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.

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.

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.