I had to fix the perma link on this post, so the comments were deleted. I will copy them over.
sbspalding
· 1 year ago
Maggy Young -
The problem is that it is the millions of Chocolate Rains which produce the occasional Shakespeare. You need masses of the one for the other to emerge. Crowd wisdom will inevitably produce masses of ephemeral content, but the alternative is the old autocratic system of 'selectors' which also produced masses of dross content in an attempt to please the same crowds. The difference with crowd sourcing is that the crowds are doing the choosing themselves, hence cutting out the middleman. And since the middlemen were always very small in numbers, crowdsourcing, at least so far, appears to produce a far greater number of emerging talents.
sbspalding
· 1 year ago
Suzytrotta --
Why not a Shakespearean version of Chocolate Rain - or would that be a Chocolate Rain'ed version of Shakespeare? Ah, there's the rub.
sbspalding
· 1 year ago
Ophelia_Chong --
The mob rules. There is High Art and Low Art. Pop Art comforts, satisfies and reassures audiences’ expectations; is easy to access, it's light and you don't hurt yourself thinking about it. High Art challenges and questions audiences’ expectations. You can apply this to your Digg. What floats to the top isn't neccessarilly the most compelling. It's escapist. With the invention of Movable Type we moved from an oral form of communication to the visual and gave individuals a way to spread their voice beyond their physical reach. With the internet we are now in the age of the splintering of social organization. Not only can we broadcast a message in seconds (twitter) we can inflame others with our opinions by commenting/creating false profiles anonymously and not take ownership of those opinions. No one wants to claim ownership to trash culture. What we are proud of we put our stamp/name on. To own your words you have to have a thick hide and write only what you truly believe in. On the bright side, the content that is "Shakespeare" will survive. We have an interest in the "dude and shopping cart" but that has it's 15 seconds and is gone from our lives in a click. Throughout history the brilliant has somehow survived and in it's wake is a ocean of detritus. I am on the side of optimism. And the cautious combination of virtual reality and real world. Wonderful post Greg. :O) Ophelia
CyndyA
· 1 year ago
blah comment here to help you test. ;)
Radioactive Jam aka bc
· 1 year ago
If I prefer Shakespeare with occasional chocolate snacks, does that make me a waffle?
quang
· 1 year ago
Testing snake oil. :)
Jolie O'Dell
· 1 year ago
Ah, but what kind of world would it be with only Shakespeare and no Chocolate Rain?
That is to say, when marketing to consumers, one must understand that, while we all love to be ennobled, enriched, and redeemed by the media we choose, at other times, we long to be entertained, to be shocked, to feel smarter than we probably ought to, and to find the one YouTube clip that challenges our morality/idiocy threshold/gag reflex.
I think that social media is a playground for all people and all brands, and the ones who enjoy (perhaps not the best, but certainly among the best) successes are those who can peddle clever smut or humorous-but-invaluable relevant information. Take TheOnion.com.
Anyhow, smut-vs-sublimity aside, I think that social media offers direct marketers an amazing opportunity. I write about this all the time. In a recent paper, I insisted that the fear-based attitudes that prevent powerful and appropriate social media use on the part of agencies and advertisers were cause by a lack of social media adoption of agency & client staff members as individuals.
The paper got me canned, so I think that speaks worlds about what we have done and need to do to educate and promote social media adoption.
Eyes on the prize, dude. We'll figure it out eventually. Probably right around the time that it's too late.
sbspalding
· 1 year ago
I also think a part of the fear is that there isn't a clear value proposition.
Yea we all know there is some real business value somewhere in Social Media, but so much of it is actually fluff it's hard to convince anyone where the signal and where the noise really is.
The paper got you fired? That's nuts.
Greg Hollingsworth
· 1 year ago
This is exactly why I hate analogies, they are far often taken too literally. My point was not that one should exist and the other should not, but that we have a responsibility as media consumers to distinguish between art forms and evaluate accordingly.
There is nothing wrong with Chocolate Rain, but it bothers me that truly important events get overlooked because some dude made a funny song and through it up on YouTube.
Jackie Peters
· 1 year ago
I think, as with any form of media, the audience gets to decide what is quality content and what is not. I often disagree with popular opinion. But what we have here is democratization of content. I think that's a better scenario than allowing an elitte few to speak on behalf of the masses.
sbspalding
· 1 year ago
I think it does boil down to more choice, but I also think that as consumers of media we long for someone to tell us what to like. How else do you explain the ""A-List." For all the argument for and against weblebrity, I think we need filters to help us cut through the noise.
My question is, how much more prevalent will this become as SM expands.
Greg Hollingsworth
· 1 year ago
The democratization of content is fine, and I am not attempting to imply that we need some kind of social media vanguard to tell us what is and what is not quality content. I'm advocating for a little responsibility in our decision making, that's all.
The problem that I see is that social media (especially social news sites like Digg) are quickly creating as much tabloid content as real news, and this is troublesome to me. Democratized content is great, let them all decide what is important to them, but when real news gets buried under crap, then we are all being put at a disadvantage.
kath27an
· 2 months ago
Social media has revolutionized since the creation of the world wide web. It gives us a lot of information about a lot of things. This is is just one way of the marketing strategy business people online use.
All Comments
The problem is that it is the millions of Chocolate Rains which produce the occasional Shakespeare. You need masses of the one for the other to emerge. Crowd wisdom will inevitably produce masses of ephemeral content, but the alternative is the old autocratic system of 'selectors' which also produced masses of dross content in an attempt to please the same crowds. The difference with crowd sourcing is that the crowds are doing the choosing themselves, hence cutting out the middleman. And since the middlemen were always very small in numbers, crowdsourcing, at least so far, appears to produce a far greater number of emerging talents.
Why not a Shakespearean version of Chocolate Rain - or would that be a Chocolate Rain'ed version of Shakespeare? Ah, there's the rub.
The mob rules. There is High Art and Low Art. Pop Art comforts, satisfies and reassures audiences’ expectations; is easy to access, it's light and you don't hurt yourself thinking about it. High Art challenges and questions audiences’ expectations. You can apply this to your Digg. What floats to the top isn't neccessarilly the most compelling. It's escapist. With the invention of Movable Type we moved from an oral form of communication to the visual and gave individuals a way to spread their voice beyond their physical reach. With the internet we are now in the age of the splintering of social organization. Not only can we broadcast a message in seconds (twitter) we can inflame others with our opinions by commenting/creating false profiles anonymously and not take ownership of those opinions. No one wants to claim ownership to trash culture. What we are proud of we put our stamp/name on. To own your words you have to have a thick hide and write only what you truly believe in. On the bright side, the content that is "Shakespeare" will survive. We have an interest in the "dude and shopping cart" but that has it's 15 seconds and is gone from our lives in a click. Throughout history the brilliant has somehow survived and in it's wake is a ocean of detritus. I am on the side of optimism. And the cautious combination of virtual reality and real world. Wonderful post Greg. :O) Ophelia
That is to say, when marketing to consumers, one must understand that, while we all love to be ennobled, enriched, and redeemed by the media we choose, at other times, we long to be entertained, to be shocked, to feel smarter than we probably ought to, and to find the one YouTube clip that challenges our morality/idiocy threshold/gag reflex.
I think that social media is a playground for all people and all brands, and the ones who enjoy (perhaps not the best, but certainly among the best) successes are those who can peddle clever smut or humorous-but-invaluable relevant information. Take TheOnion.com.
Anyhow, smut-vs-sublimity aside, I think that social media offers direct marketers an amazing opportunity. I write about this all the time. In a recent paper, I insisted that the fear-based attitudes that prevent powerful and appropriate social media use on the part of agencies and advertisers were cause by a lack of social media adoption of agency & client staff members as individuals.
The paper got me canned, so I think that speaks worlds about what we have done and need to do to educate and promote social media adoption.
Eyes on the prize, dude. We'll figure it out eventually. Probably right around the time that it's too late.
Yea we all know there is some real business value somewhere in Social Media, but so much of it is actually fluff it's hard to convince anyone where the signal and where the noise really is.
The paper got you fired? That's nuts.
There is nothing wrong with Chocolate Rain, but it bothers me that truly important events get overlooked because some dude made a funny song and through it up on YouTube.
My question is, how much more prevalent will this become as SM expands.
The problem that I see is that social media (especially social news sites like Digg) are quickly creating as much tabloid content as real news, and this is troublesome to me. Democratized content is great, let them all decide what is important to them, but when real news gets buried under crap, then we are all being put at a disadvantage.