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.

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.