Response to Clay Shirky’s "Here Comes Everybody"

This post is in response to Clay Shirky’s book, Here Comes Everybody:  The Power of Organizing without Organizations.

Shirky has caused me to reexamine how I find value in social media tools.  Often it is the case, and certainly it is the majority opinion where I work, that social media is best used to reach a larger audience and to increase dissemination of information.  Less emphasis is placed, or even considered, as to why people are using these social tools and what they expect to gain from a particular digital interaction.

Shirky writes from a different perspective, arguing that social tools are simply supplementing preexisting social behaviors – making collective action, collaboration and cooperation increasingly possible.  The primary driver of this “collectivism” is that the “costs” of finding likeminded people is less on the internet.  Social media tools allow the creation of groups that might otherwise have lacked the means to collaborate.

However, Shirky argues that social networking tools are not an ‘end all-be all.’  Rather, they are a means to an end-- tools used because of preexisting social needs and desires.  Yet, while these tools are built on the basis of predominant social habits, they are also transforming social structures.  Further, the rate at which this transformation is occurring alters “what we do, how we do it, and who we are.”

In this vein, distinctions once clear, develop shades of gray:  between bloggers and journalists, between published and non-published material, between the idea of communications media and broadcast media.

Fundamentally, social media tools are also changing behaviors:  “a consumer is a temporary behavior rather than a permanent identity.”  Nevertheless, consumers are using social tools to interact with large (and hitherto unreachable) organizations with relatively equal power dynamics.  However, Shirky notes that even though there is equal access to tools, there is not “equality of participation.”  Hierarchy of management is also being altered (and eroded) by lowering the cost of coordinating group action.  This also leads to the flattening of organizational cultures.

Understanding how and why social tools are being used is perhaps the foundation for thinking about using these tools for strategic communications, or as Shirky explains, looking at the “promise,” then the “tool,” then the “bargain.”  Shirky describes, in particular, the aspects of the “acceptable bargain,” because it requires participation by the user. 

Here Comes Everybody is provocative because it identifies, describes, and attempts to explain an opening world of group formation.  Nevertheless, it does not include “everybody.”  Certainly, third-world citizens, elderly citizens, and those without means for a computer are not participants.  Another thought prompted by Shirky’s point that social networking tools are not an “end all-be all,” is the question of benefit. Going forward, I will think more deeply about how I find value in social media tools.

What are the Ethical Considerations of Online Advertising and Nanotargeting ?

For today’s class, we are reading:

- Google. 2010. The Digital Playbook: Can online ads move poll numbers? http://googlepublicsector.blogspot.com/2010/04/digital-playbook-can-online-ads-move.html

- Koster, Josh. 2009. Long-tail Nanotargeting. Campaigns & Elections. http://www.campaignsandelections.com/publications/campaign-election/2009/february-2009/long-tail-nanotargeting

- Koster, Josh. 2010. Nanotargeted Pressure. Campaigns & Elections. http://www.campaignsandelections.com/publications/campaign-election/2010/february-2010-the-case-study-issue/nanotargeted-pressure

Both  Koster articles endorse digital advertising, focusing on tightly crafted messages that “nanotarget” identified niche groups.  The “Long-tail” article explains the process, where niche audiences are identified not just by geographic and demographic targeting, but by keywords.  The article effectively explains the “nano” strategy with examples from Al Franken’s political campaign:  “Minnesotans who were searching for cheap gas or researching fuel-efficient cars saw ads about Franken’s plan to lower gas prices.” 

Koster’s and Davis’ article takes this targeting a step further (and appropriately used “Pressure” in its title).  Again working with a limited budget, and trying to exploit “paid media to drive earned media,” the authors discussed making “an outrageous ad with a compelling premise and run it just enough to get the press to start talking.”  The campaign used Facebook to target specific CNN employees:  “Hey Soledad O”Brian, why don’t you ask Lou Dobbs what it’s like to be Latino in America?”

In response to these articles, I question  the ethical dimensions of this highly successful political advocacy tool of online advertising. How much data-mining is appropriate to identify audiences, whether they be “low hanging fruit” or  otherwise?

If internet advocacy is pure advertising, what, if any, are fair boundaries in using internet data and reader/user habits??  It is certainly reasonable, and uniquely American, to glom onto “what works” and enterprisingly, make the most of it.  However, using digitalized media to exploit audiences, (read:  voters), is alarming to me.

Innovative Use of Twitter in Pepsi Commercial

I was pleased to see Pepsi’s new ad with Sofia Vergara’s. , and its strategic use of twitter to promote their product: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEFI-_Sg5G0

The add shows Vergara at the beach craving a diet Pepsi and trying to escape a large line at the cabana. In response, she tweets “At the pier… just saw #DavidBeckham!”

 As a result, the large line from the cabana--mostly female-- makes a sudden dash off screen while Vergara saunters to the counter for her Pepsi. I thought this ad employed a strategic use of social media very well and clearly endorses twitter and the use of social media as a mainstream activity.

While I found the premise innovative, I also took issue with several other points:

This ad simplifies and glorifies twitter. The mass exodus of people from the cabana after Vergara’s tweets assumes that not only are they all following her but that they are all following the #DavidBeckham hash tag.  Is this a realistic assumption? Probably not.

And because  this ad is directed towards a largely female, presumably younger audience, who is also likely familiar with Twitter, I wonder if audience took issue with its unrealistic implementation of Twitter.

I am left in the end wondering why Pepsi is so keenly interested in leveraging the power of social media– the ad’s endorsement of Twitter is as strong as its endorsement of Pepsi.

Does it matter that their use of social media is unrealistic? I would guess not as it seems in this case it seems Pepsi is using Twitter to appeal to a younger female audience base by association to social media.

Chaos or Collaboration?

This blog will track my coursework and learning for “Internet Advocacy Communication” at American University this semester.  This week, we are reading and responding to the following articles:  Rosenblatt, Alan.  2009.  PoliticsMagazine.com. “The Dimensions of a Digitally Networked Campaign,” and Delany, Colin. 2009. ePolitics.com. “Online Politics 101.”

The idea of an expanding communications paradigm from “one-to-one” and “one–to many,” to include “many-to-many” (http://www.iata.csic.es/~bibrem/NECOBELAC/STM-report.pdf ) is expounded on in the first article, Dimensions, as a “1-D, 2-D and 3-D” paradigm.

In the 3-D example, Rosenblatt attributes incredible power to citizens and their activities.  Through citizens’ collective ability to build and maintain large social networks and share their own content online, Rosenblatt argues that they are able to redirect advocacy campaigns (even very large-scale campaigns) in a different direction.  Yet, at the same time, Dimensions highlights the equally debilitating aspect of individuals’ redirected internet campaigns by pointing out that often times, one does not know or understand what makes an idea “go viral or fizzle.”

Changing any of the variables of an internet advocacy campaign, i.e. messaging, timing, and context, will inevitably yield different results.  When individuals become involved in an advocacy campaign and feel empowered, even compelled to act, Rosenblatt essentially concludes that the advocacy campaign becomes little more than “managing chaos.”

I wonder if “chaotic” is really the right word to describe this new communications paradigm?  In this internet communication era of many-to-many, the activists or the campaign organizers cannot always be in control of their message or the direction the campaign will go, Rosenblatt’s 3-D campaign.  Does that necessarily mean chaos, or does that mean progress through collaboration?

Both Rosenblatt and Colin Delany acknowledge that this new media ecosystem requires organizations/campaigns to treat their audience like “strategic partners,” and value them as assets.  In commenting on Rosenblatt’s Dimensions article, Lauren Belisle echoes this strategic partner recommendation, citing a campaign example which allowed supporters to “upload video clips directly to the website, where they could share to perpetuate the message,” observing “to really know the audience is what unlocks the power in social media,” http://laurenmbelisle.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/3077798592/.

However, to what extent is this “strategic partnering” a possibility for organizations/campaigns that lose control of their online presence?  Is this a viable option?  And if so, what tools can be used to manage the “chaos?”  How should an advocacy plan for redirected messages?  Is it practicable to chart possible courses of "unintended consequences”?

I’m particularly interested in Delany’s conversation on the use, and often misuse, of online advocacy tools like Facebook and Twitter to rally support.  Particularly true is his analysis that often organizations use Twitter much like an RSS feed, tweeting when new information comes

out, in addition to the use of Facebook, which he suggests is being used primarily as a “broadcast tool” and not as a platform for discussion and one-to-one, or many-to-many, engagement.

Perhaps the way to “manage the chaos” is to build “strategic partnering” into the campaign message; be watchful for wayward offshoots, and have a plan in place to mitigate unintended consequences.