General opinion in the press and in the blogosphere(there must be a better term) seems to indicate that this was not the 'internet election' that was predicted in the UK. The TV debates seem to have overshadowed the use of social networking sites in swaying opinion. Statistically, however, big gains were predicted for the Lib-Dems but the election results did not provide them.
That is how things appear on the surface of the situation. I am currently working on a short paper about the use of social media in the 2010 election, I hope to uncover a more in-depth picture of whether these are true assertions or not.
There have been some very interesting statistics coming from tweetminster. The guardian digital content blog reports here on whether tweets can be used to accurately predict vote turn out.
I was interested also in Rory Cellan-Jones' (BBC's Digital Election Correspondent) statement quoted here by the guardian: "I said [to my editors] that 'This is the one campaign where it might have a specific role, where we can concentrate on it specifically. Next time it will just be part of every political correspondent's job."
Friday 14 May 2010
Tuesday 11 May 2010
Just how big is SocialMedia?
Well if there is an answer (what is the question?), this provides an interesting insight. This was created by Gary Hayes of Personalize Media
Friday 7 May 2010
Social Media Revolution
There is a large buzz around this video today and with good reason. Some amazing stats about the numbers involved with social networking and what that means for all of us. A big challenge for individuals and businesses alike! See for yourself:
Wednesday 5 May 2010
Digital Space
Is the digital space and digital connection equivalent to a 'physical' connection?
This is a question that comes up time and again in my research, indirectly or by assumption. Are relationships online equivalent to those offline. What difference does that make to companies and organisations? The offline connection often results in an online one. But to the majority of internet users does the reverse occur so readily? Is the connection created online as strong as one offline to a cause or charity for instance?
Offline we use body language, read tone and voice internation - none of which is available to us in the digital space. The pace and ebbs and flows of conversation offline make a big difference. The online often uses 'on' or 'off', you either talk or listen: email; blog comments; your friend 'is typing' on msn messenger or facebook chat; the back and forth of twitter.
Is there a different form of connection or relationship generated? One that is based on information and factual transmission. Causes or voices that appear silent or unreachable(a large corporation or charity with tightly controlled press releases for instance) suddenly have a voice and direct communication is possible.
This is where many businesses and charities have been able to harness social media. The towering, closed international organisation suddenly has a new voice in the digital space and real people can engage with it where before they wouldn't have dreamed of it. The Third Sector has left the building.
This is a question that comes up time and again in my research, indirectly or by assumption. Are relationships online equivalent to those offline. What difference does that make to companies and organisations? The offline connection often results in an online one. But to the majority of internet users does the reverse occur so readily? Is the connection created online as strong as one offline to a cause or charity for instance?
Offline we use body language, read tone and voice internation - none of which is available to us in the digital space. The pace and ebbs and flows of conversation offline make a big difference. The online often uses 'on' or 'off', you either talk or listen: email; blog comments; your friend 'is typing' on msn messenger or facebook chat; the back and forth of twitter.
Is there a different form of connection or relationship generated? One that is based on information and factual transmission. Causes or voices that appear silent or unreachable(a large corporation or charity with tightly controlled press releases for instance) suddenly have a voice and direct communication is possible.
This is where many businesses and charities have been able to harness social media. The towering, closed international organisation suddenly has a new voice in the digital space and real people can engage with it where before they wouldn't have dreamed of it. The Third Sector has left the building.
Monday 3 May 2010
The Cult of The Amateur
Ever wandered if there are downsides to the Web 2.0 'revolution'? Well, Andrew Keen's 2007 book The Cult Of The Amateur is as complete an exposition of the downsides as I have yet come across.
Perhaps a gross over-simplification, but I perceive his three main arguments to be that:
1. The Web 2.0 culture is killing the 'expert' and proliferating what is already 'known'.
2. The Web 2.0 culture is not 'free': it is sucking life out of industry and retail in many different sectors (printmedia, music, film etc.).
3. The wisdom of crowds is no wisdom at all - that pioneers and true revolutionaries are often outcasts, shunned by the crowd of their day.
Although I do not agree with everything which Keen argues, it is undeniable that parts of our society and therefore people's livelihoods are being severely affected by the Web 2.0 culture. This book provides a challenge to society and the future of the web that is worth considering. We don't hear much about the downsides of the changes happening all around us.
Interestingly, since I first wrote notes on this at the end of last week a friend of mine has referred to the positive effect of the 'wisdom of the crowd' in relation to voting. Does the crowd know what is best for itself? I haven't decided yet.
It is an important idea for the Web 2.0 generation. Charles Leadbeater bases much of his book We-Think on the idea. Google uses it as basis for what you will want to receive in results. Facebook are now using it all over the web in their controversial Open Graph.
Perhaps a gross over-simplification, but I perceive his three main arguments to be that:
1. The Web 2.0 culture is killing the 'expert' and proliferating what is already 'known'.
2. The Web 2.0 culture is not 'free': it is sucking life out of industry and retail in many different sectors (printmedia, music, film etc.).
3. The wisdom of crowds is no wisdom at all - that pioneers and true revolutionaries are often outcasts, shunned by the crowd of their day.
Although I do not agree with everything which Keen argues, it is undeniable that parts of our society and therefore people's livelihoods are being severely affected by the Web 2.0 culture. This book provides a challenge to society and the future of the web that is worth considering. We don't hear much about the downsides of the changes happening all around us.
Interestingly, since I first wrote notes on this at the end of last week a friend of mine has referred to the positive effect of the 'wisdom of the crowd' in relation to voting. Does the crowd know what is best for itself? I haven't decided yet.
It is an important idea for the Web 2.0 generation. Charles Leadbeater bases much of his book We-Think on the idea. Google uses it as basis for what you will want to receive in results. Facebook are now using it all over the web in their controversial Open Graph.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)