, "You are known by the company you keep". In the "Violentacrez" case, it is likely that while Reddit has an all-encompassing variety of material, it will be known for the more questionable sections. You may have tactics for responding to adverse information about your product or organization, but what about offensive information not related to your business, but simply appearing in proximity?
Will marketers (whether commercial, political -as if there's a difference), activists and interest groups pull back, and avoid sites with lack of control? Will they hold their noses and go where the clicks and eyeballs are (even while pretending to be aghast), or simply try to exert pressure as they did in the old sponsorship days?
Any of the "free" social media services come with the tacit agreement that, just as with the network broadcasters, we will have commercials put in front of us. This advertising revenue is the lifeblood of these sites, so I am pretty sure that while a provider may fight for free speech against government intervention, advertisers with cash on the line will have the greater say.
But in the meantime, when attempting to manage your "brand", pay attention to where you can be found on the internet. As my mother used to say, "Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas". In fact, I found a song about it:
Uh oh, I just listened to all the lyrics. Stop playing that right now! Instead, let's leave with this one, from the Alan Parsons Project:
Late breaking addition: This group using social media to raise awareness of the need for cancer diagnosis might find an audience with "edgier" forums that traditional groups may avoid. We'll see if it goes viral.
Counting your friends and followers - signs of influence or narcissism?
As with other aspects of modern culture, social media suffers from an obsession with numbers. Is this simply part of a human need to quantify information, or is something else at play once individuals can interact on a limitless playing field with few barriers to entry?
I walk her, feed her,
lether on my bed, and she still won't
"Friend" me on Facebook.
Every morning on our Boston area TV news there seems to be a report about something going viral with x number of views, x number of hits, x number of twitter followers, or a celebrity with x number of "friends" on Facebook.
When I saw the article Are 5,001 Facebook Friends One Too Many? by Aimee Lee Ball, published May 28, 2010 in the New York Times, I thought it was another "faux trend", but a Google search revealed that some individuals were actually concerned about Facebook's limit of 5,000 friends and are looking for solutions. (If you want more, you need a business page or fan page, but this seems unacceptable to these users.) So we now have a new status symbol - Facebook waiting lists.
According to the article,
"friending sustains an illusion of closeness in a complex world of
continuous partial attention,” said Roger Fransecky, a clinical psychologist
and executive coach in New York (2,894 friends)."
Now, we know these are not all really "friends", and there is a suggestion that there is a physical limit to the number of actual, stable relationships a human can have, known as Dunbar's number, and that number is approximately 150.
But, if you are still looking for more "friends", here is some advice, from a Facebook "expert" :
Now certainly, for celebrities, brands, commercial enterprises and organizations, there is a real value here. But for the average person?
Twitter is another exercise in status by numbers. When the news reports on celebrity tweets, unless it is something embarrassing or controversial, the content is not the issue, but the number of followers and retweets.
Gretchen and Bill Voth, New York Times photo. " But that wasn’t a day to have the phone attached to the hip."
And it's not just the number of Twitter followers - you want to be trending - in the NYT Sunday Times Style section, Sept. 9, 2012 there was a report on the wedding hashtag trend about couples whose friends were determined that the wedding would be a "trending event" on Twitter. (Of course, almost all involved, including brides and grooms are in the social marketing field, which makes this entire exercise suspect.)
The story of one couple in the Times article was picked up in a variety of social media sites - including a blog " "Love, Brittney" (enough said) and comments from the couple threaten to take the word "disingenuous" to new heights:
BILL: Well, it wasn't really anything we did. Mike Solarte (@MikeSolarte), a sports broadcasting colleague of mine, got the ball rolling the morning of the wedding. He figured it would be something we'd enjoy. People then caught onto the hashtag and it kind of took off. It certainly helped that Gretchen and I are both social media dorks (Note: both of them have careers in social media and content managment/publicity), but we weren't all that aware of what was going on. Neither of us did a lot of tweeting that day, which was hard for us. But that wasn’t a day to have the phone attached to the hip.
GRETCHEN: We never in our wildest dreams imagined we’d have such a talked-about wedding. I think it’s safe to say that making #vothwedding trend locally was one of the most unique gifts our friends and family could have given us.
In the article, Twitter cofounder and board member Ev Williams shares concerns that there is an emphasis on the number of followers, versus the influence of the users. The author of the article, Will Oremus, talks about the use of tools that purport to measure Twitter influence, and is not in favor of them:
"Attaching a rating to each participant only reinforces the idea that it’s a contest rather than a discussion—and there are already too many people on the site who treat it that way."
Then there are the tools that purport to measure the quality of your social media presence. One of them, Klout, offers the following according to their site:
"Klout measures your influence based on your ability to drive action on social networks. We crunch your social data to give you insight into how influential you are and what you are influential about."
Hey, it's "free", so I registered. Now, I didn't expect much here, particularly since I wasn't going to allow the site to access apps whether or not I was using them, or hand over my Linkedin password, etc. But I still came up with a Klout score of 10 (out of 100). I suspect that they give everyone at least 10 points so they don't get depressed. To add to the narcissism factor, Klout will also share information with your social media "friends".
While it may be a useful tool to check your Klout score if you have business reasons (you work in the media, your last name is Kardashian, etc.), it seems to run the risk of being another digital status symbol. So, let's not lose sight of the need for quality in our communications and relationships, and not rely on measurements that may be of dubious validity.
The following cartoon is taken from the October 1, 2012 issue of The New Yorker magazine, with no permission whatsoever.
Last minute update since the original post - two articles from Slate.com:
After going to a social media marketing presentation a while back, I decided to give Twitter a try. I confess, I didn't follow many, but those I did follow I found less than scintillating, and felt that they were simply one step above talking to themselves. During the storm, I think I would appreciated Twitter more if I had a select group to follow (I didn't even bother with any storm hashtags, as I assumed the volume of Tweets would be overwhelming, and I was wondering when I would be able to recharge my phone.)
