Staying Social Through Boston's Bombings.

When tragedy strikes and is highlighted on a national level, many feel the need to get involved. Whether you're a few blocks away or a few thousand miles away, the concept of humanity usually overrules any doubts you might have about ignoring a horrible situation. Because of this, we are innately inclined to help.

Social media has provided us all with a more immediate way to help, with real-time communication being possible for tens of thousands of people at a time. It truly is spectacular to see communication enabled among that many people from such different areas at once. Even a decade ago, I'm sure this possibility was not expected.

However, this type of interactive environment does have its ups and downs.

Boston and Social Media.

First of all, I'd like to note the fact that the happenings this week have evoked a great amount of nationalism among citizens of our country. As impressive as this is, it caused members of many online communities to put on their law enforcement caps and try to solve crime through their computers. The effort is appreciated, but they aren't police officers for a reason.

Due to suspected conspiracy theories that developed over the course of a few days, along with analysis of pictures released by the media to the public, a few ordinary citizens falsely had blame cast on them. There have been a few accounts of those citizens receiving much harassment regarding the crimes they did not commit. It doesn't need to be explained why this is an issue, as it is a violation of privacy for those affected and obstruction of justice on behalf of the information that came to be trusted by major media outlets.

There's something to be said for the more positive outcomes of social media's involvement in the news, though. Many were able to stay involved in the action as it developed, thanks to updates on Twitter, live feeds posted on Reddit (Live Feed), and links to the Boston Police Department's activity scanner being sent to anyone interested. Updates were real-time, with some of the updates even coming from Boston residents that were close to the police action itself.

News networks like MSNBC, Fox New, and especially CNN drew much criticism for being late to provide updates and information on the situations in Boston. Despite the fact that any news network stops reporting live well before the scene in Boston really escalated, many people were frustrated and outraged by their total absence from the police chase. This turned out to be of no issue for most people, though, since Twitter, Reddit, and the police scanner, along with a few local journalists, provided more than enough content to keep anyone interested informed.

Politics and tragedy aside, the way these events played out indicates just how news and online journalism could be shaped in the future. With urgent situations like this, interested parties didn't care about where they were getting their information from, as long as they were getting it. Videos, press releases, and articles would have been too long to keep attention and inform viewers, especially when all of those resources take too long to create.

The Internet certainly proved itself as worthy competition for major news outlets, which are often criticized for their biases and focus on ratings. News networks are businesses, so they do need to make money, but how can they compete with the vast amount of free information that others provide in times like these?

The main way that news outlets can keep up would be to not try and monetize the major news events as they happen. When searching out updates on situations like the manhunt in Boston, people weren't flocking to their televisions to stay informed. Instead, they took to the Internet, where names without faces were keeping everyone informed. If CNN had kept one to a few of its reporters on standby for the night, they could have stayed with the story better and provided their followers with better, more credible information.

Boston's tragic week has to be the event that has best-exposed the discrepancies between online media and televised news, and the major news networks should have some time to learn from their mistakes in handling it. In the future, look for them to be more responsive to major events, especially if they want to satisfy their ratings-driven objectives.

Self-Censorship.

Most people that are active in social media believe that their profiles online should represent who they are and what they believe. The more connected people are to their friends online, the more that their actions matter in real life. If you make a post that attracts a lot of attention online, someone may say something to you about it in real life. If you are consistently funny on Facebook or Twitter, your friends or peers may expect the same of you in real life, too.

Despite the high amount of content posted by users online, there is probably even more that isn't posted.

Censorship in the Form of Self-Restraint.

Terms like "attention whoring" and "begging for likes" are thrown around frequently whenever someone posts content just to receive the recognition or notoriety for whatever they post. The fact that these terms are commonly used online shows that there is a certain level of insecurity or low self-esteem associated with at least a portion of social media users. While this can viewed as some kind of psychological weakness, it may also be the source of content control, my preferred term for self-censorship.

When users implement content control, they stop themselves from posting anything online that may not align very well with either themselves or the people that receive updates from them. It removes some of the uncertainty that a post may not be well received by a particular online community and provides content that is more relevant and better-suited to the tastes of interested parties.

In the article linked above, the numbers show that a majority of Facebook users participate in self-censorship when posting anything on the social network. In an environment as content-driven as Facebook, it is important to the company itself that users implement content control when posting anything. Since the company itself won't remove posts on any page that isn't associated with them, the only moderation as to what is posted on individual profiles comes from the profiles themselves. If other users get fed up with what is being frequently posted, they may choose to abandon the site altogether.

While Facebook may not be the only site where self-censorship is a common happening, it may be where it happens most often. Social networks where it is acceptable for users to post often, such as Twitter and Tumblr, don't necessarily condone content control, since clutter is expected in the feeds of active users. Facebook, however, should attempt to use the fact that their users control themselves, to its advantage in some way.

Google+ Gets Glamour-ous.

Google+ often draws much criticism for not having as much activity as other social networks, like Facebook and Twitter. I have seen it referred to as a ghost town, where people may create accounts that they quickly abandon because of a lack of appeal. One feature on Google+, though, that really stands out is the opportunity for users to initiate "hangouts".

Glamour Hangouts on Google+

Glamour Magazine, a fashion publication, has launched a series of scheduled hangouts with any of its followers over the next month. Any of these hangouts will give them a chance to showcase products that may be partnered with them, some of the expertise of their staff, or even just further gauge the interests of their readers and followers. At a time when print media is supposedly on the decline, this is a great way for them to increase consumer interest in the service they are offering.

When I first read the headline of the article linked above, my mind immediately jumped to the conclusion that Glamour and Google would be charging users for the ability to participate in these hangouts. As different as that is, that in itself could be considered newsworthy and a little innovative. While the ability to start a hangout with anyone is free on Google+, presenting these specific opportunities as premiums would have elevated the brand to a prestige not previously explored.

Instead, Glamour still finds themselves the first movers in an area that could prove to be quite lucrative. Product placement has been increasing in both quantity and quality over the past few years, especially since television commercials are no longer viewed as much as they used to be. Display advertising, the online equivalent of print ads, has very low relative success, as well. Much of it is ignored, since it may not appeal to the Internet user that is seeing it.

For those involved in these hangouts, though, the relevancy of what is being presented can not be questioned at all. If a Google+ user is interested, they will participate, so there would be no waste in promotional coverage. Glamour has everything to gain, though, since their followers and readers will either come to trust their expertise even more or invest in the products that are being presented to them.

It will be interesting to see how other brands might try to explore product placement via social interactions in the future. Google+ hangouts present the most interactive opportunity that could be available to a company right now, and the effectiveness of a brand with actual products to promote, as opposed to partnered brands, could vary based on consumers' reactions.

A Sign of the Times.

I've talked plenty about newspapers and print media and their struggles in competing with digitization. Many are still far behind in the transition to online publication, but the New York Times and Prudential teamed up to produce an interactive advertisement that certainly sparks some interest in the media legend.

NYT Interactivity

The idea of the ad on Prudential's end was to promote their products that help to sustain life longevity. Readers could see what was considered front page-worthy on the day they were born, thus showing how much things have changed since that day. In all the time I've spent on the Internet in my life, I don't think I have seen an advertisement work so effectively for both the advertising brand and its host. It encourages interest in both the New York Times and Prudential, and it does so without controversy.

Both brands are established already in their respective fields, but the awareness helps them both in ways that are tough to duplicate.

With many print media sources trying to find a way to move online, an advertising spot like this would encourage readers of the New York Times to visit their site again. Higher traffic will bring more readers, at least numerically, and also increase the opportunity to profit from ad revenue.

Prudential, on the other hand, promotes themselves through the successful execution of their advertisement. They successfully designed a piece of integrated marketing that addresses the interests of the viewership of another company, while also promoting the ideas of themselves at the same time. It's tough to do, but all in all, it's a great approach to a very modern marketing environment.

Cheap Feats.

A few days ago, a post on Reddit attracted much attention. This specific post was the picture of a receipt from Olive Garden, supposedly the result of a family being comped by the restaurant for their recent woes. The daughter autonomously told the waiter that her grandpa's house had just burned down, and Olive Garden made sure their meal for the night was free.

Brandjacking

Much can be said for brands that truly treat their customers right. However, many were skeptical that this picture was the product of a hoax. Comments on the Reddit thread speculated that the picture was fake, the company hired the poster for publicity, or even that they set up the situation in the store. Many Internet-users happen to be quite cynical, so it's no surprise that there were many doubts about the situation.

Whether or not it is true that Olive Garden is at fault here wouldn't be known unless someone admitted wrongdoing. Simply denying involvement, even if true, does little to curb the doubts of the opposing side of any situation. The real topic worth discussing, though, is how could this "brandjacking" tactic be utilized more effectively, if at all.

Internet users despise corporate sponsorship in their websites. They don't like clutter by itself, but when it is being advertised at them against their will, they see it as wrong. However, many companies might find that a lot of their target markets frequent free sites like Reddit, Imgur, and other social sharing sites. At this point in time, though, it doesn't seem like any certain company has figured out how to effectively navigate these waters.

The problem with companies on these sites is that they stick out very easily when they try direct advertising. So let's pretend for a second that the Olive Garden incident was, indeed, staged. What did they do wrong? What could they have done better?

For starters, the message portrayed in the story is fantastic. It's selfless and considerate, and the average person can always appreciate that. However, when posed as a setup, it seems like the company is toying with the emotions of everyone, belittling the woes that could actually be a reality for someone else. It comes off as manipulative and a little evil. Once this is pointed out, the fight to correct this train of thought is an uphill battle in a very downhill-type environment.

If a company was to actually try and use this approach of marketing, which seems very guerrilla in nature to me, they would need to establish a reputation on whichever site they were utilizing. Reddit and Imgur show how long users have held membership with their sites, and often what they comment or post, so other users can evaluate the authenticity of the user based off of that information alone. They would need to use this otherwise-established account for a one-time stunt that could draw much attention to wherever they see fit. Nothing too outrageous, though, or else users won't believe what they see.

The online community is often a difficult crowd to reach with marketing materials, but this Olive Garden controversy is a good example of a company that, by accident, may or may not have gotten closer to figuring it out.

Reading Media.

As I grew up in the public educational system, I consistently believed that students suffered a vast disconnect with their instructors. I didn't necessarily think this was an issue that was unique to our generation, but it did seem like that disconnect was growing more and more the older I grew. The problem with technology advancement is that as the overall quality of available technology increases, the number of people both qualified and competent in using that technology decreases. For a generation of educators that grew up without much technology, it is often difficult to overcome this disconnect without first educating themselves.

Media Literacy

One thing in particular I recall from my early days of education was the struggle that accompanied finding solid research to support my projects for school. A great amount of information has been on the Internet for years, so relevancy was never an issue like credibility was. Research methods weren't integrated into my educational curricula until about middle school, after numerous science fairs and projects had already happened.

When students are given improper or no instruction and expected to use that as the foundation of their educational development, it corrupts their personal growth and prevents them from utilizing all of the resources available to them. This is why it is important to not just have standard "tech ed" classes in high schools, but to create spots in early education curricula to foster both interest and knowledge of technology and its many uses.

Bolstering media literacy will help combat the idea that not everything on the Internet is true. False information exists to mislead and fool those who don't know what types of sources or information to trust online. If the general population is more aware of what they can trust online, this trend of misleading information should both lose its effectiveness and decline in total presence.

Involving the younger generations in the knowledge of how to use computers and the Internet affects both educational and social aspects of their lives. Increasing the money dedicated to technology education will help sustain the virtuous cycle that the general field of technology has created for itself.

Running Out of Time.

I talked in my last post about publications needing to move along with digitization. With technology only advancing in its superiority, print media is becoming harder and harder to stand by as a primary source of income for businesses. To fight rapidly decreasing revenues, Time Inc. has been looking to sell off many of its print publications off to other publishers. In an attempt to focus on what they do better, film and television, many big name magazines were supposed to be sold to publisher Meredith. This did not happen, though.

Time Inc. Is Up for Grabs

The company's annual revenue of $28.7 billion is nothing to scoff at, but it has been shrinking recently, in large part because of the digitization of the industry. With so many prestigious publications to their name, it's tough to single out any as worthy or safe enough for an attempt at going digital.

Though the deal with Meredith fell through, Time Inc. is still looking to sell off their publications at some point this year. As long as their other areas of focus stay profitable throughout the year, holding onto this division should not be an issue for the company.

However, it's my opinion that they should hold on to at least a few of their big names, such as Time, Fortune, and Sports Illustrated. Each of these publications has a wide viewership that can be targeted easily, especially with the name recognition that each has. Frequency of publication varies between each, but a devoted effort to transitioning these titles to the online world could prove worth the effort. Prices for annual subscriptions would not have to come down too much, since consumers would be receiving the same amount of content, and the margin for producing it all would skyrocket. Overall, it could make an already-extremely profitable company even more rich.

Click (and Pay) to Subscribe.

In class, we've talked a good amount about digital subscriptions. Primarily, our conversations were rooted in attempts to find viable solutions for print media as they either combat or go along with digitization.

Digital Subscriptions

The article linked above shows the attempt of some of these print media legends to stay in the game. The Wall Street Journal was one of the main sources mentioned in class discussion, and they are the first mentioned in the article. They are a credible enough source to successfully draw their readers to their online content.

Transparency of pricing has been one of their main concerns, which happens to be a big deal in the digitization field. As more and more information is available online, it is becoming easier for consumers to see just where their money is going. Websites like Kickstarter show just how much of a product's price can be taken out when intermediaries aren't included.

Online publications take out the need for things like printing costs, thus at least partially cutting the cost of subscriptions, whether they be on a monthly or yearly basis. Some sites, like Baseball Prospectus, were started with an online foundation and have expanded slightly, even if only to the publishing of books with research. The margin on collecting money for online subscriptions is simply too high not to pursue over print subscriptions, and it will be vital to the survival of many of the media giants we have known for years.

Google Glass, Revisited.

Google is one of a few companies that has both the capabilities and the resources to adapt to the rapidly changing landscape of technology. With first-mover advantages leading innovators to net huge profits for their creativity and timeliness, research and development teams are constantly trying to find that cutting edge that will set their brand apart from everyone else.

A few weeks ago, I posted about the potential of Google's new product development, Project Glass. It could, and still can, disrupt the entire advertising industry. Here's the link.

Breaking through the advertising Glass ceiling.

The online giant has posed a new challenge, though. With the online market functioning so heavily off of consumer feedback and communication, Google has asked those interested in the project to tell all about what they would do if they had a model of Glass. A revamped video that, once again, highlights the many uses of the product can be found on multiple YouTube channels online, and it was just released this morning.

On their website (Google Glass) this video follows up a plethora of information regarding the new product, its many color offerings, and a contest.

Google has become so confident in Project Glass that they have implemented this contest to see just what potential users would do with it. Using the hashtag "#ifihadglass" on Twitter and Google+ and explaining just what you would do enters you into a contest just to be able to buy an early model of Glass for $1500+ and try it out. That doesn't include taxes or the cost of flying out to one of three large American cities to actually pick it up.

Let's first address the fact that this may be the best $1500 opportunity to ever be available to the general public. As a college student, I have maybe that much money collectively from both my savings and my checking accounts. I would spend all of it to acquire a pair of these bad boys.

With that in mind, the luxurious price tag they've slapped on it can only do them well. It generates interest in the product, and, in the worst-case scenario, they would have to lower prices to facilitate demand for a product that is already generating a ridiculous amount of buzz online.

A multi-billion dollar company doesn't have as much as the average company trying to roll out a groundbreaking product, but it seems as if Google won't have any problem with Glass.

The Private Parts.

Pictures play a large part in making the Internet what it is: a visual spectrum with images of all kinds for anyone to enjoy. Every search engine has a feature that can explore postings on the Web for anything uploaded by online users. Results are neatly displayed, with links to their original pages, and the experience is becoming easier with every day that passes.

An issue that's existed with every aspect of the Internet, however, is that of security/privacy. High-profile brands run the risk of being impersonated without knowing. Big money-earning companies may be hacked, as well, just as Bank of America has in the past. Social sites like Facebook often come under fire for the accessibility of content posted by users. What about image sharing sites like Flickr?

Flickr Bug Exposes Private Photos

Recently the photo-sharing site had some issues regarding users' private pictures not actually being private. While not every user was wronged by this bug, those that were received an oddly frustrating treatment as reparations. Every public photo submitted by affected users was turned private, regardless of how the user wanted them to be.

On one hand, users are highly inconvenienced (albeit for a short time) by having to go out and select specific pictures to be set to a specific privacy setting. The service is free, but so are other social sites. Messing up with privacy settings is an easy way to lose a lot of traffic, but messing up the cleanup process afterward is an easy way to garner some poor ratings from lost consumers. You don't really see Facebook or Twitter doing much besides temporarily going out of service, leaving everyone inconvenienced at once, instead of temporarily dropping the ball for a select few.

On the other hand, this type of reaction can be attributed to how this generation of Internet users is. Everything needs to be free and as quick or convenient as possible. Some third party may just need to step in and remind everyone involved that they should try providing a better service if they'd like to complain about it.

Flickr doesn't necessarily need to worry about losing all the traffic on its site; with platforms like Instagram gaining in popularity, it's getting easier than ever to upload pictures in a more social manner. However, with more people flocking to online photo services, it would do nothing but help them if they could learn from their mistakes with this most recent bug and provide better service to their current users.

Owning the Internet.

Gartner, Inc. defines the Internet of Things (IoT) as "a concept that describes how the Internet will expand as physical items such as consumer devices and physical assets are connected to the Internet." The general definition of IoT is always expanding, since technology is always expanding. Everyday, companies become more familiar with mobile and some of the newer services offered to Internet users.

An avenue not normally considered buzz-worthy around this time of year is the digital world. Marketing departments typically pursue the most popular option: the Super Bowl.

The Value of a $4 Million Super Bowl Ad

Research from the Digiday article linked above shows that the price of a standard 30-second article could buy much more in the digital world. The hefty tag of $4,000,000 could buy prolonged exposure on Twitter, Hulu, and many other websites. With so many of today's consumers being active Internet users, this advertising provides vital exposure to brands that want to be more productive online.

Not every company tries to make a big splash during the most-viewed athletic event in the nation. Those that do are thrust into the spotlight, hoping to pull off something that will stick in viewers' heads long-term. Chrysler's "Halftime in America" commercial last year, with Clint Eastwood narrating the return of a once-failing automobile manufacturer, stimulated quite a bit of buzz around the brand. Volkswagen usually has memorable spots, ranging from a domesticated dog trying to chase one of their cars instead of a mailman to a little boy trying to emulate Darth Vader by using The Force.

Chrysler's commercial from last year lasted 2 minutes and 1 second, much longer than the standard timeslot mentioned earlier. The ad cost Chrysler an estimated $14 million, an amount that could essentially take over all of the available ad space in the relevant digital world for at least a few days.

So what's the big deal?

It's already been established that the modern consumer spends a fair amount of time online. While not every social media user or online shopper is looking to purchase a car, there are ways to put even just a small fraction of that sum of money to use effectively.

Above all else, the objective of whatever is done should be to make your actions relevant. If a company tries throwing their slogan around the Twittersphere or Tumblr, most users will write it off instantly. Even normal consumers don't want to feel like they're being sold to. It usually comes off as condescending and a little degrading. A short hashtag or current idea that would encourage responses from any Internet user could be considered most effective. The company itself may try to sell its image through the use of whichever approach they decide to use, but it's important to let the online community do the rest.

A preemptive approach to pursuing the online market is by listening to whatever research is available. If 35% of your customers are active Twitter users, but only 12% use Instagram, it'd be wise to stray away from focusing on broadening your presence on the latter.

Some companies become too aggressive when using a new online campaign. On highly-frequented sites like ESPN and YouTube, there might be ads that rollover and start playing videos or displaying extra content, even if the user accidentally scrolled over the area for as little as a second. This is a very passive form of harassment. People enjoy the Internet because of all of the freedoms it allows, and having an idea or image forced upon you in that way is just uncomfortable.

The last important aspect to remember when initiating a high-dollar online campaign is that you have to have something to say. If you are just trying to increase brand recognition, there are definitely ways to do that. Word-of-mouth communication spreads fastest online, so having a short and simple message that can really halt the short attention spans of today's savvy consumers is vital to moving any kind of product.

If you're going to own the Internet for any extended period of time, you might as well make sure people remember it.

Breaking through the advertising Glass ceiling.

Many of us have seen the video of Google's Project Glass. For those that haven't, here it is.

Pretty nifty. It takes everything we ever wanted in a smart phone and condensed them into a techie-hipster style pair of glasses. While it isn't available for purchase yet, it will be. The folks at Google are both smart enough and wealthy enough to make sure a cool product like this is ready for production before the buzz around it wears out.

But what comes next? Mass production of a concept like this?

The idea of interactive holograms isn't new by any means, but it is a much more realistic idea now. Pattie Maes revealed at a TED Talk some technology that provides user-friendly interface for operating a phone system from just around your neck. A few years from now, bigger companies like Google could make even bigger strides in developing the technology that just may challenge the tangibility of space.

How Google Glass Could Change Advertising

With innovation comes opportunity. Mashable did a brief write-up about the possibilities created by the introduction of Google's Project Glass. While noting that Project Glass coordinators won't be having any of companies trying to advertise on their experimental platform, writer Todd Wasserman points out that the web browser wasn't supposed to initially be a breakthrough for advertising.

Is it just a matter of time? One could argue either way.

On one hand, consumers often hesitate to consistently use products that try to manipulate or sell their brand to them. Twitter faced a decent uproar recently due to their adding banner ads to the top of users' home screens, something many users found aesthetically displeasing. Sure enough, the site fixed the problem and all was well.

On the other hand, the technology giant with a brand big enough to draw more advertising revenue than most companies can even dream of should hardly scoff at the opportunity to capitalize on that very fact. Partnerships are nice to have. Google may not need any partners, but in an economy as down as ours is expected to be in the near future, their partnering with smaller firms and companies could mean more for the rest of us than for them.

With programs like AdWords and Analytics, Google has done plenty to foray outside of the search engine label that has so limited sites like Bing and Yahoo!. They know the appeal for companies of advertising on large platforms, as Project Glass projects to be.

So until those techie-hipster glasses finally come out, the rest of us will publicly sweat the debate regarding whether Google will choose to protect the purity of their flashy eyewear or promote the very processes that have made them so much money from the start.

Commence freaking out.

Quora moves beyond questions.

In recent years, many sources of knowledge have emerged to respond to the wild curiosities of the millennials. Wikipedia, though seen as unreliable, has the widest public variety of information available free of charge. While anyone can edit the pages, that leaves them open to being supercharged with specific information from experts anywhere. Information posted without sources is usually taken down soon after it is put up.

Another recognizable name from the past few years is ChaCha, a service that responds to specific questions that users submit via both Internet and text messaging. Using it is free, with the exception of advertisements that fill the time between question and answer. For a generation so used to instant gratification for any matter, this was a short-lived revelation.

Then there's Quora. Currently sitting at 36th on the list of top free reference apps in the iTunes App Store after more than a year since its initial release (September 29th, 2011), it's clear users are satisfied with the way it works. The New York Times even named it one of the next multi-billion dollar startups.

So what gives?

Internet users want more than just information these days. They want interaction. Quora uses the quality resources it has in its great writing talent to appease the curiosity of users. It would only make sense for them to incorporate something very common: blogs.

Quora's Introduction of Blogs

There is slight concern over whether or not the addition of blogging will dilute the effectiveness the company has with its most important service: answering questions.

I'd like to attempt to answer that question, though. Quite simply, it won't. Internet users are smart enough to separate content based on its purpose. They know that a blog won't fulfill their wondering mind as much as the direct questioning they already planned on doing. However, if there is time to read at all, users will enjoy the material presented to them.

With most of their traffic being questions about personal interests, Quora has a strong advantage in how they can structure their blogs. It isn't hard to track how often information on different subjects is requested. It will be easier for them to create material that users will enjoy without requesting for it to actually be written about. Though they don't have a way to directly monetize their blogging platform yet, Quora might have just set themselves apart from most of their competition, while finding new competitors at the same time.

Get Connected.

Social media is an everchanging form of communication. In its primitive stages, blogs like Xanga existed to give Internet users a way of expressing their thoughts to whomever decided to read them. Not long after, Myspace and Facebook occupied the space that most social butterflies unknowingly needed to be filled. Though the former may have fallen off a bit in terms of both usage and popularity, Facebook has become as much of a cornerstone in Internet conversation as Google. While the curious mind will say "Let me Google that really quick!", the social mind will suggest "Find me on Facebook!"

To keep it as simple as possible, Facebook is social media.

This isn't to limit the idea of social media to only the networking giant, but to suggest that recognition of one idea brings about concurrent recognition of the other.

When the average person thinks of basketball, they think of the Los Angeles Lakers.

Baseball? New York Yankees.

Football? Dallas Cowboys.

There's a metaphorical poster-boy for every major concept. As long as the brain continues to operate under the idea of association, this will always hold true.

Many platforms of social media have emerged since Facebook gained in popularity. Twitter, Foursquare, Pinterest, Tumblr, GetGlue, and many others offer users very unique and specialized experiences, ranging from location-sharing to virtual window shopping. However, over and done with are the days of competition between these various brands of social media. You can post onto Foursquare, Facebook, and Twitter from GetGlue. Pinterest has a share option that links to Facebook and Twitter, as well. At this point in time, you can even link your Myspace and Facebook together.

There isn't some secret crusade by the social media heavyweights to increase the reliance on their brands by their users. Those in charge have just come to realize that, as much as their users are loyal to them, an Internet user takes pride in having freedom of opinion. They want the ability to hold membership with a variety of social networks, even if just to have the ability to do so. Whether they exercise this ability is irrelevant.

As various brands in social media pave the way in doing so, their users mirror them by linking one account to another and providing even more evidence supporting the importance of feasibility in the usage of their services. After all, people only ever want to do one thing.

Get connected.