What Does the Future Hold for Social Media?

Even though I have one social media class almost under my belt, I am still not sure how social media will change in the future without the assistance of individuals who are much more knowledgeable in this area than me.   To stimulate my thinking I will begin by sharing and commenting on some of the roundtable discussions that took place on December 4th, 2012 as 50+ experts shared their predictions for 2013. 

http://www.business2community.com/social-media/the-future-of-social-media-50-experts-share-their-2013-predictions-0326316#bhqZEHU1hSKvi1Ze.99

3.  Natalie Bidnick, Account Supervisor and Social Media Strategist at The Marketing Zen Group – @NatalieBid

“Social Media will become an essential – not optional – form of communicating with customers. More companies will use Facebook and Twitter to both listen to their customers, solicit feedback, and practice public crisis management.”

Our group did a social media audit on Kellogg’s and found on many of Kellogg’s social media platforms, many consumers are posting their concerns about GMO being used in many of their food products.  This negative publicity is becoming a large problem for Kellogg’s.   I can definitely see Kellogg’s (or any other business who is experiencing negative publicity) using social media to practice public crisis management.    News moves fast with social media, crisis management must also move as fast or even faster in order for businesses to remain profitable, long-term.    

9.  Mike Bal, Creative and Digital Marketing Director at Baseline21 – @CreativeIthink

“Customer Service – People know they don’t have to wait on the phone to get help, they can tweet. This makes it easy for the customer to let the brand know about any and all problems. So any company who went ahead and distributed products with minor flaws in hopes that the customer wouldn’t want to deal with the hassle of a return or exchange will have a rude awakening. Many companies have adopted social media as a customer service tool purely for the fact that they can look good in front of thousands of potential customers. This year companies will start adopting it out of necessity. If a customer who doesn’t want to talk to a machine or wait on hold for 20 minutes, they are going to reach out via social. If you
don’t answer and they HAVE to call, they are going to be highly irritated and more demanding, ultimately costing the company more money.”

My thoughts, as I was reading these comments were, any company who has started using any social media platforms but have remained relatively inactive, really does need to take their presence seriously.   No longer can they just review (or post to) their pages once a week (or periodically) – they will need to be daily / hourly engaged.   Some irate customer may try to find the quickest way to let other consumers know there is a problem with their product or service.   Posts left unattended to on a social media platform will definitely be a cost to any company. 

29. Jim Caruso, marketing strategist & CEO at MediaFirst PR – @jimcaruso

“Facebook will matter more for B2B, as will FB advertising, since stock price matters when you are a public company.  LinkedIn with matter more across industries and new players, like Pinterest, will continue to disrupt the big players in social media.”

Reading this comment from Jim Caruso where he is suggesting that Facebook advertising will matter more for Business to Business, I have to wonder how Facebook can incorporate more advertising spots for companies without changing the actual platform.   How much advertising can Facebook really do?   Possibly in the future ads could end up looking similar to the brief advertisements you see before watching a YouTube video.  For a company to advertising on social platforms such as Facebook, it may also end up being quite costly for businesses, especially if demand for advertising spots increases.  To have thousands upon thousands of companies demanding advertising spots could be a gold mine for Facebook (or other popular social media platforms). 

33.  Dimple Thakkar, CEO and Impresario of SYNHERGY MARKETING – @dimplethakkar

“Start planning a serious budget for social media advertising in 2013. Make sure you skip the promotional tone in your ad copy to build trust with followers. Consumers have amazing radar for bullshit and your brand has a small window to make a good [first] impression.”

I smiled with this one.  Companies who deviate from the truth will be forced to change these types of practices.   Consumers will call them out and make others aware of unethical practices very quickly.   

39.  Eula M. Young, COO of Griot’s Roll Film Production & Services Inc. – @griotsroll

“Social media will replace the business website. If you don’t have a social media page with information on your products, services on your about page you are not in business. People will judge you on how they can get in contact with you through your social media page. Your “About” page will be more important than your website and you better have links to any other social media pages you have.”

I do not know if I totally agree with Eula M. Young.  I believe businesses will always need their website for placing orders, RMA’s, discount sales, etc.    I think businesses should not give social media platforms too much power by incorporating their websites into their social media platforms.  We do not want the consumers or businesses unknowingly creating any type of near monopoly power within a social media platform.    

As I was reading through an article titled, “7 Technologies Shaping the Future of Social Media,” I was both shocked and totally amazed at point #6 which talks about mind reading.  

It is based on the idea of being able to control an interface without the use of your fine motor skills.  The example given, which still has massive implications is, considers the ability to tweet what you're thinking without having to pull your phone out of your pocket, type your message and hit send. Imagine being able to think 'Facebook' and your screen presents you with an overview of your friend's activity stream. This method of interaction is at a very experimental stage but there are proofs-of-concept that exist. Most of this kind of innovation is currently intended to help people with limited motor skills, and not lazy social media addicts, however.

https://olmoodle.embanet.com/mod/resource/view.php?id=154836

The article does state that this interface is currently not intended for the lazy social media addict, however, in time, it may be in the hands of the wealthy.    They may want to have a lock on the device so that thoughts that are not meant to be posted, are not posted. 

Web 3.0 is, in general, defined as a new kind of intelligent web application that will tailor online searching and requests specifically to users’ preferences and needs.  It is said, as you search the Web, the browser learns about what you are interested in and in time, you will even be able to ask open questions such as ‘where should I go for lunch?’   Image your browser knowing you so well that it can give intelligent answers and even give you restaurant suggestions based on where you are currently located. 

https://olmoodle.embanet.com/mod/resource/view.php?id=154836

It sounds like we will be able to train our search engine to think like we do.  The more we use the Web, the more the browser learns about the user.  In other words, our search engine will be in sync with its user. 

I cannot even imagine where the world is heading with social media.  It is both scary and exciting to even begin to imagine where we could be in the next couple of years, let alone ten years down the road.   Let’s all take our seats in the front row while we watch and participate as the new wave comes in. 

Superficial or Sincere

Although social media may create awareness, does social and political action through online media make deep, lasting and revolutionary change?  Or do you think that it only gives the appearance of such action but tricks people into thinking they are making a difference when they really aren’t?  Slactivism refers to superficial involvement where people participate without being motivated to take their activism or interest beyond clinking like, view or send.)  Discuss your views. 

First, let’s define a few words used to describe change.

Revolutionary: 

• A revolutionary is a person who either actively participates in, or advocates revolution.
• When used as an adjective, the term revolutionary refers to something that has a major, sudden impact on society or on some aspect of human endeavor.

When we think revolutionary change, we envision complete overhaul, renovation and reconstruction.  Change is fundamental, dramatic, and often irreversible[1]- transformational change. 

The term "social revolution" may be used to refer to a massive change in society.[2]

Evolution:

• A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
• Evolutionary change is incremental and takes place gradually, over time.

Summary of the two words:

• Revolutionary = major sudden impact, massive, transformation change.
• Evolution = gradual, incremental change. 

By way of definition, I do not believe social media can make a deep, lasting, and revolutionary change.   However, again by definition, social media is making an evolutionary change.  It is a gradual, incremental change. 

Now, let’s define Activism and Slacktivism;

Activism:

•  The definition of activism is the use of direct action to achieve an end, either for or against an issue^[3].

• When people tie themselves to trees to protect the forest from being cut down, it is an example of activism.

Slacktivism.^[4]

• Slacktivism is a term that combines the words "slacker" and "activism" to refer to simple measures used to support an issue or social cause involving virtually no effort on the part of participants.
• Slacktivism is most commonly associated with actions like signing online petitions, copying social network statuses or joining cause-related social networking groups.
• Slacktivism critics contend these actions are merely for participant gratification because they lack engagement and commitment and fail to produce any tangible effect, in terms of promoting a cause.

Slacktivism, as the name suggests, involves supporting a cause on an individual level without doing much to support the big picture.  The vastness of social media makes these acts incredibly easy. You can share a picture to let your Facebook friends know you care. Twitter has a hashtag for every cause. You can show your support by clicking like.  But, do any of these actions causes real change? 

If an individual takes their actions past just clicking like, sharing a photo, or story it can provide empowering opportunities for people all around the world to stand together in solidarity, either for or against a cause.   It does bring like-minded people together and create a greater force.  However, individuals armed with information must still do something with it. 

Picture the example of activism – when people tie themselves to trees to protect the forest being cut down.   What if the only act from 100, 000 people were clicking like on a Facebook page?   How does that help? 

I actually do think social media can fool some people into thinking they are making a difference when they really aren’t.  Let’s look at the tree picture again.   We have one person tied to the tree, fighting for a cause, meanwhile the rest of the 100,000 people are at home – yet they agree with him, “save the forest”, they clicked like.  Even though all these people agree with him in saving the forest, he is totally alone, tied to the tree, trying to save the forest.   This is a very simple example, but I do hope you are catching what I am trying to say. 

I am not saying that every individual has to go out and tie themselves to a tree, but there are meaningful ways to help after clicking like or sharing a photo or story.  Individuals can write letters in support of (or against) a cause to public officials or individuals who have authority to address issues of public interest.    An individual could also help by donating money to a worthy cause.  The majority of people cannot physically be right in the midst of it but they can feel a part of it by assisting financially.  Always research first how donations are spent by the organization before supporting them.  No one likes to see 90% of their donation going to administration expenses. 

---

[1] http://organizationevolution.com/drumm-mcnaughton/evolution-vs-revolution-do-you-know-the-difference/

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_revolution

[3] http://www.yourdictionary.com/activism
[4] http://www.techopedia.com/definition/28252/slacktivism

News and Information:  Increased or Decreased In Quality

How do we define news?  Has the definition of the word news changed with social media?

News is anything you want to know, but didn't know already.  It comes from everywhere, and the very width and depth of news is expanding at an exponential rate.

 This is the real challenge for publishers. They used to define news in a very narrow form.  It was about politics, crime, foreign affairs, sport etc.  And it was only the type of news that appealed to a generalized mass-marked audience.

News was also only the articles written by journalists. If you were not a journalist, you were not providing news; you where blogging.  But those times are long gone.  This is the new news market.  News can be anything.  It can come from anywhere, via any format.  It doesn't matter who makes it, or how it is published.

 ^{http://www.baekdal.com/insights/how-should-we-define-news}

The question in today’s world is:  Has social media increased the quality of news and information or decreased it? 

Within social media we now have the term, “citizen journalism.”  

One definition of citizen journalism is: 

Citizen Journalism can include anything from people doing their own reporting by picking up a camera or picking up a pad and pencil and writing stories on blogs, through commentaries, and through analysis.   It is basically that idea that the reader is now participating in the authoring of the contents as well. 

^{Ethan Zuckerman, Co-Founder, Globalvoicesonline.org}

OpenFile was one company that has taken audience participation to the extreme by providing a platform in which the general public could participate in the activities of citizen journalism. 

When OpenFile launched, it promised to change the way people think about how news stories are created in two major ways:

1.  Story ideas would originate from users, not assignment editors. People would be able to add comments while the story was being developed.
2. Stories would never be "finished" - they would continually evolve, with back-and-forth between the journalist and the public.

^{http://blog.fagstein.com/2012/09/28/why-openfile-failed/}

The traditional media outlets, such as television, radio, newspapers, magazines, etc., which sends one-way messages, began to embrace social media by using tools such as social networks, video sharing, photo sharing, podcasting, blogs, microblogs, and wikis to connect with its audience, enabling a two-way dialogue.  

    

Some examples are: 

• ABC entered into a formal partnership with Facebook.  This agreement enables users to follow ABC, view reports, videos, and participate in polls and debates. 
• Radio stations have Facebook pages.  It offers wall comments, a discussion board, and the ability for fans to post photos and videos. 
• Magazine and book publishers also have a presence on Facebook.
• YouTube Direct, a tool that connects news organizations with citizen journalists.  Media outlets can solicit footage for stories from citizens.
• Media giant CNN partnered with YouTube during the 2008 presidential election cycle. 
• CBS, Radio-Canada, and Elle Magazine have their own channels on YouTube.  They post videos and allow audiences to comment. 
• Newspapers now offer podcasts to complement their news stories. 
• Radio stations offer podcasting as medium for delivering their programming.
• The news industry has strongly embraced the use of blogs.   The blogs serve as a preview of upcoming news stories.
• Twitter, many news organizations have Twitter accounts.  These accounts allow the audience to follow them in order to keep up to date on the latest news. 

There is no doubt; the traditional media outlets have definitely embraced social media.   The quantity of news has grown but what about the quality?

More than ever, people are using Twitter, Facebook, and other social media sources to learn about what's happening in the world.   

An infographic from Schools.com lists eight stories that broke on Facebook, YouTube, or Twitter:

• Egyptian uprising (Facebook)
• Protestors killed in Bahrain (YouTube)
• Hudson River plane crash (Twitter)
• Hillary Clinton won’t serve in a cabinet position an Obama second term (Twitter)
• The royal wedding announcement (Twitter)
• Whitney Houston’s death (Twitter)
• Newt Gingrich is running for president (Twitter)
• Osama bin Laden raid and death (Twitter)

^{http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/8_news_stories_that_broke_on_social_media_11418.aspx}

 These are just a few of many major news stories ordinary citizens broke first.  Professional journalists use Twitter all the time to break news quickly before writing up full articles.

But the trend toward Internet and social media-based news and the accompanying rush to be first to report a story also comes with pitfalls.   Some 50% of news consumers have received "breaking news" via social media, only to find out later it was erroneously reported.        

                 ^{http://mashable.com/2012/04/18/social-media-and-the-news/}

An article titled, “That’s Old News!” originating from Schools.com, indicate that 49.1% of people who have heard breaking news via social media turned out to be false.   That is a large percentage. 

^{www.cohnmoscarelli.com/2012/04/how-social-media-has-influenced-traditional-media/}

From the two articles where I quoted percentages, are these percentages really true?  Does anyone really hold all the truth or it is, in part, people’s perception? 

I believe when it comes to news sources, we need to double check the facts with a trusted news source.  Can you image what would happen if someone were to post a news feed of a devastating event that would be taking place in Ontario in the near future.   How many people would respond to the imaginary event?  The reader must and should double check the facts.  

As Larry Kilman from WAN’s said, “At the same time, newspapers are changing, and must change, if they are to continue fulfilling their traditional role as watchdog, and as the provider of credible news and information that citizens need to make informed decisions in society.                             

  ^{http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/more-people-read-newspapers-worldwide-use-web}

 And the traditional media outlets of reporting the news are embracing the social media by using the tools.  Their role in society is to be a watchdog and provide credible news.  Sure we may not always be able to trust what they print but we do want to be closer to the truth than participate in grape vining. 

 Find your trustworthy, reliable news sources and always verify what you read before accepting as truth and passing it on. 

Social Media Diet

A Social Media Diet!  

For "only" 48 hours!  Can I do this?

Absolutely, I can do this.    I do not spend a lot of time on social media networks. 

Or do I?

The weekend has now passed, how did things go?

I got up Saturday morning and what was the first thing I go to do?  You guessed it, I go to start up the computer.    I immediately stopped myself; I did not hit the on button.   Instead, I did everything else that I do in the morning.  Everything except check my email.  There was an accounting assignment and quiz that I wanted to complete during the weekend so the computer eventually had to be turned on. 

On Saturday morning, my roommate is sitting across from me, surfing the Internet.   It is only 10:45 in the morning and I am finding myself wanting to check my email.   I am trying to study but my mind is thinking "email, email."   I decided that I would let Chris know that for one of my classes, we are to observe a social media fast for 48 hours.   My only purpose in sharing with Chris was to help me stay accountable.   That backfired!    

Chris asked me, "What does staying off of social media sites for 48 hours have to do with accounting?"   That conversation ended up being almost a hour in length with Chris trying to get me to see how the colleges are padding the courses with classes that are not associated with my major.   That ended any further discussion on this assignment with her.  If anything, instead of helping me, she gave me all the reasons why I should not be following this.  She definately did not see the value in doing this. 

Prior to this 48 hour diet, I had deactivated my Facebook account because I became very aware of how much time I was spending on Facebook - time that I needed to be spending on my studies and on the many deadlines with work.  Did my account stay deactivated?   No.  Why?  When I am stressed, frustrated, or just need a break, I login to Facebook and play a few on-line games.    If I do not keep track of the time I am wasting, I could end up wasting a couple of hours at each sitting.   Not a good thing for me!

 

During this past weekend I also noticed that when I am on a phone call, my pattern is to login to Facebook and play games while chatting on the phone.  (I do have the volume off so the person on the other end of the line is not aware of what I am doing while talking with them.)  That really is not a good habit to have because my attention is divided. 

With Facebook being deactivated during the weekend, I only had one friend who emailed me asking if everything was ok because, when she tried to post on my wall, she was not able to.  Other than Lyn, no one else noticed I was not there. 

Now for the answer to the question; was I able to complete the 48 hour social media diet without cheating?

  

Yes I was able to remain off Facebook for the entire weekend.    I believe I was able to do that because I had already started the process of reducing my time on the site.

 

I lost that battle.   I did not make it past 12 hours.  I found that I could not stay focused on the class I had in front of me because I kept thinking, "Are there any emails that I need to reply to?"   Currently my email traffic is high due to a work situation and I felt I needed to keep connected.   Today, as I looked over what I received for emails during the weekend, they all could have waited until Monday morning.  There was nothing pressing in any of them.   

The real issue that I faced was wondering if I had emails.  Being disconnected kept me wondering.   I found that I wasted more time and energy just wondering about it.  Yet, as I indicated earlier, everything could have waited until Monday morning.  

I am going to give this another try.  Maybe this time I will begin with 24 hours instead of 48 hours.  This will give me a chance to learn a little bit more about me and my habits.