I am a firm believer – and enthusiastic participant – in Twitter and written about it several times before on this blog. At the Integrating Social Media conference there was a great deal of discussion about this social media tool.
Twitter is a vital resource in harnessing the power of social media. It is a place to share information and have conversations. To be part of the conversations it is important to engage and provide a useful contribution to the community.
Twitter has upwards of 98 million registered users. Before the conference I had not been aware that additional individuals could follow Twitter users on their mobile phones without an account. (Thanks to Marla Erwin – @marlaerwin.) More Fortune 500 companies are using Twitter to communicate than Facebook – 54% versus 32% on Facebook. It is where business is communicating. It is where customer service teams (like @ComcastCares, @virginatlantic, and Best Buy's @twelpforce) are helping their customers everyday.
Twitter is real-time news and information. People are tweeting about what is happening now. This is changing the old news cycle where it took several hours for a story to be researched, written, and posted to the web or broadcast on television or radio. Now, on Twitter, people are sharing the news as it happens to them. Everyone can now be a source of information or a citizen journalist.
Twitter is where a lot of information is now. You just have to look, listen, and learn.
October 26, 2010
October 25, 2010
#SMIATL Lessons – What is Social Media?
It is always important to start at the beginning...
At the Integrating Social Media Conference there was a great deal of discussion about what social media is. And while this seems like an elementary and uninteresting topic, understanding it is essentially to be successful in the social media ecosphere. First it is important to look at what it is not. Social media is not just about user generated and / or curated content. It is not just the tools and portals, like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Social media is about creating, commenting on, sharing, and redistributing content. It is an interactive space where broadcasting is no longer sufficient and participating in conversations is essential.
Or put another way, social media is people talking to people.
At the Integrating Social Media Conference there was a great deal of discussion about what social media is. And while this seems like an elementary and uninteresting topic, understanding it is essentially to be successful in the social media ecosphere. First it is important to look at what it is not. Social media is not just about user generated and / or curated content. It is not just the tools and portals, like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Social media is about creating, commenting on, sharing, and redistributing content. It is an interactive space where broadcasting is no longer sufficient and participating in conversations is essential.
Or put another way, social media is people talking to people.
Where is Kennesaw and the Integrating Social Media Conference
This week one of my coworkers and I had the opportunity to attend the Integrating Social Media Conference at Kennesaw State University in Georgia. After flying to Atlanta, we programmed our destination in the rental car's GPS and drove the hour and a half in traffic to arrive to Kennesaw, located northwest of Atlanta.
The conference was hosted by the Center for Sustainable Journalism at university. Topics discussed during the two day event included social media planning and ROI, to the future of social media, web strategies, and unifying social media and public relations. The presenters I most enjoyed listening to at the conference were (in alphabetical order) Olivier Blanchard (@thebrandbuilder), Marla Erwin (@marlaerwin), Jesse McDougall (@catalystwebwks), and Shiv Singh (@shivsingh).
In addition to talking about social media, the conference attendees and presenters participated in the event via social media as well. Using the hashtag #SMIATL I joined the other conference participants and shared observations and insights on Twitter during the conference, continuing the conversation online.
While it would be difficult for me to relate everything I learned and observed at the conference, I would like to share a few insights. Over the next few weeks I will post a series of blog entries – #SMIATL Lessons – about what I learned in Georgia.
The conference was hosted by the Center for Sustainable Journalism at university. Topics discussed during the two day event included social media planning and ROI, to the future of social media, web strategies, and unifying social media and public relations. The presenters I most enjoyed listening to at the conference were (in alphabetical order) Olivier Blanchard (@thebrandbuilder), Marla Erwin (@marlaerwin), Jesse McDougall (@catalystwebwks), and Shiv Singh (@shivsingh).
In addition to talking about social media, the conference attendees and presenters participated in the event via social media as well. Using the hashtag #SMIATL I joined the other conference participants and shared observations and insights on Twitter during the conference, continuing the conversation online.
While it would be difficult for me to relate everything I learned and observed at the conference, I would like to share a few insights. Over the next few weeks I will post a series of blog entries – #SMIATL Lessons – about what I learned in Georgia.
September 30, 2010
AP Accepts Bloggers
It is about time! Earlier this month the Associated Press announced that bloggers should be cited as news sources. As a blogger I think this is great news!
In a world where all media is becoming social, this is long overdue. This gives bloggers recognition for the work they contribute to the news media. It also sets the stage for news to become a more open conversation instead of a centralized distribution of content. I think this is an intriguing possibility! News is what is going on in the world around us. By nature, most people are social beings. With technology our social circle and interaction is no longer restricted by our physical location. We live in a global social community. World news should be compiled through the collective observations and contributions of many connected citizens from around the globe, including bloggers.
Another implication this change will have is to remind bloggers of their responsibilities. Just like traditional journalists, bloggers will need to be held accountable for what the information they post and the words they write. But, this is not a negative implication. Many bloggers have assumed this responsibility all along – this change gives these individuals the credibility they deserve.
Thank you to the Associated Press for adapting their policy to better suit our socially connected world.
In a world where all media is becoming social, this is long overdue. This gives bloggers recognition for the work they contribute to the news media. It also sets the stage for news to become a more open conversation instead of a centralized distribution of content. I think this is an intriguing possibility! News is what is going on in the world around us. By nature, most people are social beings. With technology our social circle and interaction is no longer restricted by our physical location. We live in a global social community. World news should be compiled through the collective observations and contributions of many connected citizens from around the globe, including bloggers.
Another implication this change will have is to remind bloggers of their responsibilities. Just like traditional journalists, bloggers will need to be held accountable for what the information they post and the words they write. But, this is not a negative implication. Many bloggers have assumed this responsibility all along – this change gives these individuals the credibility they deserve.
Thank you to the Associated Press for adapting their policy to better suit our socially connected world.
September 11, 2010
9 Years Ago - I Still Remember
Today is the ninth anniversary of 9/11. The horrific events that occurred that day changed my life forever. My friends and coworkers were among those who died that clear September morning. I remember that day. And the week, month, and year that followed it. Those times – all of them – changed my life and changed me.
But, that is not why I am writing today.
This year I am sad to see this day surrounded by tension resulting from religious and political divisions. Hate and anger. Frustration. These are not the feelings that we should have as we remember those that died. I wish if there was one thing that we learned from 9/11 it would have been acceptance. And I hope to someday – in the not too distant future – live in a world with great tolerance and understanding.
But, that is not why I am writing today.
This year I am sad to see this day surrounded by tension resulting from religious and political divisions. Hate and anger. Frustration. These are not the feelings that we should have as we remember those that died. I wish if there was one thing that we learned from 9/11 it would have been acceptance. And I hope to someday – in the not too distant future – live in a world with great tolerance and understanding.
July 14, 2010
Visual Honesty
Last week the New York Times Media Decoder blog posted an entry about The Economist recently edited a photo for its cover. The image in question on the cover of the magazine shows President Obama standing alone on a Gulf Coast beach looking at the sand. Behind him looms a large oil rig and the title adds to the drama – “Obama v BP, The damage beyond the spill”. But, in the original photograph, taken by Reuters photographer, Larry Downing, the President is not alone. Instead he is standing on the shore speaking with Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen and local parish president Charlotte Randolph. The magazine digitally removed the other two individuals from the image.
The altered photograph and ensuing discussions in New York Times, the Guardian, and the blogosphere brings up some interesting points about the intersection of journalistic integrity, photojournalism, photography, and art.
We have always separated photographers from photojournalists. While there is an overlap in skills and many individuals have produced work that should earn them membership in both clubs, we have kept the distinction. In part I think this is to allow for creativity on the side of photographers. We have celebrated those who change their photos to tell us a story. The artist is given license to adapt reality through developing and manipulating, and now with software, to create the image in their eye. Not all photographers have taken this route. Many choose to present the world in its true, raw form. But, it is the artist's option. Photojournalists on the other hand are not allow license. They must present the world through the lens – accurate to the last detail. We charge them with recording history.
We are in the age of digital photography and photo-editing software. So, what about editing? Is it important for all news photography to be presented untouched? Or are some edits acceptable?
In response to the post on Media Decoder, The Economist pointed to their October 2008 cover when the magazine endorsed Barack Obama for president. That cover shows a photograph of the then presidential candidate striding towards the camera. The image background is bright white and the headline simply states “It’s time”. The Economist’s editor explains that in both images the magazine altered (or completely removed) the background to create focus on the subject – President Barack Obama.
The fact that the magazine has edited two recent covers of the same individual does not make the practice right – or less controversial. So, when is it acceptable to edit a photograph and when is it not? I do not think there is one answer to that question. Perhaps news sources and photojournalists should always alert viewers when an image has been edited. But, that would only be a band-aid solution and not address the controversy directly. The question would remain: Are there circumstances where it is acceptable for a news source or journalist to edit photographs? I think the best answer lies in the intent of the alterations. Obviously, altering an image to misguide the viewer does not coincide with the integrity standards we accept of all journalists – written or photographic.
The altered photograph and ensuing discussions in New York Times, the Guardian, and the blogosphere brings up some interesting points about the intersection of journalistic integrity, photojournalism, photography, and art.
We have always separated photographers from photojournalists. While there is an overlap in skills and many individuals have produced work that should earn them membership in both clubs, we have kept the distinction. In part I think this is to allow for creativity on the side of photographers. We have celebrated those who change their photos to tell us a story. The artist is given license to adapt reality through developing and manipulating, and now with software, to create the image in their eye. Not all photographers have taken this route. Many choose to present the world in its true, raw form. But, it is the artist's option. Photojournalists on the other hand are not allow license. They must present the world through the lens – accurate to the last detail. We charge them with recording history.
We are in the age of digital photography and photo-editing software. So, what about editing? Is it important for all news photography to be presented untouched? Or are some edits acceptable?
In response to the post on Media Decoder, The Economist pointed to their October 2008 cover when the magazine endorsed Barack Obama for president. That cover shows a photograph of the then presidential candidate striding towards the camera. The image background is bright white and the headline simply states “It’s time”. The Economist’s editor explains that in both images the magazine altered (or completely removed) the background to create focus on the subject – President Barack Obama.
The fact that the magazine has edited two recent covers of the same individual does not make the practice right – or less controversial. So, when is it acceptable to edit a photograph and when is it not? I do not think there is one answer to that question. Perhaps news sources and photojournalists should always alert viewers when an image has been edited. But, that would only be a band-aid solution and not address the controversy directly. The question would remain: Are there circumstances where it is acceptable for a news source or journalist to edit photographs? I think the best answer lies in the intent of the alterations. Obviously, altering an image to misguide the viewer does not coincide with the integrity standards we accept of all journalists – written or photographic.
June 8, 2010
Investing in Chocolate
While reading the New York Times last week I finally found the perfect financial instrument for me to invest in – bonds that pay dividends in chocolate. Chocolat Hotel, a UK cocoa grower and chocolatier, is offering ₤2000 and ₤4000 bonds to fund costs associated with the company’s ethical cocoa policy (including healthcare and farmer education). The bonds will pay investors the equivalent of 6.72% and 7.29% respectively in chocolate. These tasty dividends will be delivered in tasting boxes either six times a year for the ₤2000 bond or thirteen times a year for the ₤4000 bond.
After getting over my initial euphoric reaction to this investment opportunity started thinking about positive and negative issues that about this offering.
I do think it is an extremely creative way for a company to seek financing. And whether or not Chocolat Hotel successfully raises their desired amount of capital, this campaign has great marketing potential. It has already increased the company’s exposure in the media. Several online news portals have posted stories about the chocolate bonds, including New York Times, The Independent, Daily Mail, CBC News (Canadian Broadcasting Centre) and Australian Food News. Several blogs (including this one) have commented on the story as well (see links below). The campaign is also creating buzz on Twitter and other social media networks.
The campaign will increase brand exposure among loyal customers. In addition, the campaign might create awareness of the Chocolat Hotel brand among individuals outside the company’s traditional target audience. The international news coverage and social media buzz will increase the company’s brand awareness around the world. This could help the company expand internationally or draw visiting foreign tourists to their London shops.
So, will I buy a chocolate bond? I am not sure. It is not a practical investment for retirement accounts (like IRAs or 401Ks) – I want to eat my chocolate now, not wait until retirement to withdraw (eat) my earnings (chocolate). I could invest money from my savings, but for me ₤2000 a rather large sum to invest without monetary return. That said I will definitely visit a Chocolat Hotel shop next time I visit the UK!
After getting over my initial euphoric reaction to this investment opportunity started thinking about positive and negative issues that about this offering.
I do think it is an extremely creative way for a company to seek financing. And whether or not Chocolat Hotel successfully raises their desired amount of capital, this campaign has great marketing potential. It has already increased the company’s exposure in the media. Several online news portals have posted stories about the chocolate bonds, including New York Times, The Independent, Daily Mail, CBC News (Canadian Broadcasting Centre) and Australian Food News. Several blogs (including this one) have commented on the story as well (see links below). The campaign is also creating buzz on Twitter and other social media networks.
The campaign will increase brand exposure among loyal customers. In addition, the campaign might create awareness of the Chocolat Hotel brand among individuals outside the company’s traditional target audience. The international news coverage and social media buzz will increase the company’s brand awareness around the world. This could help the company expand internationally or draw visiting foreign tourists to their London shops.
So, will I buy a chocolate bond? I am not sure. It is not a practical investment for retirement accounts (like IRAs or 401Ks) – I want to eat my chocolate now, not wait until retirement to withdraw (eat) my earnings (chocolate). I could invest money from my savings, but for me ₤2000 a rather large sum to invest without monetary return. That said I will definitely visit a Chocolat Hotel shop next time I visit the UK!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)