There’s a lot of nasty behaviour online – understatement of 2010. A tweet from a smart communicator, Lauren, lead me to a post about Richard Dawkins feeling slighted over improper behaviour on his forums. The irony of the subsequent comments on that blog post were rather enjoyable.
We’re facing a complex set of new issues around social rules on the Web; in Social Media channels and other online channels. As humanity, these technology tools give us an ability to express ourselves unlike ever before.
Given all the research we do on Social and Digital Media, behaviour is something we look at regularly. We wade through an immense swampland of comments and discussions daily. And probably 85% of it is junk. Spam, nasty comments that are destructive rather than constructive. Porn spammers and the rest. The problem is, we face a challenge in moderating this behaviour in Cyburbia that we don’t have in the real world.
In the real-world in a group of people gathered for whatever reason, a naysayer or nasty person can be quickly shut down and asked to leave. In forums, newsgroups or blog/newspaper comments, there are moderators or a person can be deleted from a forum (but they can easily re-register.) So there are limits to what can be done effectively in Cyburbia. Then you get to issues like Richard Dawkins’ and the final result is to shut off the channel altogether, then we all suffer. Something that can be avoided in the real world.
We often call this online behaviour “childish”. Perhaps because that is exactly the phase we’re in with Social Media; we’re just finding our “Voice of Humanity” and so much of our behaviour is immature. We haven’t established many social rules yet. The “culture” of the Web is unsettled and as yet not entirely defined. It’s easier too when we can hide behind anonymity in these instances – another issue that will need addressing?
Over time I suspect, we’ll develop rules. Ways to shut out overly negative behaviour. It will take time. So meanwhile it’s just part of the “noise” that we have to learn to self-filter or we all suffer for one rotten apple. Issues like this is part of the reason governments are starting to look more closely at online regulations and legislation.
What do you think? What stage are we at?
(Author: G. Crouch)
Apparently, the Obama administration, who has broken new ground in using the Web for a more transparent and engaged government with citizens, is no longer just “leaving it alone.” This marks a significant shift in U.S. government policy regarding structure and legislation on Internet activity. That may just be a good thing and about time. It certainly marks a point of maturity for the Web and the Internet in the U.S.
Here’s our view on why we think this presents some upsides overall and what it may portend.
1. Necessary Protections: Let’s start with child protection. It’s needed. That is an undeniable fact. Canada and the UK would likely follow suit and we’d have better protection for children. Let’s follow that with the Nigerian 419 scams and all the Phishing attacks, spam-bots and Malware sites. Which will only get worse and threaten an entire economic model that has evolved. This is one of the key areas covered by “Internet Policy 3.0″ by the Obama administration.
2. Social Network Implications: Strikingly, in his statement, Senator Larry Strickling shows that government fully acknowledges the voice of the citizen in this new medium as the Internet (sic. Web) is a social as well as business network. That is a significant point of identification of a medium that shouldn’t be missed.
3. Copyright Protections: As per the Digital Economy Bill going through the UK parliament to provide legal protections on copyright, so the US is making these considerations. People who have worked hard for their content deserve some form of protection. The Creative Commons only goes so far and has not entirely resolved these issues.
The implications are broad and some changes will not be welcomed. No doubt they will change the landscape of the Web around the world. What you may be prosecuted for in one country, may be legal in another. We’ve already seen the impact on the U.S. gambling laws for the Internet; it shut down some foreign operators entirely. Likely we will see “underground” networks proliferate, creating a whole new level of policing pressures on government. More perhaps, than now. But to make open government work, some legislation is necessary. The question is “how much” and I don’t pretend to have that answer. Whoever does is set to make some good money though.
At least the U.S. approach is more moderate and open-minded than places like Italy who jailed Google executives recently. Then there’s the UN’s Internet Governance Forum, which is seeing increased input from donor nation governments, that’s not necessarily bad, or good.
This won’t be easy, for either government or citizens. But the lawless days of the Web are drawing to a close and it will be a new landscape in a few years. I suspect we’ll end up with a more transparent and collaborative government with a more engaged citizenship. The Web has grown up a little this year already. Perhaps now it is a teenager than a rampant two-year old?
(Author: G. Crouch)
What’s “new media” now? We’ve hit the “500 channel universe” on the telly, the Web has become truly “interactive”, smart phones are ramping up for mobile use. We’re texting, tweeting, calling, voice mailing, videoing, gaming in vast virtual realities; creating and sharing content like never before in the history of mankind.
And now on the bleeding edge is “Augmented Reality” (AR) technologies. Think of it as your personal digital butler (see a video of Yelp’s Monocle in use here) using your smart phone to find out information about the real-world objects around you. Add in the ability to instantly add your 2 cents on a restaurant you just ate at or a coffee buying experience – well, you get the idea. We’ve added a whole new media channel. And as McLuhan said, the medium is shaped by how we use it. Will people use it and shape it? It’s simple enough to use. We’re already commenting on things. Then there’s Microsoft’s Natal project for the xbox.
My one area of concern over AR technologies is that studies have already shown people are reticent to use geo-location in their smart phones (less than .23% of mobile users in UK & USA). Using AR technologies requires some loss of privacy; are consumers willing to give more up?
More than anything, I just wonder, how many channels can we as citizens deal with and how many channels can marketers, PR pro’s etc., manage effectively? A lot of our research helps guide companies more effectively, but going from budgeting for 20 channels to 180 and then measuring effectiveness? When many metrics are still being debated and are yet to be defined?
What do you think? When is enough enough? At what point do we see channel decay in media formats? Or will we change?
Thunking, Uncategorized•
on January 5th, 2010•
I really enjoyed the blog post today by Joe Pulizzi; he has some great insights. As I read through his 30 things I was pleased as a marketer of 20 years that as a profession, we need to be more honest and respectful of the customer. It’s just time.
But it made me also wonder: just how much truth do we want to hear? Certainly we want honesty in pricing and stop the ridiculous promises of instant weightloss.
Don’t we want a little fantasy though? Seeing that Audi wind through the twisty Apline mountains…well, it’s just inspiring. Sometimes we want Calgon to take us away; even for just a few minutes of quiet in the tub (look how long that fantasy tag line has survived – but soap doesn’t really take you anywhere.)
Perhaps it’s that “line” that can get crossed. I agree, good content is better and honesty/integrity is the best. But can we integrate that with a little fantasy time? Where is the right mix? I don’t know but I’d love to hear Seth Godin’s take or Tim O’Reilly.
How much truth do you want to hear in advertising? When is it a white lie bad? At what point do we reject too much honesty?
What do you thunk?
(Author: G. Crouch, Managing Director)
From Ebonics to Standard English (SE) to regional dialects, accents and contractions – all are elements of our daily lives in an urban setting.The larger the city you live in, whether it’s the U.S., Canada or Europe, the more ethnic groups we find and the bigger the challenge in Social Media engagement. Executing a Social Media campaign in one language is hard enough, crossing multiple cultures in one urban area is another. read more
The biggest challenge on implementing Social Networking technologies in larger organizations is not the technology; it’s the people and the communications processes they use. We’ve found this in several instances now on consulting projects. Social Technologies are disruptive to current organizational communications. I’ve already posited about the potential decrease in the need for middle management earlier this year. read more
It’s a question we get almost every day from current and prospective clients. Usually it focuses on Social Media, but of late Social Media is getting lumped into “media consumption” as a whole. Let’s put this into perspective. Generationally speaking.We think the question is more appropriately posited as “What media is most popular by age group?” Different age groups consume media in different ways. Understanding this is vital to developing effective communications strategies, advertising or marketing. read more
Thunking, Uncategorized•
on November 12th, 2009•
Before the advent of Social Media, even the Web as a whole, there was argument that Western television was destroying other cultures. Yet the most popular shows in Brazil (still are) are called Telenovela’s made in Brazil, by Brazilians and watched daily by more than 60 million Brazilians – more than ever watched American TV shows produced in the U.S.
Step forward to today. Internet access reaches over a billion people around the world. With the advent of Social Media, we can create content and distribute it globally in just seconds. Never before, in the history of mankind, have we been able to do that. read more
Thunking, Uncategorized•
on October 26th, 2009•
From the 80’s through to the 90’s, business found competitive advantages in deploying technology to either cut costs or speed up transactions. In the mid-90’s came the move to networking technologies exploded as the Web began to go mainstream. Business slowly embraced the Web by building websites that offered little interaction, were mostly one-way communications and offered purchasing ability.
But as human beings one of our fundamental drives is to connect and communicate. We always form groups; to either share ideas or to complete a task, big or small, short term or long term. The point is, humans always communicate and always form into groups. Always. The more effective a business is at communicating internally, the better it performs.
The newest technologies to improve internal and external communications is social technologies. Tools such as blogs, social networks, microblogging, video and photo sharing. Businesses that recognize these tools go beyond one-way broadcast messaging and can be used to gain competitive edges are ones who will succeed in the future.
More compelling is that spread of the Web. It doesn’t mean being wired into a desktop computer anymore. The Web today is so pervasive and ties into mobile devices.
The first adoption wave of IT in an organization was essentially to build databases with an illogical communication tool thrown over top – email. Companies who figure out how to use social technologies to communicate better, not just internally, but externally with all stakeholders (suppliers, government, customers, partners) are the ones who will gain the next competitive edge.
When we think of and mostly talk about, Social Media crises, we tend to look at the bigger stories; United Breaks Guitars, Motrin Moms, JetBlue. Let’s face it, they’re juicier and hit a broader audience. These stories bring together traditional and social media. But smaller, mostly “hidden” issues can create PR nightmares for a business.
As we experienced with a client today. For obvious reasons I can’t name them, I like having clients and don’t like making a painful issue worse. The issue didn’t get broadcast across Twitter or Plurk or similar microblogging channel. Nor did it wind it’s away through Facebook.
This crisis took place across three “closed” forums. By “closed” I mean that it was in semi-moderated forums focused to a particular topic/industry. Someone posted a topic in a forum, within a short while, others joined in, discussing a product and their feelings about that product. It started only 3 days ago, but by this morning had reached a significant volume and resulted in a large volume of calls to a contact centre and began migrating up to senior management.
We monitor for this client monthly. Which helped. But the challenge of automated Social Media monitoring tools becomes quickly apparent – most of them are locked out of these forums. And this is a huge gap in Social Media monitoring.
Although this issue was “localized” and didn’t hit broadcast Social Media levels, it still caused a drop in sales in just 2 days of 8% and forced a mid-size business to focus many hours of senior management and people resources to contend with it. Fortunately it was kept localized and didn’t seep over into more public forums.
So what are some take-aways for a situation like this?
1. Don’t rely on Google Alerts or basic monitoring services.
2. Find out where “discussions” are going on in closed forums like newsgroups, chats or discussion forums and check in weekly to see what might be going on.
3. A crisis can occur in Social Media in closed loops and cause as much damage as if it hit the more public forums.
4. Engage in these discussions (be open and disclose who you are, trying to pretend your a customer is dangerous) and stay engaged.
5. Often times, these “hidden” sides of Social Media can be of more value than more public forums.
So what do you think? Have you had a similar experience? What steps do you take in this type of issue?
(Author: G. Crouch, Managing Director)