Winter Gardens Auckland Domain
A place to put things
Amazed this morning that Sunrise dedicated such a long slot to flossing teeth. Surely the news agenda has more to offer?
« Media sharks miss out on a great bite | Main
November 20, 2009
The bitter taste of chocolate coated influence
This is not a whine brought on by lack of chocolate. But it is a worry about the way 'influence' is being trumpeted and overly paraded in the social media sphere to the extent I am once again reminded of the Emperor's New Clothes.
Earlier this week, in a bad mood caused by other matters, I grumbled when I read a tweet from the local branch of a global confectioner on Twitter to a blogger who had benefited from some free chocolate, apparently sent following her commentary on the palm oil debacle and the company's subsequent 'recovery' in social media channels. I was delighted for her that she had received the chocolate and hope much 'nom. nom, noming' was going on at her base. I would also add that she conveyed surprise in her blog at the arrival of the goodies. I was, however, intrigued.
Supply of freebies in the blogosphere is dependent on the supplier's perception of the recipient's 'influence'. In the US, restrictions have now been placed on bob-a-blogs, elsewhere I suspect they may materialise soon. But what I find interesting is not the supply of freebies, but the perception of influence. You see, in my house, I am the primary chocolate buyer. The filler of supermarket trollies who lumps in those palm-oiled bars for my confectionery-loving crew. I also have an extensive network - not on Twitter - of fellow trolley-fillers, who in turn perform outreach 'within a tightly formulated purchasing tribe' (to add the sparkle of some current corporate blather-speak). But which do you think is potentially of greatest influence? A person who blogs about how well a company has done in the social media sphere or a person who actually buys the products?
At this end of the week (having cheered myself up with some purchased chocolate) I have been playing with Klout, another Twitter analytics tool that, along with many others, advises users as to their influence on the network. Apart from the fact it doesn't seem terribly accurate and doesn't correlate terribly well with other similar analytics tools, it makes great play of the 'influencer' numbers, telling you how you should try harder, do this, retweet that, ask this question and so on. A couple of weeks ago I was playing with Twitter lists - a seemingly benign mechanism for organising groups of people - that was almost immediately tainted by a feverish outbreak of a seemingly high school mentality of popularity.
I know that many of those 'influencers' in the social media sphere will probably baulk at this, but my worry is that all this talk of influence takes social media down a wrong turning and into a dark alley. The biggest bonus awarded to us all by online interaction was the removal of filtered communication. We had been stuck with commercial mainstream media models - well, for centuries - and over the last fifteen years we have seen the gradual erosion of their control. (Which is one of the reasons Rupert Murdoch is so mad, but that's another post entirely). There is a real and present danger that the benefits of social media, the open channels, the acceptance of newcomers and the willingness to actually listen to someone else (and I mean properly listen) will diminish and content, instead of having the power to change things will become another platform for marketing spam.
Statistics show us the millions of people who are engaged online, using all sorts of tools to connect with each other but there are still millions more who have no access to the tools, technology or concerns of those intent on filtering who says what to whom and when, but who may well end up permanently out of the loop.
I've been working in this space for many years now (despite Klout's assessment of me!) and I know that if your intention is to genuinely build community, you don't put barriers in front of people - you make them welcome. You make them feel they are part of the team, rather than the one who never gets picked.
Introducing pop charts, lists, influencer ratings, most popular this, most fantastic that simply replaces the old filters with new ones, removing individuals from the conversation. Voices that should be heard won't be heard - or considered important - because they haven't made this week's list or carry last week's Klout.
Much is going on online to make people feel unwelcome, unwanted and unnecessary, which is very sad indeed. If it continues as it is at present then countries who do much to block internet access and content won't have too much to worry about as the egos, seekers-of-influence and experts will put sizeable numbers off joining in in the first place.
Influence is subjective. A relationship has action. Build a real relationship with real people that have real 'reach' in the real world. That'll build the chocolate sales and keep the jobs alive far more effectively than seeking social media plaudits.
« When the Ghost in the Machine needs to back off | Main
November 12, 2009
Media sharks miss out on a great bite
When I first came to New Zealand from the rough tabloid environment that rules the UK, I found the news reporting here rather charming. It was polite, sometimes bordering on the reverential and always, always, tied firmly to local affairs. Even my sons remember the five minute slot awarded to a child's lost goldfish on the main TV news.
These days I find I am bemused by the mainstream media's news priorities, particularly on the broadcast side. Take yesterday. Great story on a shark at Kelly Tarlton's that performed an 'emergency c-section'
on a female, releasing four baby sharks into the tank. Alright, so it isn't earth shattering stuff, nor is it likely to change the world. But it is interesting, diverting and, for New Zealand, most definitely of local interest. Was it covered on broadcast media here? No. Other mainstream? Barely. Does this matter? In the great scheme of things, probably not. But I'd guarantee that online sources, NZPA and others reaped great rewards from their coverage of this diverting tale as the intrigued and curious searched for pictures of the newly-released newborns. The world's a pretty grim place at the moment and to hear of a shark doing a good deed - well, it's a hopeful kind of thing. My unscientific poll today, covering about 350-ish fellow Kiwis indicated that at least 75% were wanting to know more and frustrated by the lack of coverage.
At present, the mainstream news agenda here seems over-punctuated by news from the US, but not the wider world. The focus is on the shallow, not the deep (yes, I know this shark tale is somewhat shallow, but they do live in the deep), the mundane rather than the extraordinary. Which is a shame, because with just 4.5m people to cater for, mainstream media has a potential for influence here greater than in many other places. Given that social media has revolutionised the news environment and given that all mainstream media outlets are in decline, one would have thought those in charge might capitalise on such potential advantage. Evidently not.
Shake it up guys - we expect more. Get your teeth into the news we want to hear and you might just be amazed at what you unleash.
Posted at 04:26 PM in bit of a laugh, Comment, Communication, Current Affairs, journalism, media, New Zealand | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ed0d69e20120a6859192970bListed below are links to weblogs that reference Media sharks miss out on a great bite:
Comments
The yellow spice gives curries their bright colourAn extract found in the bright yellow curry spice turmeric can kill off cancer cells, scientists have shown.
The chemical - curcumin - has long been thought to have healing powers and is already being tested as a treatment for arthritis and even dementia.
Now tests by a team at the Cork Cancer Research Centre show it can destroy gullet cancer cells in the lab.
Cancer experts said the findings in the British Journal of Cancer could help doctors find new treatments.
Dr Sharon McKenna and her team found that curcumin started to kill cancer cells within 24 hours.
'Natural' remedy
The cells also began to digest themselves, after the curcumin triggered lethal cell death signals.
Dr McKenna said: "Scientists have known for a long time that natural compounds have the potential to treat faulty cells that have become cancerous and we suspected that curcumin might have therapeutic value."
Dr Lesley Walker, director of cancer information at Cancer Research UK, said: "This is interesting research which opens up the possibility that natural chemicals found in turmeric could be developed into new treatments for oesophageal cancer.
"Rates of oesophageal cancer have gone up by more than a half since the 70s and this is thought to be linked to rising rates of obesity, alcohol intake and reflux disease so finding ways to prevent this disease is important too."
Each year around 7,800 people are diagnosed with oesophageal cancer in the UK. It is the sixth most common cause of cancer death and accounts for around five percent of all UK cancer deaths.
E-mail this to a friend
Printable version
Print Sponsor
AdvertisementAds by GoogleFree Tattoo Library
10,000 free tattoos for every body. Design your dream tattoo online!
MyWebTattoo.comFull Background Checks
Get Unlimited Access to Search Over 1 Billion USA Records
www.InteliGator.com/Research
Trouble is, I am not a big fan of hot curries...
