Ch 4 Citizen Marketers: Everyone is a Publisher; Everyone is a Broadcaster

Ch 4 Citizen Marketers: Everyone is a Publisher; Everyone is a Broadcaster

We become what we behold. We shape our tools and then our tools shape us.
Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man

It’s hard to believe how media has evolved. Romans, one of history’s greatest civilizations, used to carve into stone in order to broadcast their news. Johann Gutenberg’s moveable type propelled us to the point we are now, and it’s been an amazing transformation.

In the Internet age, there have been blogs, pod casts, RSS feeds, and so many new technologies such as Tivo. Much like when Gutenberg enabled everyone to start reading with moveable type, the Internet enables everyone to be a broadcaster or at least be technologically savvy. Ben McConnell and Jackie Huba says that these technologies, especially Myspace and Youtube are “democratized,” meaning that anyone can navigate them to express themselves (90). It’s like a New Age of Reason or Scientific Revolution, although different tools are used. There are so many new Internet technologies to learn, and it makes me wonder what technology which we thought was new and advanced in the past, if any, will be rendered obsolete.

Twittering in an operating room

Social media has leaked into almost every facet of our lives, and we’re even taking a class on how social media has to be used in PR because the traditional ways are not enough anymore. It seems everyone uses these new technologies, and CNN reports that social media has even found its way into a hospital’s operating room, using Twitter. This is the second time which Tweets have come live from an operating room. A surgeon at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit had a laptop in the OR during a “potentially risky” surgery of removing a cancerous tumor from a man’s kidney. While the surgeon only tweeted before the operation, he fed updates to his chief resident, Dr. Raj Laungani, who tweeted during the operation. Dr. Craig Rogers, who performed the surgeries, said the reason for twittering was to broadcast the procedure in order for people to know that the entire kidney did not have to be removed when extracting a cancerous tumor.

Comments, or tweets, used in the article were from those who followed the operating room twittering session. The commenters explained that they were fascinated by having the chance to follow an operation, but mostly, others were grateful to know that they could count on up-to-the-minute updates on their family member.
Many of the comments in response to the CNN article were negative. They thought the chief resident should’ve made better use of his time, rather than twittering. For example, “Joe Don” commented: “So, does insurance have to pay for the chief resident to sit at a computer twittering? No wonder health care in the US is so screwed up. Think of all the useful stuff he could have done instead during that time. Like, I dunno, save a life down in the ER or something.”

There were a few positive comments, and one of them from a “Andrew W” said:

This is excellent news! Really, it's no different than video recording the procedure and releasing it online... except this is far more convenient. It can be used for a variety of educational purposes for not only college students pursuing a career in surgery, but also for other surgeons to study the strategies of other surgeons.
I know some people will be up in arms about this, but it could greatly improve the ability of our surgeons if used on a massive scale.

Social media has proven to be beneficial to small businesses, reaching new audiences for established businesses, and even finding a relationship. Has medicine found a use for it, too? Has twittering in an operating room gone too far or is it just the beginning?

Social media as a PR tool is at work again, but the power of social media can work against the public. While the power of social media means the public can voice their opinion, it also means that the opinion of one public can be commented on by another public’s opinion. For example, a CNN article reported that a group of fans are adamant about having Heath Ledger as the last actor who will ever portray the Joker in the Batman film franchise. The comments under the article indicated that retiring Batman’s main arch nemesis was unreasonable: “This is idiotic! Heath Ledger turned in a great performance as The Joker, but to say his death means the character should be "retired" is preposterous.”
One comment seemed to agree with the petition: “Difficult to achieve the quality, mannerisms, sadistic psychotic state that Ledger's performance obtained in this movie. He is "the soul" of the movie; and his tragic death immortalized him as the best "Joker" of all movies.”
The entertainment blog, Iwatchstuff.com, picked up the story and actually made fun of the online petition, which has 2, 431 signatures. The blogger’s commentary included, “2,431 supporters? That's nothing. That's like a reasonably-sized high school supporting it. The Joker petition probably has the same number of votes as the student council petition for the lunchroom to serve pizza twice a week.”
In addition, the users who read the post left comments to mostly agree with the blogger’s comments. Once comment said, “…petitioning for the character of the Joker to be taken out any future batman movies is ridiculous. You CANNOT have Batman without the Joker, you just can't. Joker is a main villain, the most important villain who Batman\Bruce doesn’t understand.” The same commenter further argued that Warner Bros. will not pay attention to the petition anyway. The commenter wrote:
I don't even think Ledger himself would want his fans or simply fans of the comic books and movie franchise to be doing this. And lastly, Warner Bros isn't going to do anything about it. They didn’t even care about fans when they pushed Harry Potter back nine months.
It seems that the public wants to have a say on everything, and web 2.0 encourages it. Though there is an online petition which wants one thing, the public reaction is largely negative. If Warner Bros pays attention to the free information at their disposal, they will determine that the larger consensus is that the Joker character should continue to appear in the Batman movies.

Reaction to Citizen Marketers, Ch.2: The 1 Percenters

It’s hard to believe that only one percent of Internet users create content, but it is even more unbelievable that it is a part of a power law called the 1% Rule. Though it makes sense that “Not everyone will take up the offer to participate…” based on the fact that “distribution of action is uneven across a widespread field of play.” It just makes sense because the text, “Citizen Marketers,” says that people will generally choose not to become active participators and instead become spectators, which are more comfortable observing the content. It is simply a social law that more people will have the enthusiasm to create, and it introduces the rule that “inequality is the rule, not the exception.” That is why the distribution of information seems a bit uneven (McConnell 38).
I love how the one percenters are described as outlaws, based on the motorcycle club anecdote, but it does have some truth to it. However, there are so many accounts on youtube and blogging websites that it seems more than one percent of Internet users. There is some great content out there, and it opens another world of creativity which may have remained undiscovered. The Internet serves as a different creative medium, and I wonder what will be created in the future.

Facebook's role in grassroots PR

At the grassroots level of public relations, Facebook has become a new way for companies to connect with the public, but a CNN article speculates as to whether Facebook can continue. The social networking site isn’t a “slam-dunk success,” as Adam of Lashinsky of Fortune Magazine says. Even though the site is selling advertising, it isn’t as profitable as other social networking websites. For example, in 2007 Microsoft paid $250 million for a 1.6 percent share, earning Facebook a $15 billion value. However, the present global economic crisis raises the question of whether Facebook can sustain its web advertising, which is its main source of revenue. Web advertising has particularly taken a hit in the economy, and it seems that “those sort of figures now appear to belong to a bygone age.”
Social networking web sites have become an important way for fledging organizations and businesses to establish a reputation. Even though Facebook has reached its 5th birthday, it is uncertain whether or not it is a technological fad due to the “rapid evolution” of the Internet age. It is too soon to tell, but the site’s founder, Mark Zuckerman, says that the site will continue to work on innovative measures. He stated, “The challenge motivates us to keep innovating and pushing technical boundaries to produce better ways to share information.” Though it seems unlikely that Facebook will shut down, it does make one wonder how small organizations can begin to grow without the use of the free social networking accounts on the Internet. If the economy does become that terrible, what will happen to social networking in this Internet age?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/02/04/facebook.anniversary/index.html?iref=newssearch

Reaction to 95 Theses

I thought the reading, 95 Theses from the “Cluetrain Manifesto,” holds as true today as it did when it was written 10 years ago. It demands from the big corporate companies that they listen to their audiences. The only problem about the 95 Theses was that it was repetitive at times. For example, number 77 states, “You're too busy "doing business" to answer our email? Oh gosh, sorry, gee, we'll come back later. Maybe.” Then number 88 states, “Your product broke. Why? We'd like to ask the guy who made it. Your corporate strategy makes no sense. We'd like to have a chat with your CEO. What do you mean she's not in?” I could see why it could get repetitive, as the author was cleverly trying to cleverly allude to Martin Luther’s 95 Theses from the Enlightenment age in Europe. It’s about humanizing the audience. The big point is that the corporations need the audience, as described by number 78, “You want us to pay? We want you to pay attention.” I think it’s absolutely true, and it’s a pity that the world ever got to that point of treating humans as dollar signs in order to make more money. Of course making money is the idea, but it became too much of the idea, causing the real definition of the audience to fade.
Now the 95 Theses are talking about a movement where the public realizes the corporate world doesn’t control them. As stated in number 88, “We have better things to do than worry about whether you'll change in time to get our business. Business is only a part of our lives. It seems to be all of yours. Think about it: who needs whom?” Public Relations is about communicating your organization’s causes to people or perhaps trying to persuade them to see why your cause is so important. Like anything else, the original message could’ve been taken for granted or gotten lost in the money-making process. Essentially companies want to provide a service, and it’s important that they never forget that.