social media

A new Pew study on teens and social media highlights a social media “civility gap” between teens and adults online. While 85% of adults find that people are “mostly nice” on social networking site, only 69% of teens say the same.

What’s interesting is that the social media phenomenon has been so explosive that there hasn’t been a generation that has moved from “teen social media” to “adult social media.” Facebook’s rise to prominence has happened in three years. It would be interesting to know whether social networking sites contribute to “nice” or “mean” interactions through their architecture (for instance, Facebook’s insistence on not having a “hate” button, only a “like” button). Or is it simply the fact that teen life is in many ways inherently overtly “meaner” than adult life whose “meanness” is more subtle?

In December, I blogged about the cartoon-childhood violence meme that morphed from something else and was being criticized for being another example of “one-click activism.” There were interesting comments that are definitely food for thought.

Celebrity Causes & Controversial Issues

While the crowd can start a viral meme, celebrities can use social media to promote their cause to their followers. The idea of increasing awareness for causes can be tricky, particularly when there are “sides”. I don’t think anyone is countering Sarah McLachlan’s pleas to stop animal cruelty, but issues like Jenny McCarthy’s advocacy surrounding better knowledge surrounding childhood vaccination and autism does. She’s facing a backlash, particularly in light of the fraudulent Wakefield study. Mary Elizabeth Williams in Salon.com bashes her as a misguided mom, acting as if she’s railing against a mountain range of “science”, but, let me be frank here. The journalism of Mary Elizabeth Williams doesn’t scream health sciences expert, plus, it seems like she doesn’t even read what she links to. She cherrypicked a quote by McCarthy on the Oprah site, but conveniently left this out::

“I am all for [vaccines], but there needs to be a safer vaccine schedule. There needs to be something done. The fact that the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] acts as if these vaccines are one size fits all is just crazy to me…People need to start listening to what the moms have been saying.”

This is hardly the ravings of a lunatic. Plus, the problems with the “science” that Williams cites is that they do not prove that a vaccine-autism link does not exist. It may well be more complex than the studies are allowing for, with certain, very specific subpopulations at risk.

Is Bad PR Better than No PR?

So, this week, power couple Demi & Ashton started a campaign to fight sex trafficking, “Real Men Don’t Buy Girls”. The ads have people scratching their heads.

I get the execution of the ads, but I think it’s a bad one. It’s using hyperbole and humour to make a point, while riffing on the Old Spice “Your Man…” campaign. The idea is that “real men” do certain things and don’t “buy girls”, so be a real man and don’t buy girls.

Jezebel took the trafficking ads to task, but included a quote by Helen A.S. Popkin didn’t sit right::

“One might argue that faux-zany vignettes in which Jamie Foxx opens a beer bottle with a remote and Bradley Cooper eats cereal bachelor-style are as effective at wiping out underage sex trafficking as posting the color of your bra in your Facebook status is at eradicating breast cancer. The video campaign just costs way more money.”

Popkin’s post is chock full of snarky cleverness and deconstructs the false syllogism, apparently unaware that effective advertising or campaigns need not be logical. Let me see, “the war on terror = the war in Iraq, hence…,” oh, nevermind. Popkin’s use of a Facebook meme example points to a recurring theme that people resent what they feel is tantamount to doing nothing. This may well be the case, but it doesn’t mean it’s always the case and I think it’s short-sighted to see anything having the appearance of an “identity” campaign, where a user identifies with a cause ostensibly to raise awareness as doing nothing. The challenge is to leverage the identity and awareness into action. Here’s a better critique of the ads on bumpshack.

Demi Moore isn’t concerned about the backlash::

“People’s criticism has created even more conversation…While we didn’t want to offend anybody and it’s certainly not our intention to make light of any issue we take very seriously, we see that it’s actually doing what we intended.”

The question I have is what exactly is the intent? Well, Demi and Ashton have a foundation and you can donate to fund more multifaceted campaigns to promote…awareness, as well as demand reduction strategies. They also have a page listing what you can do to help, including flagging/reporting ads on Craigslist.

Well, nevertheless, it’s a good cause, right? Not everyone thinks so. Melissa Gira Grant is calling Demi and Ashton out on their publicity stunt, providing links to organizations working on providing support for those in the sex trade. I must admit that I’m a bit troubled by D&A’s attempts to curb a serious problem, but the execution is just symptomatic of the entire approach. It reeks of paternalism and focuses on “girls” being trafficked, feeding into a saviour theme of philanthropy. Moreover, as it stands, their foundation’s initiatives are paper thin and does smack of a publicity stunt, given how there are many existing organizations doing work in the sex trafficking arena. Finally, the approach is hostile to sex work outside of trafficking by advocating vigilanteism on the Internet, smacking of Amber Lyon’s “investigative journalism” on the matter for CNN.

I think this is less about social media and “one-click activism” as it is about misguided celebrity ventures. While some might piss and moan that the use of social media in getting the word out doesn’t amount to a hill of beans, but I would argue that there’s a danger of celebrity use of social media that can result in misguided actions.

Canada is in the midst of a federal election and you can read posts covering it by myself on r h i z o m i c o n and Impolitical on our respective blogs. Lorne Gunter in the National Post is mad as hell and he’s not taking it anymore. His beef? All of this social media in politics hoopla::

“Oh, please, spare me. Social media – services such as Twitter and Facebook – are not going to swing the current federal election away from the Tories and in favour of the Liberals, NDP or Green party, no matter how much anti-Harper activists and reporters wish they could.”

While he acknowledges that social media is a useful tool, he’s also making sweeping generalizations about their effects::

“But they don’t win or lose elections on their own (or pull off Middle Eastern revolutions), no matter how much social media devotees in newsrooms and elsewhere claim they do.”

He seems particularly perturbed by the shitharperdid website and this supposedly gushing Vancouver Sun article.

“The Vancouver Sun story claims 2 million web surfers quickly hit on the www.shitharperdid.ca site. Great, so they went to a site run by like-minded lefties and had their prejudices confirmed. Whoopee.”

He drifts into a Malcolm Gladwell argument that social media promotes just “one click activism” and doesn’t really engender any real persuasion. Here on ThickCulture, we have discussed Malcolm Gladwell’s downplaying and concerns about social media in the social activism arena, here, here, and here.

Lorne argues that social media campaigns are largely ineffectual, citing anti-prorogation and strategic voting efforts. Then, he loses it and goes off on Harper Derangement Syndrome as the latest manifestation of a leftist affliction along the lines of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Well, the left has no monopoly on demonizing the other side.

The problem with Lorne’s analysis is his narrow definition of success and assumption that social media merely preaches to the converted. There are three things wrong with what he’s saying:

1. It assumes a narrow definition of efficacy
2. It ignores the “mere exposure” effect
3. It ignores the marketing concept of “segmentation”

Efficacy

Gunter suggests that social media doesn’t win elections on their own, but nobody is really advocating that they are. Naheed Nenshi, the Calgary mayor whose campaign last fall was attributed to the use of social media notes that his campaign was based on ideas. Social media helped to personalize his campaign to make it salient to voters. I don’t think Gunter would quibble with this, but I think he underestimates the effects of content that “preaches to the converted” and the persuasive effects of content that goes viral.

When the March 2007 anti-Hillary Clinton Vote Different video went viral {posted by a designer who worked for the firm that designed Obama’s website}, Obama’s polling numbers didn’t budge. Guess what? That month, his contributions did, quite considerably. My point being is that the effects of social media may not be straightforward and political strategy needs to take account of this. The preaching to the base aspect of social media that Gunter views as a waste of time can help a campaign motivate its loyals and turn them into activists. Social media can also increase the exposure and salience of a party, which segues into the next issue.

The “Mere Exposure” Effect

Decades ago, social psychologist Robert Zajonc found that people can be persuaded to have positive inferences about an object {or brand, party, or candidate} through increased exposure. So, controlling for aesthetics and other source material and content characteristics, Zajonc found that increasing exposure leads to higher favourable attitudes. In effect, a “familiarity breeds contentment” route to persuasion that doesn’t require any real substance to the content. This explains how the ubiquity of Starbucks builds the brand with relatively little advertising. Social media can have the same effect. Anti-Harper sites can persuade by just going viral and entering into voter consciousness. The challenge is cutting through the clutter to get that exposure, i.e., coming up with something that resonates and goes viral.

Segmentation: It’s the Young Voters, Stupid

A big topic this election is the youth vote. The 2008 turnout for those 18-24 was 37%, compared to 58% overall, a historic low. Interestingly, some view this as likely to worsen, as prevailing attitudes deem voting as a choice rather than a duty [Also, see StatCan 2005 pdf youth voting/civic engagement report]. The youth vote is a prime target of sites like shitharperdid.ca and the youth…have more of a tendency to not vote Conservative. Getting the youth mobilized, along the lines of the Rock the Vote campaign in 1992, is tricky business that cannot be easily replicated. Nevertheless, sites targeting the youth aren’t necessarily “one-click activism” that has no effect.

It’s About Engagement

At the end of the day, engagement matters. I think it’s the height of arrogance for Gunter to state that social media cannot swing the federal election. I’m curious what Gunther’s thoughts are on the Conservative Party’s efforts to use the web and social media to scare voters about how there “might” be an iPod tax with false claims that IP expert Michael Geist has debunked.

The A Channel news in Victoria gets it, as does NDP Leader Jack Layton who used the Twitter term “#fail” {hashtag fail} in the English debates last week::

The idea that social media can increase youth engagement of “square” politics through sites young people use and help to make politics less intimidating are part of the democratizing potential of the web.

Watch while you can. Al Jazeera English is being streamed, but a media clampdown may shut it down. Police are said to be on the way to the Al Jazeera office. A 6PM local time curfew is impending.  Currently, a social media expert is explaining the overlap between Internet activists and protests. Take that, Malcolm Gladwell.

Updates::

I was taking a break from a stack of work and watched a bit of the Australian Open on TSN here in Montréal. I saw the above attack ad by the Conservative Party of Canada, targeting Liberal Party of Canada leader Michael Ignatieff, and I was wondering if it was recycled, since the rhetoric was rather familiar. After some research, I saw that impolitical, who is always on top of these things, already blogged about the new campaign. In a phrase, “forced and desperate”. This ad is one of several attack ads on the CPC YouTube channel. I could analyze these ads but this overview in the National Post pretty much says what I wanted to say {also has the ads embedded in the post}.

I think strategically this crop of ads is phoning it in. Maybe PM Stephen Harper is believing the hype that he can eradicate the Liberals.  This “stay the course ad” doesn’t inspire and only makes sense if the Conservatives wanted to hold onto a comfortable majority in Parliament, not get one::

The rest of the ads represent, in my opinion, muddled thinking and a lack of strategic prowess. The attacks on Ignatieff are saying nothing new and border on making Stephen Harper and the Conservatives look like bullies. Attacking the NDP’s Jack Layton definitely makes Stephen Harper and the Conservatives look like bullies. Plus, here in Québec, the ads are targeting the Bloc’s Gilles Duceppe {in French, but you can get the drift with the on-screen text}::

Layton is a relatively popular leader of a relatively unpopular party. Attacking Layton, rather than the NDP, is an interesting way to go. I tend to agree with the conventional wisdom that a strong NDP erodes Liberal support by splitting the vote on the left, so attacking the NDP only makes sense if the objective is to get converts. If the strategy is to shift support from the NDP to the Conservatives, that’s an uphill battle. In 2010, those polled by EKOS who support the NDP are more likely to support {as a second choice} the Liberals, no other party, or the Greens, in that order, rather than the Conservatives. Attacking Duceppe on his home turf, as opposed to showing the positives of the Conservative Party for Québec, seems downright reckless. Bloc Québécois supporters’ second choice is no other party, the NDP, the Greens, and then the Liberals and Conservatives, in that order.

Over the holidays, I heard a pundit on CBC radio saying that it might be the end of the road for all of the party leaders including Harper. He hasn’t obtained a majority and if this is part of his bid to do so, I think it’s a risky strategy. The negativity runs the risk of coalescing ABC, anything but Conservative, sentiments and fostering strategic voting. While in the US there’s a call to tone down the negative rhetoric, the CPC is turning the heat up.

It’s always better to be lucky than good and I’ve always wondered when Harper’s luck would run out. With this advertising strategy, I wonder if his time is up.

As for the featured 2nd. round matches at the Australian Open, Venus Williams and Maria Sharapova advanced.

Twitterversion:: [blog+videos] The Offensive Offensive:: Conservative Attack Ads Target Ignatieff http://t.co/KOkTFPZ #ThickCulture

I saw this article by Thomas Roche linked to on Twitter, where he finds the genesis of the cartoon character-end child abuse meme. He doesn’t like how the meme, which started as celebrating an artform, took on a life of its own by morphing into the support of a specific cause. It sounds like he’s pretty peeved::

“Such epic asshattery is a the confluence of good-natured light-hearted celebration and rampant, infectious shallowness. It cheapens the cause of child abuse prevention and, just as importantly, it draws a connection between comic books/cartoons and childhood, where none should exist.”

He goes on to criticize how this One Click Activism doesn’t really do anything, which echoes Malcolm Gladwell’s “Small Change” critique of social media social activism [see criticisms of Gladwell’s article on this blog here]. Both Gladwell and Roche take a dim view of these “consciousness raising” efforts because they do precious little “real” work as diversions. Gladwell sees identity-driven social activism as being at cross purposes with the more hierarchically organized variant::

“It shifts our energies from organizations that promote strategic and disciplined activity and toward those which promote resilience and adaptability. It makes it easier for activists to express themselves, and harder for that expression to have any impact.”

While Roche wants to shame everyone participating in what he sees as a shallow, identity-feeding enterprise::

“But Facebook Activism isn’t just stupid; it’s dangerous. It convinces people that doing next to nothing is actually better than doing nothing at all. And you know what? It’s not. If it’s better to light one candle than curse the darkness, is it the same, but less of a hassle, to just call up a photo of a candle on your iPhone? Seriously. Ask yourself. Is that the kind of person you want to be? Someone who can’t even be bothered to strike a match?”

I disagree.

First, I think a lot of naysaying regarding social movements has everything to do with discontent, simmering in the zeitgeist of these times in North America. The federal parties in Canada are lucky to get support of 30% of voters and many in the US are disillusioned with Obama’s promise of change and the Tea Partiers are advocating their own variant that isn’t necessarily in synch with the Republicans. I feel the Gladwell and Roche articles resonate with those skeptics who are critical of what they see as feel-good do-goodery.

Could there be something to these criticisms? After all, what is the point of just getting people to slap an image on their profiles.

The problem with this discontent is that it’s based on a zero-sum mentality and a conjecture that none of it matters, as opposed to the possibility that some of it might matter—a lot. The zero-sum angle assumes that these efforts are taking the wind out of the sails of more concrete efforts. I think these are apples and oranges. The attention received by being a meme that goes viral may seem like a bunch of wasted effort, but a more useful way to see this is that it raises consciousness and may motivate key people to do more organizing or mobilize resources in this direction. Is this likely? Maybe not in most cases and causes, but it’s a possibility and and a possibility borne out of the power of the Internet. In fact, I would argue that with Web 3.0 that the gaps between memes, activism, and results will be narrowed. So, pissing on the idea categorically is premature.

On my r h i z o m i c o n blog,  this post on Nestlé’s handling of social media criticism and attacks on Facebook for their use of palm oil in Kit-Kat bars shows how activism interfaces with corporations. In this facepalm tale of corporate woe, social media and the old guard media {OGM} converged to raise awareness of the issue that palm oil destroys wildlife habitat. Nestlé allegedly altered its practices due to activist pressures, so while the corporation was touting a greener approach to palm oil, Greenpeace wasn’t buying it due to practices of an Indonesian supplier, Sinar Mas, and an anti-Nestlé, anti-Kit-Kat video was circulated and hammered with—wait for it—copyright infringement. Did it matter that people were changing their Facebook profile images and posting critical comments on Nestlé’s Facebook wall? Nestlé thought so and requested users to stop doing it.

I’m not buying the arguments that social media activism merely feeds the ego or is dangerous because it takes efforts away from more real endeavours. I’m of the mind that if it increases awareness through resonance and meaning and increases motivation by just a fraction of those touched by a meme, it’s far from useless or dangerous.

Roche is seeking a stronger connection between the meme and outcomes. I can appreciate that, but when he expresses his frustration with the government and the public regarding the social ill of child abuse, his argument turns into what I see as an elitist political treatise::

“Do you want to know why kids are being abused in the United States? Because no system exists to prevent them from being abused. Do you want to know why no system exists to prevent kids from being abused? Because some very vocal Americans seem to spend much of their time being terrified that some kid somewhere who’s not their kid will get something for free, up to and including a life without abuse.

Violence against children has been endemic throughout all societies. We in the Western world had a chance, last century, to make great strides toward eliminating it. We chose to fight wars, cut school lunches, privatize national parks and pay lower taxes instead. As a result, we march into a new decade in which the kids of the world are as helpless as ever.

And legions of people out there are exactly upset enough about that to upload an image of Danger Mouse.”

I think this makes huge assumptions about anyone supporting the meme. Maybe it’s cynical of me to take issue with him on the grounds that my take is that he doesn’t get or doesn’t like how the mobilizing of the masses works. It works by making a cause “cool”, e.g., Obama 2008, and if you’re fighting something that’s cool, you need to make it uncool, e.g., adding social stigma to smoking. I say cynical, as it pretty much means that we as a society are often driven by what’s cool—or at least by things that resonate with us through meaning, no matter now tangential it is to anything “real”.

Twitterversion:: Is the attack on the cartoon-child abuse Facebook meme warranted or does Thomas Roche just not get the big picture here? @ThickCulture @Prof_K

Social media have been getting employees in hot water {remember the Cisco Fatty meme and the suspension of a professor for Facebook updates expressing frustration} and even candidates for office cannot escape the wayback machine glimpse into one’s past. I don’t think the “culture of optics” is a good thing and while before the advent of social media it was easier to control content, that is no longer the case without having a chilling effect on free speech.

The National Labor Relations Board has now ruled that a the Connecticut firm, American Medical Response, illegally fired an employee, Dawnmarie Souza, for criticizing her supervisor on Facebook, engaging in online conversations with others workers. Acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon , for the board announced::

“It’s the same as talking at the water cooler…The point is that employees have protection under the law to talk to each other about conditions at work.”

While many of the finger-waggers might think Souza et al. were engaging in a workplace facepalm moment and should expect negative consequences, the fact of the matter is that labour laws protect workers when discussing their jobs and working conditions, whether unionized or not. While Malcolm Gladwell may disagree, social media may provide an avenue for increased activism, including labour activism, which may be an issue if the economy remains in the doldrums and high unemployment creates a “buyers market” for labour.

Social media creates challenges for organizations to maintain their brand in an era of instantaneous and decentralized communications that can foster multiple dialogues outside of the control of the organization. These dialogues make the organization more transparent and can increase goodwill and trust. In fact, I would argue that the challenge of many organizations is to communicate both trust and competence with their stakeholders and social media can foster both.

What I think is going to happen is that organizations are going to continue surveillance of employees and focus on more rigorous screening at hiring. This won’t eliminate the thorny issue of what to do when social media fosters conversations that the organization doesn’t want to have or isn’t prepared for…which is why transparency’s a bitch.

Twitterversion:: [blog] Thoughts on NLRB ruling stating worker complaining about supervisor on Facebook was illegally fired. @ThickCulture @Prof_K

Crossposted on rhizomicon

Notes from north of 49ºN

Last month, the Toronto Star ran an article on the use of social media in Toronto’s mayoral race. This fall’s election will be the first since the proliferation of social media and the wake of Obama’s campaign 2.0. A CTVGlobemedia poll released this week shows that the race is tightening up, as heir apparent George Smitherman {15.9%} was leapfrogged by Rob Ford {17.8} with a 3.1% margin of error and 37.9% undecided.

Now, most of the candidates have embraced social media with various “chiclets”::

for sites like Twitter and YouTube. The “downside” of social media is that it can be hard or impossible to control. This clip of a documentary where Rob Ford gets on the case of a reporter for calling him a “fat f*ck” was making the rounds on YouTube::

Well, first off, this dispels the irksome myth that all Canadians are mild-mannered and polite. How does this video play in the court of public opinion? It’s hard to say. Some might be turned off by Ford’s confrontational style, but it might be “on code” with his feisty approach and accountability stance. Smitherman is no shrinking violet, so it may be interesting if Smitherman and Ford go after each other and voters can see it on YouTube.

I think Twitter offers an interesting mode for engagement. Provincially, here in the Toronto Centre riding, Liberal MPP Glen Murray does a great job of using Twitter to have conversations with constituents. The mayoral candidates should look to Twitter to both engage voters and mobilize supporters, as well as crowdsource ideas to help round-out platforms. A breakdown of the candidates’ Twitter presence follows, in their order in the CTVGlobemedia poll with following/followers/Tweets::

1. Rob Ford {17.8%} 151/663/256
2. George Smitherman {15.9%} 1,540/1,609/119
3. Joe Pantalone {10.1%} 508/591/245
4. Rocco Rossi {9.1%} 1,019/1,432/732
5. Sarah Thomson {5.8%} 1,017/1,082/1,066
6. Giorgio Mammoliti {2.5%} 618/474/ 274

I think it’s important for candidates to follow their followers in order to get the most out of Twitter and the conversations it can foster. Rossi and Thomson are Tweeting frequently and it would be interesting for their campaigns to gauge and analyze how Twitter affects metrics for the various functional areas of the campaign, e.g., volunteering, fundraising, attendance at events, etc.

Song:: XTC-‘Mayor of Simpleton’

Twitterversion:: [blog] Can #Twitter be a gamechanger in #Toronto mayoral race, offering conversations & engagement? #ThickCulture #VoteTO @Prof_K

“We simply cannot risk any possible link between our mission and the sort of photos and material that you openly share with the online public. While I know you are a good worker and an intelligent person, I hope you try to understand that our employees are held to a different standard. When it comes to private matters, such as one’s sexual explorations and preferences, our employees must keep their affairs private.”

“I was really Clark Kent about it…I dressed like a freaking Mormon when I went in. I was really overcautious and did an extra-good job. Because I always thought that if they ever did find out about it, I would have proved myself so much that they would weigh the pros and cons and decide to proceed a certain way that, you know, wouldn’t fire me. But I wasn’t there long enough to do that, and I don’t think it would have made a difference anyway, with the way they reacted. It’s like — I went from good employee to monster.”

“One of the unfortunate things is that a lot of people are uncomfortable about unconventional sexuality, especially when a woman’s involved…That is not an employer’s job — to police the sexual lives of its employees — and when an employer discriminates on that basis it is sex discrimination and it’s against the law.”

While there will be many a finger-wagger clucking about what people should and should not post on the Internet, perhaps the real issue, given how the Internet makes everyday life more transparent and privacy is deader than dead, is that organizations and institutions need to relax the scrutiny and ease up on controlling people’s lives. The alternative is a morality driven not by church or community but by the employee handbook.

Crossposted on rhizomicon

More kerfuffle from the UK that’s spreading like wildfire on social media. The current top UK trending topic is “sack Kay Burley”, stemming from viewers wanting the Sky News journalist fired after a hostile interview with a protester. Here’s a video of the interview {apologies for the sound quality, the volume does goes up}::

Burley’s tactics make her appear bullying and clearly not impartial. She also has very flawed logic, but the facts and being knowledgeable aren’t her strong suit as she mistook Joe Biden’s Ash Wednesday ashes on his forehead for a bruise. She later apologized. So, Kay appears to be opinionated, a loudmouth, and not too bright—I think she’s angling for a career in American cable infotainment.

Burley is being obtuse on purpose in order to make her point. The protests are about the “first-past-the-post” or winner-take-all method of tabulating seats in Parliament, which has resulted in the current hung Parliament. Kay doesn’t see any point in that as it a fait accompli and that the current party negotiations are democracy in action. She asserts that the people chose a hung Parliament, while the protesters are complaining that the hung Parliament is a product of a “broken” system.

Given social media, the news of this spread virally and the video footage of her exchange was put on YouTube {above}. Adding fuel to the fire, hecklers are interrupting her interviews with chants of “sack Kay Burley, watch the BBC” and this is now making the rounds on YouTube, as part of the “sack Kay Burley” meme.

Ah, a facepalm moment, UK-style.

Song:: Elvis Costello and the Attractions-‘Lipstick Vogue’

Twitterversion:: “Sack Kay Burley” meme goes viral.@skynews journalist hostile towards protester, gets social media backlash.#ThickCulture @Prof_K