Dancing With the Stars contestants have been utilizing social media forums to get ahead in the competition. E! Entertainment News reported that contestants such as Mike "The Situation" Sorentino have taken to the Twitter world to recruit fan votes.
This is controversial because competitors who may not be as talented other contestants will receive votes nonetheless due to their large fan-bases. After last week's performance Sorentino tweeted, "Situation VOTE! Tonight at 8:00 get it on ur speed dial now so there won't b a bad situation later 800-VOTE-410 (800-868-3410)" After he made it through to the next round he again tweeted, "thx again 4 all the voting frm #situationnation i couldnt hav moved 2 the 2nd round w/out u!!..." He admits he doesn't necessarily possess the skills needed to compete so he relies on his fans. Sure, it is a shameless act of self-promotion but with his 276,018 followers on Twitter alone, he could gain a significant competitive advantage.
This is not the first time social media has been used in relation to celebrity promotion. Last spring, a man created a Facebook fan page called "Betty White to Host SNL (please?!)" The page attracted 515,731 fans and as a result Betty White was invited to host Saturday Night Live.
From a public relations perspective, I think using social media to gain votes or promote an idea is an ingenious concept. Social media forums, and Twitter in particular, allow a two-way symmetrical communication connection between celebrities and their fans. Helping push their favorite celebrity over the top makes fans feel connected in a personal way. This in turn reinforces the image of the celebrity as personable and accessible.
The only two contestants this season who do not have Twitter accounts are Bristol Palin and Florence Henderson. I think these competitors are missing out on a great and quick way to promote themselves to hundreds of thousands of people.
Social media is a powerful promotional tool. Celebrities should take every opportunity to promote themselves and their branded image. Some people may view it as "cheating" in this type of situation but I think it encourages people to watch the show and get involved. These examples of celebrities and fans alike using Twitter and Facebook demonstrates the true power behind social media usage. Social media is the best kind of free PR anyone can get.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Monday, September 20, 2010
On the Web, Children Face Intensive Tracking
After our class discussion on the prevalence of tracking technology on popular websites, I wondered if this same technology was used in sites aimed toward children. I initially doubted that it was but this article proves otherwise.
The most surprising part of this article was that 4,123 "cookies," "beacons," and other pieces of tracking technology were installed on a test computer from 50 popular teen websites. That is 30 percent more than were found in an analysis of the top 50 most popular U.S. websites overall, which tend to be aimed more at an adult audience.
It actually makes sense that advertisers would pay to install tracking devices on popular kids websites because children make up a large portion of consumers. Kids see something that appeals to them and soon it has the potential to become a trend. Discovering what exactly interests this demographic is useful from a marketing standpoint. Like this article said, "Research has shown children influence hundreds of billions of dollars in annual family purchases."
It's clear why this is controversial - children are completely oblivious to the possibility of tracking technology. In fact, most adults are. I didn't know anything about it until this class. The use of tracking technology doesn't bother me, given that any personally identifiable information, such as names, are not included in the data.
A Google spokesman said, "...users can adjust the privacy settings on their browser or use the Ads Preferences page to limit data collection." From a PR standpoint, I don't feel that this is enough. To be viewed in a positive light by users, websites should have a notification alerting potential users that tracking technology is utilized on that site. An explanation of what the collected data is used for should also be included. However, it is a strong possibility that consumers would just click "agree" like many currently do with general terms of use statements.
Some sites did change their privacy policies after being contacted by the Wall Street Journal with their tracking findings. I think this is a step in the right direction toward increased transparency for their users.
The most surprising part of this article was that 4,123 "cookies," "beacons," and other pieces of tracking technology were installed on a test computer from 50 popular teen websites. That is 30 percent more than were found in an analysis of the top 50 most popular U.S. websites overall, which tend to be aimed more at an adult audience.
It actually makes sense that advertisers would pay to install tracking devices on popular kids websites because children make up a large portion of consumers. Kids see something that appeals to them and soon it has the potential to become a trend. Discovering what exactly interests this demographic is useful from a marketing standpoint. Like this article said, "Research has shown children influence hundreds of billions of dollars in annual family purchases."
It's clear why this is controversial - children are completely oblivious to the possibility of tracking technology. In fact, most adults are. I didn't know anything about it until this class. The use of tracking technology doesn't bother me, given that any personally identifiable information, such as names, are not included in the data.
A Google spokesman said, "...users can adjust the privacy settings on their browser or use the Ads Preferences page to limit data collection." From a PR standpoint, I don't feel that this is enough. To be viewed in a positive light by users, websites should have a notification alerting potential users that tracking technology is utilized on that site. An explanation of what the collected data is used for should also be included. However, it is a strong possibility that consumers would just click "agree" like many currently do with general terms of use statements.
Some sites did change their privacy policies after being contacted by the Wall Street Journal with their tracking findings. I think this is a step in the right direction toward increased transparency for their users.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Entrepreneurs Question Value of Social Media
This article from the Wall Street Journal opens with an anecdote about a woman who purchased a kayak after the co-owner of Folbot, Inc. posted a message on her twitter. She had mentioned in a post that she was interested in a folding kayak and was contacted by David AvRutick. In the past few years, social media has become a popular marketing instrument for small firms such as Folbot, Inc. due to it's user-friendliness and relative low-cost as compared to traditional marketing methods. I think the ability to connect on a personal level with potential clientele is of enormous importance. This story speaks to the unmatched value of using social media as an important public relations tool.
However, there are naysayers who believe this type of interaction is the exception and not the norm. Research from the University of Maryland's Smith School of Business and Network Solutions LLC, a Web-services provider in Herndon, Va., found that of 500 U.S. small-business owners, just 22% made a profit last year from promoting their firms on social media, while 53% said they broke even. What's more, 19% said they actually lost money due to their social-media initiatives.
I think these numbers possibly point to the ineptitude of the companies attempting to use this new technology more than anything else. Perhaps they have a social media site but aren't interacting on a one-on-one level with their consumers or they are being reactive as opposed to proactive. This survey doesn't give enough background on why these small-business owners aren't able to make social media work for them when stories like the one in this article so clearly prove that it can.
Larry Chiagouris, professor of marketing at Pace University's Lubin School of Business, said that social media could harm businesses if a representative were to say something offensive or even simply grammatically incorrect. I agree that that is a possibility but I don't see why that should stop companies from taking advantage of all the great things social media has to offer both their business and their consumers.
In order to get positive results from the use of social media, companies need to regularly interact with consumers and be mindful of what they post. This may require considerable effort but I think the more quality time and energy put into making social media work for your business, the more you will get out of it in the end. I believe the pros outweigh the cons in the argument against corporate social media usage.
However, there are naysayers who believe this type of interaction is the exception and not the norm. Research from the University of Maryland's Smith School of Business and Network Solutions LLC, a Web-services provider in Herndon, Va., found that of 500 U.S. small-business owners, just 22% made a profit last year from promoting their firms on social media, while 53% said they broke even. What's more, 19% said they actually lost money due to their social-media initiatives.
I think these numbers possibly point to the ineptitude of the companies attempting to use this new technology more than anything else. Perhaps they have a social media site but aren't interacting on a one-on-one level with their consumers or they are being reactive as opposed to proactive. This survey doesn't give enough background on why these small-business owners aren't able to make social media work for them when stories like the one in this article so clearly prove that it can.
Larry Chiagouris, professor of marketing at Pace University's Lubin School of Business, said that social media could harm businesses if a representative were to say something offensive or even simply grammatically incorrect. I agree that that is a possibility but I don't see why that should stop companies from taking advantage of all the great things social media has to offer both their business and their consumers.
In order to get positive results from the use of social media, companies need to regularly interact with consumers and be mindful of what they post. This may require considerable effort but I think the more quality time and energy put into making social media work for your business, the more you will get out of it in the end. I believe the pros outweigh the cons in the argument against corporate social media usage.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Facebook Fights Privacy Concerns
I found the article "Facebook Fights Privacy Concerns" on the Wall Street Journal Web site particularly interesting as it affects a vast majority of people - from technology-savvy college students to senior citizens just learning to navigate the realm of social media. Privacy is a major concern in this ever-evolving world of online transparency.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg held a press conference before the debut of Places - a new feature that allows users to share their physical location with Facebook friends as well as tag others at that location. Anyone can be tagged by default unless they choose to change their privacy settings. This allows people to be tagged whether that person is actually there or not. Obviously, this raises concern amongst users. Currently, users have the option of accepting the tag or deferring the decision but if they don't take action at all, the default setting is to share their location with friends. I think Facebook should have prompted users to select their settings before allowing them to access Places. This way users could quickly and easily maintain their privacy without having to search through the sometimes difficult to navigate account settings.
I found it surprising that "Many privacy groups said they were pleased that Facebook had limited Places to voluntary check-ins—rather than constant real-time tracking of users' locations..." To me, it seems unbelievable that Facebook would ever implement real-time tracking of its users' locations but I suppose there was a time not too long ago when people couldn't comprehend a social media site allowing a feature with unrestricted privacy such as Places at all.
Facebook consulted with privacy advocacy firm ConnectSafely.org and it was suggested that the social media site automatically limit the use of a "here now" feature which broadcasts one's location to a wide range of Facebook users also in that place. Instead, location information is only shared with those minors' confirmed friends. By implementing this, I think it highlights Facebook's concern for the safety of its underage users.
It appears Facebook's newest feature has garnered less criticism than its previous changes to its much-debated privacy policy. There was a time when users thought the addition of the News Feed, where you can see each of your friends minute-to-minute actions and posts, was too much of an invasion of privacy. Presently, it seems that society is more open to accepting the changes in social media and the omnipresence of online transparency.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg held a press conference before the debut of Places - a new feature that allows users to share their physical location with Facebook friends as well as tag others at that location. Anyone can be tagged by default unless they choose to change their privacy settings. This allows people to be tagged whether that person is actually there or not. Obviously, this raises concern amongst users. Currently, users have the option of accepting the tag or deferring the decision but if they don't take action at all, the default setting is to share their location with friends. I think Facebook should have prompted users to select their settings before allowing them to access Places. This way users could quickly and easily maintain their privacy without having to search through the sometimes difficult to navigate account settings.
I found it surprising that "Many privacy groups said they were pleased that Facebook had limited Places to voluntary check-ins—rather than constant real-time tracking of users' locations..." To me, it seems unbelievable that Facebook would ever implement real-time tracking of its users' locations but I suppose there was a time not too long ago when people couldn't comprehend a social media site allowing a feature with unrestricted privacy such as Places at all.
Facebook consulted with privacy advocacy firm ConnectSafely.org and it was suggested that the social media site automatically limit the use of a "here now" feature which broadcasts one's location to a wide range of Facebook users also in that place. Instead, location information is only shared with those minors' confirmed friends. By implementing this, I think it highlights Facebook's concern for the safety of its underage users.
It appears Facebook's newest feature has garnered less criticism than its previous changes to its much-debated privacy policy. There was a time when users thought the addition of the News Feed, where you can see each of your friends minute-to-minute actions and posts, was too much of an invasion of privacy. Presently, it seems that society is more open to accepting the changes in social media and the omnipresence of online transparency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)