the evolution of media
every so often there is a quantum leap in technology. changes that are more than just a step change or an improvement. these changes are considered disruptive changes. they are changes that initially look like the poor younger cousin of the dominant technology, but rapidly overtake and eclipse the established technology.
an example of this is digital photography. initially when digital cameras were introduced they were prohibitively expensive and the quality was very low. over time though, the quality increased and there are now very few firms engaged in film production. consumers to professionals now predominantly use digital photography, because it is inexpensive and provides instant feedback.
in publishing, newspapers have been around since the 1575 and have gone through different methods of production (some of these are considered disruptive changes of themselves) but they have basically remained the same. however, with the increased availability of internet access, newspaper have increasingly moved online. there is recognition of the fact that people are wanting to read their news online with richer content. in the case of white collar workers who spend 8 hours a day in front of a pc, it just makes sense.
then came blogging. an adaptation of the term weblog, blogging enabled just about anyone to put their thoughts and ideas online simply and quickly. it was press, by and for the people. sign up to any of the major blogging services and putting ideas to the internet is almost as easy as using a word processor.
blogstars & you
there are many reasons why blogging has become so successful, one of which is that it gives readers the choice of perspective, and not just one presented by the two global media giants. it can also give readers a very unique perspective. the “blogger of baghdad” gave people a peek into daily life in iraq during the gulf war.
bloggers themselves have become opinion leaders, and the more tech saavy, and particularly in tech pr, key bloggers are consulted as a journo would be. an good example is robert scoble. scoble came to fame as an outspoken employee of microsoft.
a progressive technology company, microsoft encourages it’s employees to blog. scoble at the time was technical evangelist and his blog became popular because he was he was often brutally honest about his employer and had no fear in criticising microsoft where he thought they were wrong.
rather than damaging microsoft’s reputation, it gave the company a very real face and built a relationship with one of it’s most important publics, the techs.
scoble has now moved onto other projects but his blog still attracts several thousand readers daily. now bear in mind this is not a multi-billion dollar enterprise, it is one guy writing stuff online with now advertising. however if scoble mentions a technology, particularly a new technology, there’s a very good chance that if it’s a startup, it will get a significant boost in both signups and credibility.
do you think then that it would be worth including scoble in a technology product you may have? ex-googlers friendfeed and microsoft still do.
on a more populist route, and a much larger scale celebrity gossip blogger perez hilton gets approximately 4 million hits a day. again, is this a significant enough number that publicists need to pay attention to? i think so.
i believe it would be safe to say that bloggers have influence on public opinion.
online social networks
unless you’ve been hiding under a rock, most people will have heard about facebook. if you haven’t, facebook describes itself as a social utility to enable friends, family and colleagues stay in touch. the 70 million users is testament to it’s usefulness.
everyday people share their thoughts and lives on the platform, uploading photos of things they’ve done, witnessed or experienced, they communicate by writing on each other’s “walls” which is akin to leaving a sticky note on someone’s monitor or simply send emails to their friends.
all these conversations are happening everyday outside facebook as well, but those conversations as an organisation, you can’t be a part of very easily.
facilitating conversations
one of the few models at our disposal in pr is grunig’s four models of communications and for much of the traditional media, the nature of communication is very much one-way. the sender (organisation) sends messages but gets very little, if any, feedback.
in social media though, there is definitely feedback, and readers have mechanisms, depending on the social media platform, have many different ways of sending feedback back to the organisation. you can gauge very quickly, who is interested in what you have to say, and who is not. you can also identify those who are positive and those who have negative responses to the things you or your organisation is involved with. this becomes a two-way symmetrical exchange.
even more interesting is that you can see who is listening. social media is as about social groups. so there are the opinion leaders and those that are listening. it is now possible to target these groups directly. don’t you want to be part of that conversation?
they are not a rabble assembling outside of the front of your building protesting at this stage. they are voicing their opinions online, and if you tune in, you can prevent the rabble.
when these audiences feel they can voice their views directly to the people inside the organisation, and not just the faceless corporation, there is more likely to be forgiveness, and understanding.
people just want to be heard.
social media is important
online media is becoming more and more important, and over time, its relevance will will only increase over time and not diminish.
the internet is representative of the real world because there is real people behind it, and people congregate and talk. when people talk, there are talkers and listeners. this makes online media increasingly social media.
now more than ever the internet makes it easier and easier to open the communications channels to a wider audience. truly facilitating two way communications.
as time moves on, the question is not whether social media will be important, it will be a question of whether or not you will be part of the conversation.
